# pompeo Declines to Present Evidence of Imminent Threat From Iran



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.

If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.

What he did in the past isn't what trump and pompeo claimed is the reason for killing that general. They said imminent threat. 

We're getting nothing but lies from trump and pompeo. 

If they couldn't lie, they wouldn't have much of anything to say. 

Pompeo again declines to present evidence of 'imminent' threat that led to strike against Iranian general


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...



It is none of your fucking business!  By what right should anyone get briefed on intelligence and its source?


----------



## Jitss617 (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...


Joy Reid did 

Donald Trump Jr. Obliterates Joy Reid For Calling Iraq Embassy Attack 'Trump's Benghazi'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 7, 2020)

There was no imminent threat.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 7, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There was no imminent threat.


What makes you say that?  Because you hate Trump?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 7, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There was no imminent threat.



How do YOU know?


----------



## Jitss617 (Jan 7, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There was no imminent threat.


Didn’t democrats call this trumps Benghazi??


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 7, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...



It's the excuse to start a war, and it's not our fucking business? You're a bigger idiot than I thought.


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There was no imminent threat.
> ...







I don't believe there was an imminent threat. 

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July. 

Both men are proven liars. 

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word. 

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 7, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There was no imminent threat.


 jones says nothing to worry about.....you had better keep your eyes open...


----------



## Preacher (Jan 7, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...


And here I thought this was a government OF the people BY the people...that would be US the citizens...so yes we DO have a right to know. We know why they won't release it,because its a bunch of fucking lies.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet.  I do not believe that.  This is what was released.  Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right.  However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
*Statement by the Department of Defense*
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. 

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week. 

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.


----------



## Claudette (Jan 7, 2020)

Wasn't it that dead fucks group who attacked out Iraqi embassy??

I'd call that an imminent threat.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 7, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There was no imminent threat.
> ...



CNN told him so


----------



## Jitss617 (Jan 7, 2020)




----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




How will killing that man deter future attacks? It won't do a damn thing to prevent any attacks. They've already replaced him and the new general is bent on revenge. So is the whole nation of Iran.

The killing of this general will do nothing to stop attacks. It will cause more attacks to happen. Anyone who doesn't believe that, I have some wonderful ocean beach front property in Kansas to sell them cheap.

I don't believe anything trump says and I don't believe that there was an imminent threat.

Even the letter from the DOD didn't say there was any attack or threat much less imminent.

This is a repeat of the bush boy years. We've been down this road before.

The only way I'm going to believe any of this is with honest, solid factual proof.

As I said, if trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

Many Americans are like me. Once we've been lied too over and over again we don't believe much from the liars with out honest, solid factual proof.


----------



## Jitss617 (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Iran backs down when faced with force, unlike Obama trump is a man


----------



## task0778 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


 
IMHO, the attack and killing of Soleimani was, more than anything else, a direct message to Iran:  DON'T FUCK WITH US.  From here on out, it's going to be tit for tat, we're going hit you back if you hit us, and we can hit harder.  I do not know what Iran's next move is, or what the US might do in response but Trump has shown the willingness to meet force with force, appeasement is over.  I seriously doubt we'll get into a war with Iran over this, unless they do something really stupid.  I don't think they're any more of a military threat than Iraq was, these guys couldn't beat Iraq 25 years ago and we wiped them out in 2 weeks.  I think Iran knows that;  they've already got enough trouble at home, and they ain't got the money or the ability to do more than pin-prick us with terrorist attacks somewhere.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...


Didn't you claim that right when it came to Mueller investigation?

The American people deserve to know if it is going to drag us into war. Even Bush provided more as his justification for invading Iraq.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There was no imminent threat.
> ...


Don't fall for it again Old Lady....

You are old enough to remember the Iraq invasion....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 7, 2020)

task0778 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Does going tit for tat with Iran help us get out of Iraq sooner??

If so, why don't we just bomb Iran directly -- since this is supposed to be helpful


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There was no imminent threat.
> ...


If there was I think we would have been given a lot more info after the fact.  But we have not been. That paucity of actual info along with timing of it makes me skeptical.  Add to thatmoneofour allies seem to have similar intelligence.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jan 7, 2020)

Claudette said:


> Wasn't it that dead fucks group who attacked out Iraqi embassy??
> 
> I'd call that an imminent threat.


Yup, that is close enough.....


----------



## bodecea (Jan 7, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There was no imminent threat.


They have nothing to show.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There was no imminent threat.
> ...



The Trumpies themselves say so, alleging that Suleimani traveled the region "planning".  No matter what he had been planning, anything in the planning stage is not "imminent".  Pompeo rejected all questions as to the imminence of that "imminent attack" by deriding those who were making much about "imminent", as if it hadn't been the Trumpies themselves who inserted into their pronouncement the term "imminent" as their salient legal term "justifying" the murder of Suleimani.  

Case closed.


----------



## Desperado (Jan 7, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There was no imminent threat.


And you know this how?


----------



## task0778 (Jan 7, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



IMHO, there's a political difference between bombing or killing an Iranian(s) in Iraq who are there to attack us, and actually bombing installations or people in Iran itself.  PC you know?  I'll be honest, it kinda depends on what Iran decides to do, if they start messing with shipping in the Straits of Hormuz then I think we'd be justified in bombing the shit out of their Navy, wherever it is.

I do not think killing Soleimani had anything to do with getting out of Iraq, although I would agree with those who say that would be a good idea.  If they want us gone, then we should leave, and actually I think we oughta GTFO anyway.  As I mentioned in my thread in the Debate Forum, I ain't seeing a good reason to be there any longer, or in Afghanistan either.


----------



## task0778 (Jan 7, 2020)

bodecea said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There was no imminent threat.
> ...



Or they do, but don't want to divulge anything that compromises our intel agencies sources and procedures.  But let's be honest here, what's the definition of imminent, like how soon does it have to be?  Soleimani has been planning and directing attacks against us for years, he wasn't going to stop.  So, whether the next attack would have been tomorrow or next week or next month is kinda beside the point.  He was going to continue doing what he's been doing and for that the bastard deserved to die.


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't it that dead fucks group who attacked out Iraqi embassy??
> ...





That attack already happened. A couple weeks ago. If the government was going to do something about that attack the should have done it before it happened. Not weeks afterward then say the threat was imminent.

That's not an imminent threat. 

Imminent is something that has not happened yet. Not something that already happened.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 7, 2020)

Saddam was an imminent threat........Assad was an imminent threat........Quadafi was an imminent threat.........

 Deja Vue. 

 The reason Trump will get away with it though is because we allowed those who came before him get away with it.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Okay.  I believe this man was an important mastermind, though, and that it may actually have slowed them down some.  Do you believe if Patton had been taken out that it would have made no difference?   Even if it "doesn't matter" that he's gone, it is sure as hell going to make them think twice before they pull their next stunt.  The leaders, I mean.  No more sacrificing nobodies that are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves to hell.  We are letting them know that THEY are putting their lives on the line with some of these decisions.  About time.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 7, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


I'm not 100% sure Iraq didn't have WMD's, Biff.  While we publicly squabbled about it, they had plenty of time to move them to Syria.  Which Assad apparently saved, since he used some on his own people a couple years ago.

Actually, I was in college during the Iraq years, busy as hell, and didn't even have a tv.  I vaguely knew we were at war but I never knew about the great debate about it until afterwards.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



 The intelligence community that fed the above to us is the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. 

 Tell me, how is it that you determine when they are telling the truth and when they are not?


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...






I usually agree with what you post but not in this situation. We will have to agree to disagree.

Patton was taken out of combat when he slapped 2 soldiers in the hospital in Italy. He was out of combat for 11 months with the next in line in succession taking his place.

Which is what happened with this general when he died. Someone took his place. Which means any planning of any attack isn't stopped. Just someone else planning it.

I would like to say, planning some unknown attack in some unknown future is not an imminent threat. For it to be imminent it has to happen very soon.

Words really do have meaning. You can't just change the meanings of words to fit your own convenience.

Making the nation of Iran hate us even more isn't a good idea. Killing that general isn't going to stop some unknown person from strapping a bomb on their back and killing innocent people. Now we have countless crazy people in Iran wanting to do just that.

This isn't making America or the world safer.


----------



## xyz (Jan 7, 2020)

Does this count as evidence? Soleimani called Trump a bartender and casino owner, as someone with that mentality. So he was a threat to Trump, who sees himself as the USA.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



 Obviously it is not about making us safer. It's about propagating war. No, war does not make us safer.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 7, 2020)

pknopp said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Biff_Poindexter said:
> ...


_the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election._
The intelligence community never came to that conclusion.
You all on both sides of the fence can try to persuade me that our government is ALL liars and I'm never going to believe that ALL of them are.  Save your breath.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


I don't disagree with anything you've said, per se.  I just worry that some of you who are protesting the President's actions are taking a more negative view than you might, if it had been a Democrat who made that decision.  I don't know about you personally, but putting the most negative spin on this Administration's actions is sort of S.O.P. by a good many people, and it can influence people who aren't necessarily partisan themselves.

So we'll agree to disagree.  My hawkish, uncivilized side comes out at times.  I'm not thoroughly housebroken yet.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



 LOL.

Why Putin Is Smiling


----------



## task0778 (Jan 7, 2020)

Whether or not Iraq had WMDs almost 30 years ago doesn't matter at all to the current situation.  We do know that they had them because they used them against Iran during that war in the 1980s.  Raise your hand if you think Saddam got rid of all of them.  I think not, he buried all of it under a mountain somewhere and then shot all of the workers who were involved.  That's who he was.  I ain't saying that's what happened, nobody really knows.  Could be he buried them in Syria when they weren't looking.

In any event, that was then and this is now, and the justification for the Soleimani killing does not rest on whatever other attacks were imminent.  Under his command, Iran and their proxies have been attacking US personnel and installations for quite some time, the Baghdad embassy was only the latest one.  Who gives a shit whether his next target would have been this week or next, this month or next, attacking our people was his job and he wasn't going to stop.  So, we blew his sorry ass to hell, and I for one will shed no tears.  

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the other Iranian military leaders decide to send their subordinates into Iraq and other places instead of going themselves.  They say the only way they could identify Soleimani's remains was his watch.  Took a licking, kept on ticking.  Well, actually I dunno if the watch was still running, probably not.  He wasn't, that's for sure.


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...





When the bush boy wanted to go to war in Iraq he and Cheney had the CIA and intelligence people write reports cherry picking evidence and out right lying about other evidence. All of what was said as the excuse to invade Iraq was a lie. 

France didn't fall for the lies about Iraq and didn't join the bush boy in the invasion. The republicans threw fits yet the French were right. 

I'm hearing the same vague lies from trump and his administration as I heard from the bush boy. I didn't fall for it then and I'm not falling for it now.

trump is an even more pathological liar than the bush boy and cheney were. There is no reason for me to believe one word from them. 

Vague accusations of some attack in some future isn't an imminent threat and absolutely no reason to kill that general resulting in Iran hating us more and our allies not standing behind us in this situation.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...



 The same lies were made to get us involved in Syria also.


----------



## task0778 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



You're not?  I hope that doesn't mean you pee on the floor sometimes.

_"Making the nation of Iran hate us even more isn't a good idea. Killing that general isn't going to stop some unknown person from strapping a bomb on their back and killing innocent people. Now we have countless crazy people in Iran wanting to do just that."    [OL didn't write this, somebody else did]
_
First off, the Iran leadership already hates us, and has for a long time.  This is like that old argument about closing GITMO cuz the terrorists were using it to stir up more haters.  Maybe, but they were going to stir them up anyway, with all sorts of lies.  Truth doesn't mean squat tot hese guys.

_"Killing that general isn't going to stop some unknown person from strapping a bomb on their back and killing innocent people. Now we have countless crazy people in Iran wanting to do just that."     [OL didn''t write this either]_

True, but unknown persons are going to do this anyway, Soleimani's death means nothing.  Question:  do you think muslims strapped a bomb on their backs and went out to die screaming about the US killing of OBL?  The truth is, they hate us anyway, no matter what we do.  Which is why IMHO the US needs to GTFO of the ME.


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

OldLady said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...





I was born in Eisenhower's last year as president. So I grew up with the Vietnam War. Not just on the TV or in the newspapers but in my neighborhood. Two people I grew up with were sent to that war. They were big brothers to me. One of them was injured by a land mine and we didn't know for a few days if he was alive or not. He survived and came home with his injuries.

So many things about that war caused me to be very anti war. From LJB's lie about the Gulf of Tonkin to the very graphic reports on the news while I was trying to eat my dinner to the photo of those children running with their clothes melted off their bodies from bombs. I helped a friend of mine deliver the newspaper that day. It was right on the front page and to this day that image is burned into my memory. At the time I didn't know how much influence that one photo had on me and my future. It's one of the reasons why I became a professional photographer and became a member of that press trump hates so much.

It wasn't until the Pentagon Papers were published that we got the real truth about the Vietnam War. We have recently gotten the same type of papers about the Afghanistan and Iraq war. I don't want to have the same type of papers to come out in the future about the possible war with Iran that trump is lying us into.

We went through the same vague lies with the bush boy about Iraq. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.

My life experiences, like everyone else, influence who I am today. I'll be the first to say Peace, Make Love not war and put a rose down the barrel of a weapon.

Our lives weren't put in jeopardy when Obama and the leaders of other nations negotiated an agreement with Iran. It wasn't perfect but it was a start. A start that could have been built upon in the future. Talking with them and reaching an agreement with them made America and the rest of the world much more safer without one drop of blood shed.

Diplomacy can and does work in some situations.

The actions of trump destroyed all of that and put the lives of countless people in jeopardy.


----------



## Dana7360 (Jan 7, 2020)

pknopp said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...





Yes they were. I forgot about that one. Thank you for reminding me.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 7, 2020)

Wasn't the left whining about an imminent threat by everyone including Iran, Russia, China, N.K., Syria and just about every other country on the planet for the last three years?


----------



## keepitreal (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...


TRUMP ONLY KNOWS WHAT HE IS TOLD

MAYBE POMPEO DOESN'T WANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE 
THAT IS BOGUS AND ACTUALLY PART OF A PLOT
TO ASSASSINATE TRUMP


----------



## boedicca (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...




Oh puh-leeze.  Iran has been at war with the U.S since the 1970s.   Soleimani was directly responsible for hundreds of American deaths, and had just bombed our embassy in Iraq.

Dem-Progs are such pathetic pussies.


----------



## xyz (Jan 7, 2020)

whitehall said:


> Wasn't the left whining about an imminent threat by everyone including Iran, Russia, China, N.K., Syria and just about every other country on the planet for the last three years?


I don't remember that about Iran, but I do remember lots of people thinking Trump would start a war with Iran and North Korea in his first year.

Trump's Korea denuclearization talks have failed miserably.

NK Defector: Denuclearization 'Permanently Impossible'

How Kim built North Korea’s nuclear arsenal while appearing to seek peace


----------



## Claudette (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Nah. You don't do things right away. You gather intel and you plan.

That's what they did. As for an imminent threat?? That guy and his Qud's are always an imminent threat.

You can bet whoever replaces his dead ass will be a big threat as well.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 7, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


We have been engaged in killing terrorists in the middle east since 2001


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...


Iran’s entire current state is a constant imminent threat. You must be too young.


----------



## Zorro! (Jan 7, 2020)

Lindsey Graham to Democrats: ‘You Don’t Need’ Congressional Approval to ‘Defend Troops in the Field.’






Graham said, "You do not need congressional authorization to defend troops in the field who are in harm's away. AOC doesn't know anything about the law of armed conflict, obviously. Every commander in chief has the right to defend our people on the battlefield. It was clear to me that this was a defensive strike -- that Mr. Soleimani was planning additional attacks."


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 7, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



You really are a stupid fuck who never put a thought to actual military intelligence.

If we told you about the attack planned, would that not indicate to the Iranians where we got the information?

If only a few Iranians knew about the planned attack, the Iranians would also know who divulged the info.

If there are only two people in an elevator and one of them farts, everyone knows who did it!


----------



## Zorro! (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...


Enemy Combatant Terror Commanders Are Fair Game Regardless Over Whether Their Attacks Are "imminent".

Partisan Democrats are suggesting that it was illegitimate for the president to use lethal force without congressional authorization absent proof that Soleimani was on the cusp of killing _even more_ Americans.

International terrorism is a military threat rather than a criminal prosecution issue. When jihadists are projecting power on the scale of a national military force, it poses an unacceptable risk not to take them out at the earliest opportunity. Requiring an "imminent" standard would require allowing the plot to develop and continue and the attempting to stop it much later in the process a ridiculous expectation.

When an enemy is making war on the United States, there is no need to wait for an attack to be imminent in order to justify a defensive, preemptive strike. General Soleimani was an enemy combatant commander for the Iranian regime and the jihadist terror networks it uses in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere. For more than 40 years, Iran has unabashedly pronounced itself as at war with the United States. It has conducted major attacks that have killed hundreds of Americans. In just the past few weeks, Iran’s jihadist militias attacked American bases in and around Baghdad eleven times.

Reports of intelligence indicating that Soleimani was planning more attacks in the near term are surely credible. Legally, though, they are beside the point. Soleimani was a proper target regardless of the evidence that any new attack was imminent.

Why is imminence even an issue? This is not a close call. We are talking about one of the most notorious mass-murderers of Americans on the planet, the top combatant commander of the regime that proudly tells the world its motto is “Death to America.” Why would we want to raise an abstruse question that would make eliminating such a monster more difficult?

In the Obama years, Democrats were happy to line up in support of unprovoked U.S. attacks on Libya. The use of lethal force was not authorized by Congress, and Americans were not being threatened. Now, because the president at the helm is Donald Trump, they want to quibble over whether the latest Iranian atrocities and U.S. intelligence were a sufficiently flashing neon sign that more atrocities were imminent? That is irresponsible.

We need to pull together as a united front against an Iranian enemy that could not be clearer about its murderous intentions.

Yes, we’re in a period of extreme partisanship. That is no excuse for playing politics with our security.

Qasem Soleimani Strike: Enemy Combatant Terror Commanders Are Fair Game | National Review


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 7, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...



One word:  "Curveball"

Look it up in regards to Saddam's WMDs.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 8, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...


Because people know what liars this administration are. They have no credibility.


----------



## Crixus (Jan 8, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...




it will come, but congress can go let a court decied if they are privy to that information. Till then they can go back to screeching at the sky.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 8, 2020)

NoNukes said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



 There hasn't been an administration with real credibility probably since Carter.


----------



## Superbadbrutha (Jan 8, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...



Hmmmm, as an American how is it not NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 8, 2020)

NoNukes said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



Tough shit! You do not need information that could compromise our sources. No one trusts you either!


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 8, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


No one trusts me??? You do not even know me, you are obviously a desperate little man.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 8, 2020)

NoNukes said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



I don't need to know you in order to not trust you.

You could be a member of an Iranian sleeper cell.


----------



## monkalup (Jan 8, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...



their lips are moving.  therefore you know they are lying. How can anyone honestly believe someone who has lied literally thousands of times over three years? And if we consider Trump's public life before he decided to trash the GOP...


----------



## Zorro! (Jan 8, 2020)

NoNukes said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Oh sure, the blizzard of lies and fake news has come form the WH, not Fake News and the anti-Trumpers.


----------



## Godboy (Jan 8, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...


So your theory is that Trump woke up one morning and just decided to kill a man for no reason? Youre losing it.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 8, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Paranoid much?


----------



## blastoff (Jan 8, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...


Only dipshit lefties would think telling the world what our intel folks know is a good idea.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 8, 2020)

blastoff said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...


 
After 18 years it should be explained why we are still at war.


----------



## blastoff (Jan 8, 2020)

pknopp said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Says you?

Yeah, we’ll get right on that.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 8, 2020)

blastoff said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...



 Yes, says me. Why are we putting such a burden on future generations?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 8, 2020)

NoNukes said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you!


----------



## Nia88 (Jan 8, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...



I think we have a right to know since it's going to be our family members being shipped off to fight in a war. 

We have every right to know why our government is provoking shit in other countries


----------



## Nia88 (Jan 8, 2020)

boedicca said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> ...



And the US government is responsible for the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Perhaps if we didn't send our soldiers there in for first place they would still be alive. Those Americans died because of imaginary weapons.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 8, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> This should be a huge red flag that pompeo and trump are lying about that imminent threat.
> 
> If there was evidence they would present it. Yet they refuse and try to change the subject to the general's past conduct.
> 
> ...



Yea, the dead US contractor and missiles lobbed by Iran aren’t enough for you sickos.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 8, 2020)

Nia88 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



What war?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 8, 2020)

Nia88 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



No. You don't.  As the father of an Army officer, I can say you categorically do not.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 8, 2020)

Nia88 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...




9/11 wasn't imaginary, bub.


----------



## Nia88 (Jan 9, 2020)

boedicca said:


> Nia88 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Didn’t say it was. But Bin laden wasn’t even in Afghanistan and there were no WMDs


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 9, 2020)

Certainly a lifetimer if conducted by any ordinary citizen.


----------



## gipper (Jan 9, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Great post. Thank you.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 9, 2020)

Nia88 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...



You need to check your facts. You are wrong.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 9, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


True. And I imagine there are people out to get you. Like that guy behind you.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 9, 2020)

Dana7360 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Bill Clinton could have had Bin Laddin killed but dumbasses like you said there was no imminent threat. Oooops. A few years later and we have 9/11. That guy was a terrible human being responsible for 600+ dead Americans. I am glad we took him out before he did something worse. Iran used the bribe money provided to them in the Nuke deal to fund terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels. They were already bad and at war. Leftists are so delusional.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 9, 2020)

Nia88 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...




It must be difficult going through life without being able to connect the dots.

Condolences.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 9, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Clinton tried to get him, but could not be assured it was OBL. When he was assured the target was him, they missed him by minutes. Get your history straight.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 9, 2020)

NoNukes said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



Is that right? 

Bill Clinton: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden in 1998

*A day before Sept. 11, 2001, former President Bill Clinton told an audience that he could have had Osama bin Laden killed, but chose not to, because an attack could have endangered innocent women and children in Afghanistan.*


----------

