'The worst briefing I've had': Senate Iran briefing gets heated

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-w...out-c6eaf580-381b-422f-8c3d-886f3f9e6115.html

 

The point is simple and been gone over and over. China was in a trade war with us, we responded and now have the beginnings of a bill. They'll be buying 40-50 million bushels of grain for starters. For every article with TDS concerns, I can get you one that tell the other story. It's all in the eye of the beholder and it's great we don't have to listen only to your Left wing sources anymore.

 

Do you think this attack may have been to deliberately elicit the Iraqi demand that we leave Iraq, which would be the fulfillment of a campaign pledge?

 

I've heard this before...seventeen years ago, just prior to the invasion of Iraq. An "imminent threat" the administration couldn't quite define, but said that we shouldn't wait for the "mushroom shaped cloud."

 

So Trump knew the embassy would be attacked by the very person he later took out?

 

And yet the "general" was a known terrorist. Even Obama labeled him as one.. This was a known not a "might"

 

If you do some simple math, you very quickly realize that the amount of benefit gained from this trade war is singificantly less than the cost of the trade war and the associated bailouts.

 

No that is not what you heard you heard to correct assessment that we could not wait until it was an imminent threat but let's deal with now

How can you possible say that an active terrorist who has been actively attacking us and even ramping up the frequency and nature those attacks is not an imminent threat?

 

I would definitely take the opportunity to get out, regardless of the theory.

 

How can you possible say that an active terrorist who has been actively attacking us and even ramping up the frequency and nature those attacks is not an imminent threat?

 

I'm not mourning his passage. I am mourning the destruction of our Constitution, which seems to have been the course used to carry out the attack.

 

How was the Constitution "destroyed" do tell..

 

No...you're wrong. The appearance of the mushroom shaped cloud would be more than an imminent threat; it would be the fulfillment of such a threat. I am not objecting to the end result of Trump's action, but the method of his implementation, which was apparently without regard for our hosts.

 

It says it doesn't have to be before and if after in a timely manner which it was.

 

He carried out an embassy attack in his "hosts" country....

 

No I'm right Rice said we could not wait until there was an imminent threat for that would be too late. And you have no idea what we told Iraq defense or security officials.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice Discusses President's National Security Strategy Waldorf Astoria HotelNew York, New York

".....For these reasons, President Bush is committed to confronting the Iraqi regime, which has defied the just demands of the world for over a decade. We are on notice. The danger from Saddam Hussein's arsenal is far more clear than anything we could have foreseen prior to September 11th. And history will judge harshly any leader or nation that saw this dark cloud and sat by in complacency or indecision.

The Iraqi regime's violation of every condition set forth by the UN Security Council for the 1991 cease-fire fully justifies-- legally and morally -- the enforcement of those conditions.

It is also true that since 9/11, our Nation is properly focused as never before on preventing attacks against us before they happen.

The National Security Strategy does not overturn five decades of doctrine and jettison either containment or deterrence. These strategic concepts can and will continue to be employed where appropriate. But some threats are so potentially catastrophic -- and can arrive with so little warning, by means that are untraceable -- that they cannot be contained. Extremists who seem to view suicide as a sacrament are unlikely to ever be deterred. And new technology requires new thinking about when a threat actually becomes "imminent." So as a matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized.

Preemption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, "If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, youdon't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense." The United States has long affirmed the right toanticipatory self-defense -- from the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula in 1994.
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/13100/Rice_NtlSecurity.pdf;sequence=2

 

I have no regret for the outcome (as of now). I do question the method. It is curious that BOTH the dead Iranian General and Trump had the same goal...to move U.S. forces out of the Middle East.

 

It says if it's not done before, then it must be done in a timely manner after the fact, and be accompanied by a written document explaining WHY it wasn't done before hand.

 

I think you are going X-files level all to not admit Trump did something right.

 

Funny, I posted at the time a copy of the authorization for use of force with all WMD reference removed, because I did not believe he had WMD, and brought up "Heisenberg's War" by Thomas Powers at the time; the book is still sitting right where I left it, I can see it from where I'm sitting, because I really can't spell Heisenberg.

The imminent threat had already happened, and considering I could pull up a topic on 9/11 where I was arguing for ending the sanctions against Iraq because I was afraid of what happened, all the "liberals" who claimed then and later that the sanctions were working, still didn't get it. Saddam called for Jihad, Jihad came, the imminent threat already happened.

 

It is up to the host country to protect the embassies on their soil. If they can't do it, you close the embassy or get the host country's permission to react violently to the demonstrations.

 

LOL playing semantics yet blaming Trump. You tried to portray a falsehood or you didn't check your source.

great do the math on new deal on Mexico, Canada and new China deal must bing forward. That’s the bottom line not what was happening to get those new deals. It’s like you signing a big client that’s going to go to trial next year and offering endless billable hours. Not looking great today but it’s about to be a goldmine

 

We reacted violently to those who led it.

 

Tell that to Carter, I don't believe he got permission to crash the C-130...in Iran. Reagan ended the 444 days of glory in Iran by scaring the piss out of them, and Carter probably knew it.

 

Following our own rules on the uses of our military is not supporting terrorism, it is supporting our Constitution. No one thinks Soleimani was a good guy, but the way Trump ordered the military to take him out was reckless and without a thought to consequences (176 innocent people shot down). And the way this administration is handling their explanation is ridiculously childlike, as are many of Trump's words and actions. Pompeo says one thing, the briefing another, then Trump almost immediately states that Soleimani was going to blow up our embassy, which was not in the briefing at all.

Making statements like yours is nothing more than the thoughtless regurgitation of right wing rhetoric.