Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[White 6]

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?

Wasn't in the budget,but spent anyway. The only person to ever balance a budget was Bill Clinton at the insistence of what used to be Republican.

 

[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?

1. When you are in a proxy-war with the United States of America since 1979 and your General dies, well that is casualties of war.

2. The individual history alone warranted his death and even if our Government released details of any threat many of you on the left will say it is a lie.

3. You can not be murdered if you are waging a war against a country that killed you...

If this general was an enemy target for assassination then that move should have been brought to congress. Especially if his assassination could trigger a war. If he posed an immanent threat then the kill may be justified but the intel about the threat should be exposed.

Again, it would not matter what this administration would supply as proof because the left like you will discredit it.

The man that was killed was an enemy of the state and was not murdered but in fact died in state of war.

Many of you believe we are not at war with Oran because Congress never approved of it but again since 1979 we have been at war in a unofficial form and his death is a result of it.

The people he was leading ar consider terrorists according to our government and with that his death was not surprising.

Whether the “Left” discredits it or not does not matter. Actions like this need to be explained and justified

 

[Ken Mac]

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?

Wasn't in the budget,but spent anyway. The only person to ever balance a budget was Bill Clinton at the insistence of what used to be Republican.

He didn't balance the budget, The explosion in the economy from internet growth gets the credit. He gets no credit IMO.

 

[The Original Tree]

Not true. You and your allies are at war with
The XX and XY Chromosomes.

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

 

[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?

1. When you are in a proxy-war with the United States of America since 1979 and your General dies, well that is casualties of war.

2. The individual history alone warranted his death and even if our Government released details of any threat many of you on the left will say it is a lie.

3. You can not be murdered if you are waging a war against a country that killed you...

If this general was an enemy target for assassination then that move should have been brought to congress. Especially if his assassination could trigger a war. If he posed an immanent threat then the kill may be justified but the intel about the threat should be exposed.

Again, it would not matter what this administration would supply as proof because the left like you will discredit it.

The man that was killed was an enemy of the state and was not murdered but in fact died in state of war.

Many of you believe we are not at war with Oran because Congress never approved of it but again since 1979 we have been at war in a unofficial form and his death is a result of it.

The people he was leading ar consider terrorists according to our government and with that his death was not surprising.

Whether the “Left” discredits it or not does not matter. Actions like this need to be explained and justified

No they don't. Go write a letter.

 

[White 6]

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

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?

Good luck, with that.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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?

1. When you are in a proxy-war with the United States of America since 1979 and your General dies, well that is casualties of war.

2. The individual history alone warranted his death and even if our Government released details of any threat many of you on the left will say it is a lie.

3. You can not be murdered if you are waging a war against a country that killed you...

If this general was an enemy target for assassination then that move should have been brought to congress. Especially if his assassination could trigger a war. If he posed an immanent threat then the kill may be justified but the intel about the threat should be exposed.

Again, it would not matter what this administration would supply as proof because the left like you will discredit it.

The man that was killed was an enemy of the state and was not murdered but in fact died in state of war.

Many of you believe we are not at war with Oran because Congress never approved of it but again since 1979 we have been at war in a unofficial form and his death is a result of it.

The people he was leading ar consider terrorists according to our government and with that his death was not surprising.

Whether the “Left” discredits it or not does not matter. Actions like this need to be explained and justified

Again, those like you will not accept any reasoning but at least you have not argued about the reality the General is a casualty of a Proxy War with Iran that we have been fighting since 1979...

 

[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?

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.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

 

[Ken Mac]

I don't seem to remember any Dems asking for proof of threat while Obama was exercising 2800 drone strikes against terrorists ( and that was in only two countries - there were many more)

 

[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?

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 in protocol.

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

Soleimani was a soldier in a war zone who got clipped.

Not an "assassination" at all, by any stretch of the word.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war.

Says who?

 

[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?

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.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

'If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained'

Says who? You?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Wasn't in the budget,but spent anyway. The only person to ever balance a budget was Bill Clinton at the insistence of what used to be Republican.

Wasn't in the budget, but spent anyway.

In a supplemental spending bill means it has been budgeted.
Supplemental spending still impacts the deficit, still impacts the debt.
Obama didn't bravely uncover anything. Didn't add anything to his deficit
by his "action" here. War spending wasn't "off budget" before.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I saw three days of morning, parades in the street, grown men crying, his daughter pleading for retribution and Iran’s leaders vowing for it. There is plenty out there showing how a large portion of their people are reacting

 

[The Original Tree]

Congress authorized it prior.

Besides that between 2016-2019 Democrat Congressmen & Bureaucrats have broken the all time Record for leaking classified information to The Public and Press!

The President should therefore NEVER consult Congress because Congress is a threat to our National Security

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.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

 

[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?

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.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

'If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained'

Says who? You?

Yes, this is a discussion forum, I’m allowed to express my opinion am I not?

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

I saw three days of morning, parades in the street, grown men crying, his daughter pleading for retribution and Iran’s leaders vowing for it. There is plenty out there showing how a large portion of their people are reacting

You're seeing propaganda. I don't think any Iranianb would, in his right mind, go out and celebrate his death in public.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

I saw three days of morning, parades in the street, grown men crying, his daughter pleading for retribution and Iran’s leaders vowing for it. There is plenty out there showing how a large portion of their people are reacting

I saw a bunch of war protestors protesting war in NY city this morning therefore all Americans are anti-war and against any holding of Iran accountable.

 

[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?

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.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

'If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained'

Says who? You?

Yes, this is a discussion forum, I’m allowed to express my opinion am I not?

Sure, but you don't say "IMO", you state things as fact and don't have any evidence showing the requirements of disclosure. Back your shit up or just put a IMO on it or you're going to get called out.

 

[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?

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.

Under normal circumstances I’d agree but there is tremendous mistrust right now so trust needs to be earned. We are also talking about war with a country who feel like we unjustly assassinated their general. I think it a fair expectation to public justify why we took him out. The reasoning is that there was an imminent threat. That threat should be revealed