If the russia hoax taught us nothing else, the most important thing is to protect sources and methods.
Awesome cherry picking. Completely ignoring the testing of ballistic missiles NK performed throughout the year after no longer being a threat
Completely ignoring the attacks on coalition and US bases in 2019. Before the the perfect call
Mmm cherries
Only if you believe that changing the topic is relevant to a discussion.
Awesome cherry picking. Completely ignoring the testing of ballistic missiles NK performed throughout the year after no longer being a threat
Completely ignoring the attacks on coalition and US bases in 2019. Before the the perfect call
Mmm cherries
What none of Trump supporters are doing is addressing their thoughts on Trump’s “doesn’t matter” tweet.
Interesting that there appears to be a call to protect sources in some of the posts in this thread.
ohknow35:At this point what difference does it make?
The Republicans made a huge deal out of the shifting explanations provided after the Benghazi attack. Are you saying that did not matter? It mattered a great deal to our distinguished host at the time.
I find it a little humorous that people are trying to compare the aftermath of an intelligence failure and the shifting reasons for the President ordering a hit.
What none of Trump supporters are doing is addressing their thoughts on Trump’s “doesn’t matter” tweet.
Yeah…I know…cuz it doesn’t matter.
The first attack that killed an American was the beginning of a growing threat to the United States. Trump took it a notch higher and attacked a terrorist group with in Iraq that had Iranian ties…as retaliation. This terrorist group then took to storming the US embassy and would have destroyed it and all inside, if they were given enough time? Trump then took it even higher and killed the number 2 man in Iran. At this point, the terrorists have another choice…continue the escalation or…understand that it’s a no win situation and stop. They chose to make a fake attack to save face but in reality…they chose to stop. Had Trump not retaliated so decisively…does anyone actually believe Iran wouldn’t have continued to escalate their terrorist agenda? Trump fought their violence with even more severe violence and that…they fully understood.
The Republicans made a huge deal out of the shifting explanations provided after the Benghazi attack. Are you saying that did not matter? It mattered a great deal to our distinguished host at the time.
So, what are the shifting explanations offered by the Trump administration. Are they true but different? Or different AND contradictory?
H_Arendt: ohknow35:At this point what difference does it make?
The Republicans made a huge deal out of the shifting explanations provided after the Benghazi attack. Are you saying that did not matter? It mattered a great deal to our distinguished host at the time.
I find it a little humorous that people are trying to compare the aftermath of an intelligence failure and the shifting reasons for the President ordering a hit.
What we are comparing are two Administrations providing shifting explanations for their actions. The analogy is strong.
H_Arendt:The Republicans made a huge deal out of the shifting explanations provided after the Benghazi attack. Are you saying that did not matter? It mattered a great deal to our distinguished host at the time.
So, what are the shifting explanations offered by the Trump administration. Are they true but different? Or different AND contradictory?
When the President says he acted to prevent an immanent attack on four US Embassies and the Secretary of Defense says he saw no evidence that an attack was immanent, they are different and contradictory.
Big difference…Clinton made that statement in response to why an action happened TO the U.S. .
…In this case, it’s to a response FOR taking action…Big Difference.
At this point what difference does it make?
Why don’t you use the whole quote in context?
"What difference at this point does it make?”
Why don’t you use the whole quote?
Jezcoe: H_Arendt: ohknow35:At this point what difference does it make?
The Republicans made a huge deal out of the shifting explanations provided after the Benghazi attack. Are you saying that did not matter? It mattered a great deal to our distinguished host at the time.
I find it a little humorous that people are trying to compare the aftermath of an intelligence failure and the shifting reasons for the President ordering a hit.
What we are comparing are two Administrations providing shifting explanations for their actions. The analogy is strong.
I get that.
My point is that one was a reaction based on shifting intelligence and the other was a reaction taken by the administration with no clear justification.
ohknow35:At this point what difference does it make?
Why don’t you use the whole quote in context?
Because then it doesn’t mean what they want it to mean.
Trump doesn’t owe libs any explanation at all.
What about cons?
Big difference…Clinton made that statement in response to why an action happened TO the U.S. .
…In this case, it’s to a response FOR taking action…Big Difference.
What a difference. Obama and Clinton were reporting shifting intelligence. Trump was reporting … his own shifting moods?
Which is what I was trying to say,…putting my thoughts to written word is not a strong point of mine…lol.
Is it not possible that Trump had received advice from intelligence agencies, for which his secretary of defense, and possibly he himself had not seen any direct evidence? Not too long ago the anti-Trumpers were decrying his not trusting his intelligence agencies assurances. Now that he has trusted those agencies’ assurances, the same people are bitching that he should have been more cynical. Predictable.
Who really cares if the United States is credible or not?