Defense Secretary Mark Esper Says He ‘Didn’t See’ Evidence Of Embassy Attacks

Trumps own Secretary of Defense says there is no evidence of any American Embassy being in imminent danger. I wonder how long before he's fired.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachel...sy-attacks-as-trump-had-claimed/#1e866a4f1c4f

 

So has the Pentagon and the DOD.

Be certain, people will lose their careers because they dared to speak the truth.

The swamp seems to have been replaced with a landfill.

 

He said he didnt see a specific threat, but agreed that they were "going to go after the embassies."

The National Security Advisor echoed those sentiments by saying "We knew there were threats to American facilities".

You should point out where he says there was "NO EVIDENCE".

 

There likely have been threats to American facilities in Iran since, say, 1979??

But you are correct... Esper didn't say there was "No Evidence"... he said he didn't see any.... which coming from the SecDef, you have to assume that means the same thing...

The thread headline needs to be modified... it's damning enough without trying to make it sound worse...

 

Viewed with the Iraninan protests in the foreground, compelling, brutal, emotional and bloody contrasted with these quibbling Democrats crying over details of an administrative process like it's life and death betrays the naked truth. The world is watching.

Keep it up.

 

They all seem to be in agreement there was a threat.

Trump haters act like they need a formal announcement from Iran with a date, time, GPS coordinates and full details before they'll act Thankfully they're not the ones in charge....

Defense Secretary Mark Esper: "What I'm saying is I share the president’s view that probably—my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies."

National security adviser Robert O’Brien: “Look, it’s always difficult, even with the exquisite intelligence that we have, to know exactly what the targets are. We knew there were threats to American facilities, now whether they were bases, embassies—you know it’s always hard until the attack happens.”

Then there was Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino who pretty much nailed it today when he said “The imminent threat was Soleimani having a pulse."

But go ahead lefties, keep telling us how bad Trump is for killing Soleimani

 

Are you under the impression I'm against the Soleimani strike??

I'm just against being constantly lied to...

The general facts and mood are essentially on Trumps side (for once), and he still feels the needs to subvert processes and then lie about things...

It's truly pathological...

 

Like you, I am not against the strike itself. I don't mourn his loss one bit. But I don't see a united administration sharing, honestly, the facts about their justifications. And in this case, it is important. The strike could lead to a war and with the WMD mess still in memory, I think the administration owes some honesty to its people.

 

Unfortunately, this administrations "people" are the ones who enjoy being lied to and they don't care about the rest...

 

Fair enough. I, of course, was referring to the country. But you are correct - I've engaged in many a conversation that has shown supporters aren't upset about being lied to - his actions are all that matter to them. Never mind that they are being lied to about actions...

 

I cannot help but wonder if this Iran fiasco is being orchestrated by the Deep State members of Trump's administration as the final blow in the impeachment process.

I've been against the impeachment process even though I'm no Trump fan. He was being framed, for sure.

But after the assassination in Baghdad, I've already left messages with both my senators to convict Trump. They are both radical right Republicans, so that is not likely to happen.

 

Never mind they already went after one of our embassies.

Dan Bongino did nail it, because he recognizes what Soleimani's job was as commander of the Quds Force.

As far as I'm concerned Soleimani's complicity in the deaths of hundreds of Americans was grounds for killing him years ago, and if Iranian asset Barack Obama hadn't tipped off his masters in Tehran the Israelis would have killed him in 2015.

 

There was no evidence presented in the briefing. That is what numerous attendees have stated (both Red and Blue).

The problem here is that our Gov't lies (creates false narratives, stretches the truth to the breaking point) so often - and especially with respect to the ME - Syria/Iraq/Iran - that it is hard to take what they say seriously.

 

Democrats protect Iranian generals that kill Americans
https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedi...assinating-soleimani-in-2015-report-says/amp/


Republicans kill them.

 

What a joke of a narrative the MSM is pushing. We already have hundreds and thousands of reasons. Even Barack Obama designated Soleimani as a terrorist for a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, D.C.

The guy is responsible for:

• hundreds of terrorist IED attacks killing U.S. Military members
• thousands of innocent deaths by rockets
• resumption of IED and rocket attacks over the last 3 months.
  
• the death of a U.S. Contractor in Iraq (recently)
  
• the attack on our embassy through the Iraqi Militia. Note: Soleimani was killed in the same airstrike that killed a leader of that same militia

The guy is a damn terrorist scumbag and what Trump did is called a "Good Shoot". Even the Russians in the U.N. vetoed the Iranian Sanction against the U.S. for hitting Soleimani, and I quote from the Russians that the response by Trump/America was "proportional".

Permission from Congress? When did Obama need that to kill hundreds via drones including innocents and U.S. Citizens.

You Leftists have taken the ORANGE MAN BAD propaganda line to a new low. Thanks for making it so easy.ke on the narrative. The U.S.A. didn't need an imminent attack to hit this terrorist.

 

Quote this, please.

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/21057344/trump-congress-iran-intelligence-briefing-soleimani

Every network has interviews with folks saying something akin to "This was a classified level briefing but they did not give us any classified material"

 

I'm still waiting for you to quote where anybody said they saw no evidence...

Also... dont use Vox if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

1) it was the first link that popped up - but as stated .. this was all over network news - so the information is accurate.
2) If you can't figure out that "They don’t have any underlying facts to establish an imminent threat, the lawmaker said. -The information we got was no more detailed or revealing than what we’ve read in the news or seen on the TV.” means the same as "they saw no evidence" - I can not help you further.

 

Great post.

What Esper said:

"What the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies,.."

COULD HAVE BEEN ATTACKS? Is that why we now assassinate officials of foreign governments because there COULD HAVE BEEN ATTACKS?

On that standard, I'd say immediately lock up all gun nuts in the US, because they COULD HAVE BEEN committing a mass shooting.

 

LOL, why not?? Perfectly good source for news... this wasn't an opinion piece, which you can certainly take issue with when used.

I'm glad the mods changed the title of this thread, BTW....

The SecDef is now completely dismissing the latest Trump BS claim (even hidden behind "believe" and "probably")..

“I can reveal that I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies,” he told Fox News in an interview taped Friday.

Current primary duty of all in the Trump administration:

 

Anyone remember Democrats acting like this when The Obama was going around droning people daily?

I don't.

Democrats seem to grasp for any straw that's labeled "orange man bad". I feel TDS is draining the left in general of strength. Anything goes as long as there is a chance they can hurt orange man with it.

 

True heroes in this pic.

 

Deflection to Democrats doesn't fly. This is what I have said in 2015:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-the-reason-for-isis.433180/#post-1065567551

So, you can maybe try to cover up your own hypocrisy by pointing to others, but others are more consistent in their views, no matter who is president.

 

You mean other than the attack they already tried, I'm guessing.