Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[The Original Tree]

You two need more
Lube for your mutual circle jerk?

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

According to Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Contents

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Background and passage
  • 2.2 Implementation, 1993–2002
  • 2.3 Libya, 2011
  • 2.4 Syria, 2012–2017
  • 2.5 Yemen, 2018–2019
• 3 Questions regarding constitutionality
• 4 Footnotes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Background
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
• raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
• provide and maintain a Navy
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
• govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

• Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
• train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

• "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

No problem here for Trump. We have been in an active conflict in Iraq since Bush started this crap, and it did not stop it at that time either. To my knowledge the act has never been successfully applied, and will not be this time either.

If there was an imminent attack and taking out Soleimani prevented that attack then yes I agree, no problem for Trump. If there was another an imminent attack and he took out Soleimani as a response to the embassy protests etc. then he had an obligation to involve congress in that decision

 

[White 6]

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting.

And what did that change?

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books. Bush rode that war for free.

 

[The Original Tree]

Shouldn’t you be in mourning for the dead goat humper America just sent straight to Hell?

The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

You know that Trump lies about everything. You also know the upper echelons of the Trump administration is in line, and going along, with whatever Trump perpetrates. You also know the intelligence community will not publicly contradict Trump in a matter of national security. The rest of the world knows all that, too. So, why would you think any drug deal they have cooked up as a "justification" would make one whit of a difference?

That said, they took out an Iranian general and an Iraqi general on Iraqi soil in violation of Iraqi sovereignty and their SOFA. There is no possible justification for that. Had, say, a bunch of Spanish soldiers training on U.S. soil taken out a British and a U.S. general and a few bystanders on U.S. soil for whatever purported "reason", you would know in an instant that's not justifiable, and you would talk about murder, or rather, mass murder. Why on earth don't you see the same applies in the Suleimani killing?

From Trumpletons I expect nothing other than such willful blindness. Their complete submission to the Dear Leader requires no less. From you? Inexplicable.

 

[The Original Tree]

Speaking of free rides how’s your life as an ISIS bride?

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting.

And what did that change?

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books. Bush rode that war for free.

 

[Fueri]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

I'd agree that I would like to know.

I'd agree that it might make some people here and abroad a bit more confortable with it.

As long as it doesnt endanger sources, other ops or give up intel, maybe I'd release something.

But here's also why I might not. No matter what is released, it hasn't happened, so it will be criticized as insufficient. Revealing what we know also gives clues as to what we are thinking and may be planning and where we got the info.

We know plenty about this guy that he already did to justify this, IMO. We know he planned attacks and is responsible for American deaths. Given that this was his job it is a fairly safe bet that he was up to more of the same as sanctions are effecting them, as a means to respond to those sanctions and discourage more.

Active military enemy is dead. A message has been delivered to Iran to cut the crap. I don't need more. If a few things can be released, fine, but I don't see a real need to do so.

 

[White 6]

White 6:

“Day 51 I wander in dessert, no water and no goats to have sex with! Allah hates me!”

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

I doubt Trump will show our allies (whoever they are anymore) jack sh#t. He doesn't give a d@amn about allies. Remember the NATO meeting with Putin? He'll probably share with Putin, but that's another story.

Dumbledore's got style! Thanks tree. I'd have given you 2 funnies, but don't know how.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting.

And what did that change?

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books. Bush rode that war for free.

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books.

Putting it in the annual budget or in a supplemental spending bill makes zero difference in total spending.
You realize that, right?
Bush's spending wasn't secret or hidden or "off the books".
You understand how accounting works, right?

 

[Ken Mac]

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

At the very least top brass needs to see the intel. Why don’t you think it important for the public to see it? Especially the people of Iran who view this General as a hero?

You act as though all the people of Iran view the asshole as a hero. The majority of them hated him. You need to read up some more on this topic.

 

[White 6]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

According to Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Contents

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Background and passage
  • 2.2 Implementation, 1993–2002
  • 2.3 Libya, 2011
  • 2.4 Syria, 2012–2017
  • 2.5 Yemen, 2018–2019
• 3 Questions regarding constitutionality
• 4 Footnotes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Background
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
• raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
• provide and maintain a Navy
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
• govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

• Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
• train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

• "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

No problem here for Trump. We have been in an active conflict in Iraq since Bush started this crap, and it did not stop it at that time either. To my knowledge the act has never been successfully applied, and will not be this time either.

If there was an imminent attack and taking out Soleimani prevented that attack then yes I agree, no problem for Trump. If there was another an imminent attack and he took out Soleimani as a response to the embassy protests etc. then he had an obligation to involve congress in that decision

I understand your feelings, and at an intellectual curiosity lever would like to see it, but it may never happen. Your issue was lost in the weeds before it left your fingertips.

 

[OldLady]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

No. This level of intel is not for public consumption. It is time we started to trust our intelligence agencies again. This is the kind of mistrust which is damaging to us as a nation, and it came about from the anti-Mueller campaign that seeks to "exonerate" the President, calling everything critical "fake news," whether it comes from our side or not.

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

Depends. Revealing it could compromise sources and means.

There are ways to protect those... we are talking about potential war with Iran here. The stakes are pretty high. Our provocation should be justified to the world.

If the world doesn't believe us, they can privately ask for "proof." Not everything in our government is for public consumption. That requires the majority of us to trust our government, though, and that trust has been severely eroded in the past three years due to a narcissistic clown in the leader's seat.

 

[Ken Mac]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

No we don't.

Revealing the intel would expose President Trump's spies in the Iranian regime and put them at risk

Make it a lot more difficult in the future to undertake covert actions.

I’m obviously not talking about compromising sources. Intel and evidence can still be revealed. They already said they knew about an imminent attack. So tell us what attack

To reveal what attacks were planned is to reveal and let them know we know. Which is detrimental to methods and sources. Please think things through.

 

[White 6]

You two need more
Lube for your mutual circle jerk?

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

According to Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Contents

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Background and passage
  • 2.2 Implementation, 1993–2002
  • 2.3 Libya, 2011
  • 2.4 Syria, 2012–2017
  • 2.5 Yemen, 2018–2019
• 3 Questions regarding constitutionality
• 4 Footnotes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Background
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
• raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
• provide and maintain a Navy
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
• govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

• Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
• train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

• "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

No problem here for Trump. We have been in an active conflict in Iraq since Bush started this crap, and it did not stop it at that time either. To my knowledge the act has never been successfully applied, and will not be this time either.

If there was an imminent attack and taking out Soleimani prevented that attack then yes I agree, no problem for Trump. If there was another an imminent attack and he took out Soleimani as a response to the embassy protests etc. then he had an obligation to involve congress in that decision

No. Your sap will do.

 

[Nostra]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

The Dimwinger butthurt over this is epic.

 

[Ken Mac]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

According to Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Contents

• 1 Background
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Background and passage
  • 2.2 Implementation, 1993–2002
  • 2.3 Libya, 2011
  • 2.4 Syria, 2012–2017
  • 2.5 Yemen, 2018–2019
• 3 Questions regarding constitutionality
• 4 Footnotes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Background
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
• raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
• provide and maintain a Navy
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
• govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

• Appoint the Officers of the militia; and
• train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

• "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress.

No problem here for Trump. We have been in an active conflict in Iraq since Bush started this crap, and it did not stop it at that time either. To my knowledge the act has never been successfully applied, and will not be this time either.

If there was an imminent attack and taking out Soleimani prevented that attack then yes I agree, no problem for Trump. If there was another an imminent attack and he took out Soleimani as a response to the embassy protests etc. then he had an obligation to involve congress in that decision

No such obligation exists.

 

[The Original Tree]

Anyone worried about budgets should be for a 100% suspension of Foreign Aid so we can study how The Obama Administration used Foreign Aid to launder Billions of Dollars to themselves and Democrat Politicians at The Taxpayer’s expense like they were doing in The Ukraine

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting.

And what did that change?

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books. Bush rode that war for free.

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books.

Putting it in the annual budget or in a supplemental spending bill makes zero difference in total spending.
You realize that, right?
Bush's spending wasn't secret or hidden or "off the books".
You understand how accounting works, right?

 

[Nostra]

The imminent attack excuse does not make sense. This man was a general in charge of a large international operation. Killing him does practically nothing to stop any ongoing operation that we can assume was handled through whatever command structure that exists. They are lying. Someone else will be promoted to his position and Iran has a new martyr to rally around. You can't kill martyrs.

Martyrs, by definition, have been killed, Einstein.

 

[White 6]

Speaking of free rides how’s your life as an ISIS bride?

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting.

And what did that change?

We took a hell of a hit to budget deficit spending, putting the war on the books. Bush rode that war for free.

Relax you barky old f#ck. I actually support the prez on this one, as you do. But, as an independent, I won't start sucking his d%ck just because he did a trick.

 

[Muhammed]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

I think you are being very presumptuous. Do you have any sort of evidence that the strike was outside of protocol? Since we've been killing enemy soldiers in Iraq for over a quarter century, including dozens, if not hundreds, in the vicinity of the Baghdad airport, the strike that killed those enemy commanders seems like SOP to me. There was no break from protocol.

Also, calling it an "assassination" is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Slade3200]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

There is no real protocol protecting Generals walking around a battle area, not in their own country.

There is protocol when making moves that could get our country involved in a war. It’s called the war powers act and it involves coordinating with congress. Trump skipped that because of an immanent threat. Now we have Iran promising retribution. The move needs to be explained and justified with evidence

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

The war is there. It is a fact. It is even in the budget, after Obama moved it out of off budget accounting. You missed the starting gun by almost 20 years.

The only war we are currently involved in is with Afghanistan... not Iran, yet

 

[Polishprince]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

No we don't.

Revealing the intel would expose President Trump's spies in the Iranian regime and put them at risk

Make it a lot more difficult in the future to undertake covert actions.

I’m obviously not talking about compromising sources. Intel and evidence can still be revealed. They already said they knew about an imminent attack. So tell us what attack

To reveal what attacks were planned is to reveal and let them know we know. Which is detrimental to methods and sources. Please think things through.

President Trump has been extremely careful about stopping leaks of foreign relations confidential information since the opening days of his administration when there were a lot of leaks.

Making this kind of intel public would also clue in folks IN the WH itself that this is also being kept secret from.