Trump Tells Us His Reasons For Acting "Don't Matter"

[Jezcoe]

@Sknyluv

Who really cares if the United States is credible or not?

You think we are special?

Or something…

[LucyLou]

@Paul_Thomson

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.

Well done. And

[Smyrna]

@H_Arendt

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.

Maybe the President was attempting to stop an “imminent” attack and that’s contradictory to immanent?

[Camp]

Still some mourning going down.

Is it so easy to forget all the IED carnage that sent Soleimani to his demise?

Never thought we would find more comfort with the people of Iran than the domestic party dogma cheerleaders.

Yet here we are…

[H_Arendt]

@Paul_Thomson

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.

So your explanation for the Secretary of Defense contradicting the President is the President kept the Sec/Def out of the loop? Really? This is a President who refuses to be briefed on almost anything… suddenly he’s thick as thieves with the intelligence agencies he has been bashing?

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@MoleUK

Why the ■■■■ invent some imminent threat then?

This could have started an all out war if things had gone wrong. Had it done so and the stated reason for the strike was revealed to be essentially made up, how would that have played out?

Iraq 2.0. Weapons of mass destruction evolved into “the world is better off without this bad man!”. And of course, if you disagree, you hate America and are a terrorist sympathizer who hates trump

[Camp]

You don’t think Soleimani was a bad actor?

Mistaken identity?

Let’s discuss.

[Konssurvative1]

yeah…you’re right he’s already been executed on a whim. Good point.

[H_Arendt]

@Sknyluv

Who really cares if the United States is credible or not?

Well there was that thing about the United States being a great power and “the shining city on the hill” because I guess that is so last century.

When I am overseas (reasonably frequently) I keep being asked the same questions about whether (or when) the United States will resume its role as the shining example to the rest of the world. The rest of the world wants to know if the USA is capable of being great again.

[Paul_Thomson]

@H_Arendt

So your explanation for the Secretary of Defense contradicting the President is the President kept the Sec/Def out of the loop? Really? This is a President who refuses to be briefed on almost anything… suddenly he’s thick as thieves with the intelligence agencies he has been bashing?

No. I didn’t say that at all. I said, maybe Trump decided to trust the intelligence agencies’ assessment this time, without requiring direct evidence for their projections, so neither Trump nor the Sec of Defense saw evidence of an imminent strike. Are you asserting that the intelligence agencies did not advise Trump that they were expecting S to launch imminent attacks, and that he should take S out?

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Paul_Thomson

Are you asserting that the intelligence agencies did not advise Trump that they suspected an imminent attack, and that he should take S out?

Well isn’t that the question? What evidence Trump had of an imminent attack?

[Jezcoe]

@Camp

Still some mourning going down.

Is it so easy to forget all the IED carnage that sent Soleimani to his demise?

Never thought we would find more comfort with the people of Iran than the domestic party dogma cheerleaders.

Yet here we are…

No one on this side is mourning him getting whacked.

What is fascinating is the shifting reasoning and the people going along with it.

[Camp]

Fishing for sources and methods or just looking to soften the Soleimani biography?

[Paul_Thomson]

Maybe he had no evidence, only intelligence community assurances of high likelihood, and advice you take the shot. Are you arguing that he should not trust his intelligence agencies now?

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@H_Arendt

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.

Maybe the President was attempting to stop an “imminent” attack and that’s contradictory to immanent?

The President authorized action like this could be taken months ago

There was also no notice given to the what would have been targets of any imminent threat that has been talked about.

[Camp]

If you had some better sense of perspective you would see that this is a dead end.

You don’t have to challenge every good deed Trump does…It’s OK. Really.

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

The President authorized action like this could be taken months ago

There was also no notice given to the what would have been targets of any imminent threat that has been talked about.

Was the US embassy invaded months ago?

[westaussie]

@Jezcoe do you find it amazing the evolution from the whistleblower needs to give evidence to the current position sources must be protected?

[H_Arendt]

@Paul_Thomson

@H_Arendt

So your explanation for the Secretary of Defense contradicting the President is the President kept the Sec/Def out of the loop? Really? This is a President who refuses to be briefed on almost anything… suddenly he’s thick as thieves with the intelligence agencies he has been bashing?

No. I didn’t say that at all. I said, maybe Trump decided to trust the intelligence agencies’ assessment this time, without requiring direct evidence for their projections, so neither Trump nor the Sec of Defense saw evidence of an imminent strike. Are you asserting that the intelligence agencies did not advise Trump that they were expecting S to launch imminent attacks, and that he should take S out?

I have no more access to the intelligence briefings than you do… so who knows what was said. But I do know Trump has derided the value of US intelligence.

The question in the thread is what to make of Trump’s insistence that the reasons for his actions do not matter… which hardly is an argument that he was acting on intelligence sources.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Camp

Fishing for sources and methods or just looking to soften the Soleimani biography?

No. Just trying to understand what the reasoning was for Trump taking the risk of drawing us into another middle eastern conflict.