Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[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 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.

We’ve already announced that we know.

 

[MAGAman]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 23799786
Intel from an agency that Trump has repeatedly discredited. An agency that Trump considers less reliable than what Putin tells him

Intel that is spouted out by Trump and his cronies just like any other lie they tell to justify what they do[/QUOTE]When your TDS makes you Pro-Terrorist, it's time to look in a mirror.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

What do you think Soleiman was doing in Baghdad? Did he violate the UN travel ban just to go on vacation in a shithole like Baghdad? What's your theory?

 

[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'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

Actually the President alone is the Commander in Chief. Not congress.

BTW, Congressional leaders like Sen. Lindsey Graham and civilian leaders like Senior Advisor Jared Kushner were advised of the strike in advance.

 

[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.

We’ve already announced that we know.

I know we announced that administration already knows. You want specific attack info. I countered releasing that info. "eyeroll"

 

[White 6]

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.

Ok, then the dumb Son-of-Bush gets full credit for crashing the economy and plunging us into the worst economic recession since before WWII. There are more intellectual answers, but accurate enough, for my 401K during the Clinton years or the shutting down the distribution business branch where I was employed before the crash.

 

[Polishprince]

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 only crying in the streets I've seen is by butthurt liberals upset they didn't get an advance notice so they could warn Archterrorist Soleimani about the drone.

 

[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.

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

No, man. We've been in this proxy for a long time.

 

[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 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.

how was it not an assassination?! It was a targeted drone strike while he was in a car leaving Baghdad’s airport.

 

[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?

Intel from an agency that Trump has repeatedly discredited. An agency that Trump considers less reliable than what Putin tells him

Intel that is spouted out by Trump and his cronies just like any other lie they tell to justify what they do

How do you know what agency the President got this intel from?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Relativistic. Benghazi was a different show.

Right, that was Republicans trying to smear a potential candidate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you think Soleiman was doing in Baghdad?

Exerting Iranian power in the vacuum we so graciously gave them.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Next in line will now have a reason to retaliate

 

[White 6]

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.

Whatever, man. I hated accounting, only dabbled with corporate and best grade I got in college accounting semesters was a "B".

 

[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

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...

Saying “you won’t accept the evidence” is not justification for not releasing it. That’s a childish argument

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?

It’s filed with the imminent attacks Syria and Libya were about to make on America that forced Obama to start wars with them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Relativistic. Benghazi was a different show.

Right, that was Republicans trying to smear a potential candidate.

Those dead Americans at Benghazi were just bumps in the road, my friend

 

[Ken Mac]

On the other hand, there seems to be quite a big middle east crowd celebrating his death.

Celebrations in Baghdad at the news of Soleimani's death : Iraq

 

[Slade3200]

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)

Dems had more trust in Obama than they do with Trump, that obvious. And Obama’s strikes didn’t take us to the brink of war with Iran

 

[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 from protocol.

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

how was it not an assassination?! It was a targeted drone strike while he was in a car leaving Baghdad’s airport.

The word "assassination" implies the motive was politically motivated instead of strategically/militarily motivated.

Gen. Soleimani was in a theatre of war and was in route. Taking out the general in a battle or skirmish is usually considered to be a good military tactic.