Were US embassies under threat from Soleimani?

“The President never said there was specific intelligence to four different embassies,” Esper told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” But Esper said he shared the President’s belief that the embassies were threatened by Qasem Soleimani.
"What the President said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well. He said that he believed that they probably, that they could have been targeting the embassies in the region,"Esper said.
In a separate interview that aired Sunday morning, Esper said he “didn’t see” a specific threat against four embassies in the intelligence.
“I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies,” he told CBS’ Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

This is getting bizarre. Is this just a comms problem where people in the WH aren’t on the same page re: the facts, or have the facts been distorted?

It’s genuinely hard to believe the US Secrety of Defence wasn’t in the loop on the intelligence briefings.

They are dealing with a president unable to tell the truth. He is talking about foreign threats like steel mills opening where he changes the numbers at every rally on a whim.

1 Like

Yes. They were. Not that it makes any difference.

According to what though? Was there specific intelligence on a plot to attack embassies, or was it more general? Haven’t been following this too closely but the story seems to keep shifting.

What difference does that make after 9/11?

Maybe not nothing given the way congress is reacting.

Of course Donnie was lying. Everyone’s story is always changing because it’s nothing but stories.

He lies like he breathes.


I will never be privy to the intelligence provided to the CIC, nor will anyone not in the “know”.

So speculation doesn’t really matter.

If the President thought there was imminent threat, I trust him to act accordingly.

Thought? Felt?

With no oversight. Will you trust the next guy with the same lack of transparency?

The Secretary of Defence is privy to the same intelligence is he not?

Remember Bush had general intel about “aviation”.

1 Like

The information provided to him was enough that he determined to act.

Again. No one not in the “know” is going to be privy to that information.

So, playing back seat driver is just a waste of time.

Yes, but Trump and others have insisted there was intelligence of an imminent attack on US embassies. Not something so ethereal.

Pretty close. Then add in Kenya, Benghazi, etc.

Ok. Trust the Government, especially in it’s militairy decisions.

Who else in military decisions? Trust? NEVER!

No backseat driving.

Is “pretty close” enough for the legal hurdles?

It does not happen in a vacuum, as much as you’d like to imply it does.

If Trump had intel and that Soleimani was the force behind it AND given he was responsible for the deaths of over 600 Americans?

I really isn’t a hard decision to make.

Would you say this if it had been President Obama’s? Or president Sanders?

What legal hurdles. You think Trump committed an illegal act?