The assassination was a crime. Trump just ordered the assassination of a foreign political leader in direct contradiction to EO 12333. DD
Everyone would hope so. That's why we have the question - Why NOW? He has been on the radar for some time. If reports are correct, it was as recent as the Saudi oil field bombing that he was an option - a "far out" option. So, why now? Unfortunately, since this admin has lied so much about everything small and large, there is no credibility and they are paying the price for that. No one believes them. Also, reports seem to indicate this may well be one of Trump's hallmark behavior - erratic, given the reported activities during and immediately afterward. The official reason (imminent attack on US interest) is also being reported as extremely weak and illogical. No idea about legality, but the US did declare openly a war on terrorism after the 911 attack and specifically against al-Qaeda. Taking out Bin Laden was understood by the world as legitimate. The US has not declared war against Iran. Taking out one of their generals is on a much shakier legitimate ground. And the POTUS doesn't help himself to say this was an act of war (to prevent war) when we aren't at war - JFC.
a PRI interview with David Petraeus addresses that question: Marco Werman: How did you know Qasem Soleimani? Gen. David Petraeus: Well, he was our most significant Iranian adversary during my four years in Iraq, [and] certainly when I was the Central Command commander, and very much so when I was the director of the CIA. He is unquestionably the most significant and important — or was the most significant and important — Iranian figure in the region, the most important architect of the effort by Iran to solidify control of the Shia crescent, and the operational commander of the various initiatives that were part of that effort. *** So why do you suppose this happened now, though? Well, I suspect that the leaders in Washington were seeking to reestablish deterrence, which clearly had eroded to some degree, perhaps by the relatively insignificant actions in response to these strikes on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia, shipping in the Gulf and our $130 million dollar drone that was shot down. And we had seen increased numbers of attacks against US forces in Iraq. So I’m sure that there was a lot of discussion about what could show the Iranians most significantly that we are really serious, that they should not continue to escalate. … Would you have recommended this course of action right now? I’d hesitate to answer that just because I am not privy to the intelligence that was the foundation for the decision, which clearly was, as was announced, this was a defensive action, that Soleimani was going into the country to presumably approve further attacks. Without really being in the inner circle on that, I think it’s very difficult to either second-guess or to even think through what the recommendation might have been. Again, it is impossible to overstate the significance of this action. This is much more substantial than the killing of Osama bin Laden. It’s even more substantial than the killing of Baghdadi. Two short questions for what’s next, Gen. Petraeus — US remaining in Iraq, and war with Iran. What’s your best guess? Well, I think one of the questions is, “What will the diplomatic ramifications of this be?” And again, there have been celebrations in some places in Iraq at the loss of Qasem Soleimani. So, again, there’s no tears being shed in certain parts of the country. And one has to ask what happens in the wake of the killing of the individual who had a veto, virtually, over the leadership of Iraq. What transpires now depends on the calculations of all these different elements. And certainly the US, I would assume, is considering diplomatic initiatives as well, reaching out and saying, “Okay. Does that send a sufficient message of our seriousness? Now, would you like to return to the table?” Or does Iran accelerate the nuclear program, which would, of course, precipitate something further from the United States? Very likely. So lots of calculations here. And I think we’re still very early in the deliberations on all the different ramifications of this very significant action. Do you have confidence in this administration to kind of navigate all those calculations? Well, I think that this particular episode has been fairly impressively handled. . . . https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-03/gen-petraeus-qasem-soleimani-s-killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance
“Would you have recommended this course of action right now? I’d hesitate to answer that just because I am not privy to the intelligence that was the foundation for the decision, which clearly was, as was announced, this was a defensive action, that Soleimani was going into the country to presumably approve further attacks. Without really being in the inner circle on that, I think it’s very difficult to either second-guess or to even think through what therecommendation might have been.” that’s the reason given which reports indicate is based on weak intel and is itself illogical. the question remains why now.
Remember when you told everyone for three years that Trump was a Russian puppet? You do realize Iran and Russia are allies? Anyways, the IRGC was declared an terrorist organization back in April. You can absolutely take out the head of a terrorist org without congressional approval. We do it all the time.
Dear Matt schlapp - this would make more sense if the profoundly stupid and thoroughly compromised malignant narcissist in Chief wasn't dropping hints to random idiots at Mar A Lago last weekend rather than conferring with McConnell, Pelosi or the other people he is legally obligated to deal with. What trash.
I haven't seen anything that indicates the intel was weak. Just speculation. And we have a history of being lied to (yellow cake). I can see why there skepticism and rightfully so. I don't think we'll know the real reason why until much later. We'll be given one in the near future but again, we've been lied to, so it's hard to take at face value.
If you think Russia cares about the assassination of the General, then you might want to want to guess again. Pure poppycock. My question is, in what ways is the United States better off for having killed this general. I'm not saying he wasn't a horrible guy. I am just not sure how this helps us.
Wow! Sounds sort of common sense or intelligent and tolerant. Disputing the legality or morality of this is just lazy "both sides ism" or being a good German going along with the crowd. I guess one can disagree if it is legally "terrorism" or some other fine points for the pleasure of abstract debate or whatever.
How silly. Obama shot off more cruise missile and assasinated more folks with drones than your previous hero, Dubya.
For those that are not exactly fans of Trump, this woman's writings are a must read. They're generally long, but insightful as hell. I won't post any more of her full-length essays after today. Check them out if you have time. They're worth it IMO. January 3, 2020 Heather Cox Richardson 19 hr 107 Last night’s news about the assassination of Iran’s military leader Qassem Soleimani has today turned into a predictable split. Defenders of the president insist that Soleimani was an evildoer and the United States absolutely should have taken him out. They have no patience for anyone questioning Trump’s decision, suggesting that those questioners are anti-American and pro-terrorist if they do not support the killing of a man they insist has been one of our key enemies for years. Those questioning the president’s decision to assassinate a member of a foreign government as a terrorist—remember, this is unusual because people like Osama bin Laden were rogue, non-state actors—freely acknowledge that Soleimani was a dangerous man. But they are concerned that Trump appears to have ordered the man assassinated illegally and has, in the process, ignited a firestorm. The White House did not notify the Gang of Eight, the leaders of the House and Senate from both parties, but Trump did tell South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Kevin McCarthy, both Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has declined to say whether or not he was briefed in advance, but he has spoken up to praise the raid. News also broke today that apparently Trump told guests at Mar-a-Lago that something big with Iran was in the works. Apparently, he informed Republicans and cronies, but not Congress. White House has offered three arguments for why the assassination of Soleimani without notifying Congress was legal. First it vaguely asserted that the president could do this under Article II of the Constitution, which is a non-starter. Then it suggested it was legal under the law 10 USC 127e, but this concerns budgeting, so the idea it enables the president to do something like this unilaterally is absurd. By tonight, it said the authorization for the assassination of Soleimani was the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. That law very specifically deals with the president’s ability to use force against Iraq…but it never specified if that meant Iraq’s government or its landmass, and it was amended in 2012 to include the words “associated forces.” Under this AUMF, the president can make unilateral decisions, but must inform Congress within 48 hours. But, the AUMF requires that the president’s actions intended to prevent acts of future terrorism against the United States. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said repeatedly that the killing of Soleimani stopped just such a threat against Americans. But he has refused to produce proof, and this afternoon a congressional aide told NBC News that the overwhelming evidence the administration cited looked very much like Soleimani’s normal actions. “The case for acting this week was not made.” The problem here is the same as it has been with this administration all along. This is a democracy. Our leaders are supposed to make a case to Congress about why they must risk military action on our behalf, because Congress is supposed to hold the power to declare war. But Trump has made no such case. Rather than addressing the nation, he told reporters only that he ordered the killing to “stop a war,” and has not yet briefed Congress. In a wonderful Twitter thread, Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer noted that until last night, 99% of Americans—including me, I might add—had never heard this man’s name, so the angry preaching that he was one of our chief enemies sounds forced. We need our leaders to explain to us the specifics of what this man did, and how the world is safer with him gone. Representative Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst of the Shia militia who served multiple tours in Iraq and worked at the White House under both Presidents Bush and Obama, took on the firestorm concerns. She noted that she had been part of countless discussion of how to respond to Soleimani’s campaigns. What kept other presidents from targeting Soleimani was that they concluded the retaliation for such a strike, and the likelihood it would draw the US into a long war. Trump has come to a different conclusion, she notes, but “it is crucial that the Administration has thought out the moves and counter-moves this attack will precipitate….” Most serious thinkers expect that Iran will retaliate in a big way for this killing, and they are concerned that the administration is not equipped to handle that retaliation in a measured, intelligent way. The unilateral attack on Soleimani and his entourage reveals the escalation of Trump’s refusal to answer either to Congress or to the American people. He highlighted that today when he simply refused to respond to a court order that the White House turn over 20 emails between a Trump aide and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about freezing the congressionally ordered funding for Ukraine aid. He just… refused. This will go to the courts, of course, but Trump is sending a clear message that he, alone, calls the shots. And in the midst of all this is Russia. Putin and Trump spoke on December 30, and we have no readout of what they discussed—we only have what Russia produced. In an unprecedented development, Russian news defended a US president today, floating the idea that Trump had been tricked into the attack by our intelligence agencies. And here’s the one that jumps out to me: today the Moscow stock exchange hit all-time high thanks to the rise in oil stocks after the assassination. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com
One of the intel apparently was how he traveled. It seems quite illogical to jump to a conclusion of imminent threat based on someone's travel. Read NYT below and the thread from Callimachi (NewRoxFan's post). Also, note that the Pentagon assumed a normal POTUS, giving him all options including the most extreme one. They didn't expect and were stunned that Trump took the most extreme option. Foolish of them. If the Pentagon was stunned, why? Just more questions about why now. My guess - Trump thought it would make him look strong and didn't / couldn't / unwilling to consider consequences. That's his norm way of operation and until something comes to light that challenges that, I think it's fair to assume the norm. If that's indeed the case, after the operation, the admin scrambled to find reasons and they were not able to find something strong to stand on. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1213421769777909761.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/trump-suleimani.html WASHINGTON — In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump. They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable. After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shia militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials. By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned. Mr. Trump made the decision, senior officials said on Saturday, despite disputes in the administration about the significance of what some officials said was a new stream of intelligence that warned of threats to American embassies, consulates and military personnel in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. General Suleimani had just completed a tour of his forces in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and was planning an “imminent” attack that could claim hundreds of lives, those officials said. “Days, weeks,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Friday, when asked how imminent any attacks could be, without offering more detail other than to say that new information about unspecified plotting was “clear and unambiguous.” But some officials voiced private skepticism about the rationale for a strike on General Suleimani, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops over the years. According to one United States official, the new intelligence indicated “a normal Monday in the Middle East” — Dec. 30 — and General Suleimani’s travels amounted to “business as usual.” That official described the intelligence as thin and said that General Suleimani’s attack was not imminent because of communications the United States had between Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and General Suleimani showing that the ayatollah had not yet approved any plans by the general for an attack. The ayatollah, according to the communications, had asked General Suleimani to come to Tehran for further discussions at least a week before his death. ...
I recall someone here that said the highest priority of every president is to lower oil price. I think it was @Commodore. Wonder what he thinks now.
Trump cant be pro Russia and anti Iran Dude just doesn't like Iran. His Iranian policies are misguided bit not cryptic conspiracies
