I don't have the time nor the ability to counter people's speculations and guesses in this thread. They have every right to doubt the decisions being made. It's a bit of a jump to make "trusting elected officials" to make the best decisions they can into "cedes his critical thinking skills". If you'd like to give me access to intel from our intelligence community then I'll make the call.
Here ya go...
"Probably the worst briefing I’ve seen": Inside the disastrous congressional Iran meeting
At one point, the CIA director told lawmakers to read an intelligence report instead of just briefing them.www.vox.com
Republican senator says Iran briefing was worst he's had "in my nine years" in the Senate
Iran attacked two Iraqi military bases housing US troops with more than a dozen ballistic missiles, in retaliation for the US killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. Follow here for the latest updates.www.cnn.com
None that they can come up with, I mean there's no valid reason you couldn't brief Congress on intelligence if they had rational evidence. It's not like they're spies for foreign governments...That sounds like an absolute mess... Do you think there are any valid intelligence reasons why they aren't releasing more information in these meetings?
No, all members of the intel committee are privy to all relevant information regarding this. If US intelligence found out that Soleimani was coordinating with off-world alien overlords to destroy all life on earth, they'd be made aware of that.That sounds like an absolute mess... Do you think there are any valid intelligence reasons why they aren't releasing more information in these meetings?
None that they can come up with, I mean there's no valid reason you couldn't brief Congress on intelligence if they had rational evidence. It's not like they're spies for foreign governments...
No, all members of the intel committee are privy to all relevant information regarding this. If US intelligence found out that Soleimani was coordinating with off-world alien overlords to destroy all life on earth, they'd be made aware of that.
In the long-long ago, actions of war and battle took enough time to take place that Congress could have a say in all of them, or at least in the ones that would initiate the war itself. That landscape has change as you've alluded to, and with probably a good reason (these guys are smarter than me i'd imagine), but it does bring up a question into the powers of the executive branch, and congress handing over its duties. TBH I personally think the US has become to war-happy. We've gotten to the point where we accept the notion of 'well, sometimes the President just has to blow the fuck out of folks, he can't just wait forever for that! We've pissed off too many people by blowing them up! One of them might try to blow us up!'. If we reduced our total military actions across the globe, we'd probably have a lot less of a need for these 'It's not a war/fighting terrorism' actions that instigate further war from other nations.Would you guys rather congress had the call about any military actions? I was of the impression that this was too slow in some cases and that's why the executive has the power to order and operate strikes like this.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support congress being in charge of the choice to go to war, but it seems currently that the executive has enough power with these strikes to pretty much force the war choice upon them. Would we be better off running everything through congress?
Only a proven liar has said that Iran was days from an attack.... when you base anything on the word of a pathological liar, you are a pathological FOOL!
But as the president watched television over the weekend, he grew angry that critics were accusing him of reckless escalation. He sought validation from guests at his Florida clubs, recounting details of the Baghdad Embassy protests and drinking in their praise for his decisiveness. He told some associates that he wanted to preserve the support of Republican hawks in the Senate in the coming impeachment trial, naming Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas as an example, even though they had not spoken about Iran since before Christmas.
While Mr. Trump tipped off another hawk, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who was visiting in Florida, his administration gave no advance warning to its European allies or Persian Gulf partners in advance of the strike. The only foreign leader who appeared in the know was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who had spoken with Mr. Pompeo before the attack and later offered a cryptic public hint hours before it took place.
Sorry man, but I disagree. I mean look at my post now. There are three of you that want to convince me that "trusting leadership" is wrong when various leaders make decisions that you unknowingly trust every single day. I didn't want to post here for this very reason. It takes a lot of time to make a post that stands up to the criticism of everyone on this board, and even then it's not like it will change anyone's mind.
None that they can come up with, I mean there's no valid reason you couldn't brief Congress on intelligence if they had rational evidence. It's not like they're spies for foreign governments...
Well, he is an "acting" SoD, guess his acting chops aren't that bigly.Shee-it, Sherlock. The Trump admin didn't even brief the Secretary of Defense. But they sent him out to make it up as he went along. Sux for them that he wouldn't outright lie about it.
"The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past! "
And so it begins. Straight from the horse's mouth. Even if there wasn't an imminent threat it doesn't matter because of Soleimani "horrible past". Where did we hear that before? Oh yeah, in the aftermath of Iraq war when Bush II'nd White House conveniently redefined reasoning for invasion from "they had WMD capable of striking US" to "Saddam Hussein needed to be removed because he was a dictator".
Would you guys rather congress had the call about any military actions? I was of the impression that this was too slow in some cases and that's why the executive has the power to order and operate strikes like this.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support congress being in charge of the choice to go to war, but it seems currently that the executive has enough power with these strikes to pretty much force the war choice upon them. Would we be better off running everything through congress?
either he's a liar or he was inviting the situation the republicans were trying to pin on hillary
Uh oh, looks like we have 2 more State Department officials that need to be recalled to Washington and have Pompeo throw under the bus...either he's a liar or he was inviting the situation the republicans were trying to pin on hillary
Uh oh, looks like we have 2 more State Department officials that need to be recalled to Washington and have Pompeo throw under the bus...
State Department security officials weren't notified of 'imminent' threats to US embassies
State Department officials involved in US embassy security were not made aware of imminent threats to four specific US embassies, two State Department officials tell CNN, further undermining President Donald Trump's claims that the top Iranian general he ordered killed earlier this month posed...www.cnn.com
Washington (CNN)State Department officials involved in US embassy security were not made aware of imminent threats to four specific US embassies, two State Department officials tell CNN, further undermining President Donald Trump's claims that the top Iranian general he ordered killed earlier this month posed an imminent threat to the diplomatic outposts.
Without knowledge of any alleged threats, the State Department didn't issue warnings about specific dangers to any US embassy before the administration targeted Qasem Soleimani, Iran's second most powerful official, according to the sources.
The State Department sent a global warning to all US embassies before the strike occurred, a senior State Department official said and the department spokesperson confirmed, but it was not directed at specific embassies and did not warn of an imminent attack.
One senior State Department official described being "blindsided" when the administration justified the deadly Reaper drone strike on Soleimani by saying Iran's "shadow commander" was behind an imminent threat to blow up US embassies. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on claims that the State Department officials were taken by surprise.
The really terrifying part of all this is that after almost 3 years, Trump has fired or driven off virtually all honest ethical people in Washington, and surrounded himself with the inept, incompetent and corrupt yes men.Uh oh, looks like we have 2 more State Department officials that need to be recalled to Washington and have Pompeo throw under the bus...
The really terrifying part of all this is that after almost 3 years, Trump has fired or driven off virtually all honest ethical people in Washington, and surrounded himself with the inept, incompetent and corrupt yes men.
Of course the Republicans that believe Trump can do no wrong firmly stand behind Trump.