Trump doesn't need a distraction from impeachment. The Democrats are doing that for him by not sending the articles to the Senate. It's pretty much a non-story until/if they do.
Soleimani - Iran
- Thread starter Merge
- Start date
Trump doesn't need a distraction from impeachment. The Democrats are doing that for him by not sending the articles to the Senate. It's pretty much a non-story until/if they do.
Is asking one simple question anywhere near the same as posting a detailed conspiracy theories?
You are doing a lot of stretching today on this thread....and not just with me.support for impeachment and removal both went up recently. I do think he would want a distraction, though I’m not saying that is definitely what happened. They haven’t kept their stories straight so far which is concerning.
That makes no sense Merge. Why would he want a distraction from impeachment now and go through something so dangerous and would be certain to blow up in his face? There's a better chance military leaders talked Trump into taking him out and he agreed. The impeachment is going nowhere and Trump is leading with it in his rallies...doesn't sound like he's looking for a distraction. Do you think Trump pays any attention to polls?
Not really different. A question comes up and we look for affirming or disproving evidence on that question and develop our opinions. Nothing wrong with that from either of us.
I don't disagree that he was probably talked into this. My only questions are, Did they try to talk Trump into this earlier and he said no, or did something change in the last three years in regards to the threat from Soleimani?
and to be clear, if there was evidence that something changed and the threat to American lives overseas increased recently, I have no problem with the strike.
Yes?
Pelosi must be reading this board! I just read a news update that she is planning to send the articles to the Senate next week. What took so long?
Politics. I’d shoot a guess that Pelosi got confirmation that they will have the votes to call witnesses
Very different. I posed a question about something that looks suspicious; You publish a dossier...lol
Making decisions based on polls is very different than using poll data to support your message, but you knew that.
Yes, I look into questions that I am curious about develop my opinions based on the facts as they present themselves. I'll always explain why I believe what I believe.
That is not what you said...
You said. "Do you think Trump pays any attention to polls?
He clearly does.
Making decisions based on polling is different. I wonder if Trump would ever do such a thing. Just asking questions, no conspiracy theory.
Bonkers if true.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps...eam-made-fast-work-of-iran-strike-11578619195
“Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps...eam-made-fast-work-of-iran-strike-11578619195
“Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.”
Sorry for not being clear. That’s what I meant.That is not what you said...
You said. "Do you think Trump pays any attention to polls?
He clearly does.
Making decisions based on polling is different. I wonder if Trump would ever do such a thing. Just asking questions, no conspiracy theory.
Sounds like fake news. Even if he was thinking that, why would he verbalize it?
senior national-security advisers waited anxiously in the White House Situation Room Tuesday night after intelligence warnings that Iranian missiles would hit two bases the U.S. military uses in Iraq.
When it became clear Iran had inflicted no casualties, there was relief, according to administration officials.
At a press conference the following morning, the president spoke of new sanctions on Iranbut no new military strike, moving the two longtime antagonists, for the moment, back from the brink of war.
Days earlier, the U.S. had killed the leader of the foreign wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The speed at which events unfolded shows the influence of the new team of senior national-security and military advisers now surrounding the president.
The group, including new Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and new national security adviser Robert O’Brien, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, backed the president’s decision to kill the top Iranian military commander and moved swiftly to carry it out.
The new team was cohesive and less inclined than its predecessors to push back against the president’s wishes, according to administration officials and others consulted by the White House. They also were less likely to consult in advance with other administration, Pentagon or State Department officials, congressional leaders or foreign allies, some of these officials said.
The targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani is the most decisive military action of Mr. Trump’s first term, and removes a longtime enemy of the U.S.
Now the national-security team must manage the consequences. Those include the disruption of the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq and demands by Shiite politicians that the 5,300 U.S. troops leave the country altogether. Still another challenge is Iran’s decision to lift limits on uranium enrichment and take yet another step back from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, which Europe, Russia and China want to preserve but the Trump administration has disowned.
Mr. Trump’s supporters say the Soleimani killing resulted in a weaker adversary that has so far made only a token response, and gives the U.S. potentially greater diplomatic leverage with Tehran to roll back Iranian power in the region, curtail its missile program and halt Tehran’s nuclear program.
The move has stoked some dissent on Capitol Hill. The White House’s failure to consult more broadly with members of Congress has strengthened support for measures that would limit further military action against Iran without congressional authorization. The Democratic-controlled House passed a largely symbolic resolution Thursday that would require Congress’s authorization for such action except to defend the U.S.
More broadly, the strike on Gen. Soleimani has changed U.S. posture in the Mideast, with consequences likely to unfold over years.
In the past, Pentagon officials have highlighted the risks of taking military action they feared might spiral out of control and lead to retaliation against its troops in the Middle East. Mr. Trump himself has been conflicted about using force in a region where he has sought to shrink the American military footprint and avoid what he has called “endless wars.”
Though the Trump administration has previously included Iran hawks such as former national security adviser John Bolton, relations between the president’s senior advisers were frequently discordant, according to officials.
This time, senior advisers were more like-minded about directly confronting Iran after months of skirmishes with Iranian proxies, administration officials said. The drawback, some administration critics say, is that the team appears less willing to challenge Mr. Trump.
Mr. Esper is a West Point classmate of Mr. Pompeo’s and is in lockstep with him on his push to roll back Iranian power in the region.
Mr. O’Brien, a lawyer who became national security adviser on Oct. 1 after serving for 16 months as a presidential envoy on hostage affairs, enjoys a smoother relationship with his colleagues than did Mr. Bolton, who brought decades of deeply held policy positions to the White House, according to officials. Messrs. Bolton and Pompeo became increasingly distant over the summer.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser Robert O'Brien at the White House in December.Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Gen. Milley, who took over as chairman of the joint chiefs in September, has proven more willing to accept the risks in directly taking on Iran than his predecessor, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, according to officials. Mr. Trump cited Gen. Dunford as a voice of caution after he reversed himself at the last minute and opted not to retaliate after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June.
Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had challenged some of Mr. Trump’s policy inclinations, including withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord. He eventually resigned over Mr. Trump’s 2018 decision to remove troops from Syria, which the president later reversed.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a Trump confidant who played golf with him when he was considering the strike, said the new advisers “understand the president. They have chemistry among themselves.” Gen. Milley, he said, “is the biggest surprise. He is much more willing to take a risk to achieve a goal.”
The national-security team’s shared assumptions facilitated an audacious strike.
“The important point that’s been established is that Iran is once again scared of the United States,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.).
Critics said the action may have backfired and that the administration lacks a larger strategy to get Iran to meet its demands.
“I don’t see anything that resembles a reasonable policy in terms of the goals we can achieve with the tools that are at our disposal,” said Andrew Kim, a House Democrat from New Jersey who served as the director for Iraq policy on President Obama’s National Security Council staff.
Mr. Trump has demonstrated a tendency to personalize foreign policy, blowing hot and cold on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. After Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons for the second time during the Trump administration, Mr. Trump told some confidants that the U.S. should kill the Syrian leader.
Mourners at the funeral ceremony for slain Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Tuesday. Photo: Erfan Kouchari/Associated Press
Gen. Soleimani had long been a nemesis for U.S. generals in Iraq by overseeing the arming of Shiite militias in the country that attacked American forces. He also had spearheaded Tehran’s support for Mr. Assad in Syria. The U.S. holds him responsible for years of attacks on U.S. interests in the Mideast.
In the days after a Dec. 27 militia rocket attack killed U.S. contractor Nawres Hamid, a linguist for Valiant Integrated Services LLC, at a base in Kirkuk, Iraq, and the temporary siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Mr. Trump was told Gen. Soleimani was planning more attacks against the U.S. The president made it clear to his advisers that he believed the general had gotten away with too much for too long and that he should have been eliminated years ago, according to people familiar with the matter.
The way the strike was handled has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans. Critics say the decision was hasty, considering the risk of all-out war. They also question whether the intelligence that prompted the action was as clear-cut and alarming as the White House has said, and see the move as doing little to further U.S. interests in the region.
Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.
When it became clear Iran had inflicted no casualties, there was relief, according to administration officials.
At a press conference the following morning, the president spoke of new sanctions on Iranbut no new military strike, moving the two longtime antagonists, for the moment, back from the brink of war.
Days earlier, the U.S. had killed the leader of the foreign wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The speed at which events unfolded shows the influence of the new team of senior national-security and military advisers now surrounding the president.
The group, including new Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and new national security adviser Robert O’Brien, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, backed the president’s decision to kill the top Iranian military commander and moved swiftly to carry it out.
The new team was cohesive and less inclined than its predecessors to push back against the president’s wishes, according to administration officials and others consulted by the White House. They also were less likely to consult in advance with other administration, Pentagon or State Department officials, congressional leaders or foreign allies, some of these officials said.
The targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani is the most decisive military action of Mr. Trump’s first term, and removes a longtime enemy of the U.S.
Now the national-security team must manage the consequences. Those include the disruption of the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq and demands by Shiite politicians that the 5,300 U.S. troops leave the country altogether. Still another challenge is Iran’s decision to lift limits on uranium enrichment and take yet another step back from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, which Europe, Russia and China want to preserve but the Trump administration has disowned.
Mr. Trump’s supporters say the Soleimani killing resulted in a weaker adversary that has so far made only a token response, and gives the U.S. potentially greater diplomatic leverage with Tehran to roll back Iranian power in the region, curtail its missile program and halt Tehran’s nuclear program.
The move has stoked some dissent on Capitol Hill. The White House’s failure to consult more broadly with members of Congress has strengthened support for measures that would limit further military action against Iran without congressional authorization. The Democratic-controlled House passed a largely symbolic resolution Thursday that would require Congress’s authorization for such action except to defend the U.S.
More broadly, the strike on Gen. Soleimani has changed U.S. posture in the Mideast, with consequences likely to unfold over years.
In the past, Pentagon officials have highlighted the risks of taking military action they feared might spiral out of control and lead to retaliation against its troops in the Middle East. Mr. Trump himself has been conflicted about using force in a region where he has sought to shrink the American military footprint and avoid what he has called “endless wars.”
Though the Trump administration has previously included Iran hawks such as former national security adviser John Bolton, relations between the president’s senior advisers were frequently discordant, according to officials.
This time, senior advisers were more like-minded about directly confronting Iran after months of skirmishes with Iranian proxies, administration officials said. The drawback, some administration critics say, is that the team appears less willing to challenge Mr. Trump.
Mr. Esper is a West Point classmate of Mr. Pompeo’s and is in lockstep with him on his push to roll back Iranian power in the region.
Mr. O’Brien, a lawyer who became national security adviser on Oct. 1 after serving for 16 months as a presidential envoy on hostage affairs, enjoys a smoother relationship with his colleagues than did Mr. Bolton, who brought decades of deeply held policy positions to the White House, according to officials. Messrs. Bolton and Pompeo became increasingly distant over the summer.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser Robert O'Brien at the White House in December.Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Gen. Milley, who took over as chairman of the joint chiefs in September, has proven more willing to accept the risks in directly taking on Iran than his predecessor, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, according to officials. Mr. Trump cited Gen. Dunford as a voice of caution after he reversed himself at the last minute and opted not to retaliate after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June.
Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had challenged some of Mr. Trump’s policy inclinations, including withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord. He eventually resigned over Mr. Trump’s 2018 decision to remove troops from Syria, which the president later reversed.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a Trump confidant who played golf with him when he was considering the strike, said the new advisers “understand the president. They have chemistry among themselves.” Gen. Milley, he said, “is the biggest surprise. He is much more willing to take a risk to achieve a goal.”
The national-security team’s shared assumptions facilitated an audacious strike.
“The important point that’s been established is that Iran is once again scared of the United States,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.).
Critics said the action may have backfired and that the administration lacks a larger strategy to get Iran to meet its demands.
“I don’t see anything that resembles a reasonable policy in terms of the goals we can achieve with the tools that are at our disposal,” said Andrew Kim, a House Democrat from New Jersey who served as the director for Iraq policy on President Obama’s National Security Council staff.
Mr. Trump has demonstrated a tendency to personalize foreign policy, blowing hot and cold on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. After Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons for the second time during the Trump administration, Mr. Trump told some confidants that the U.S. should kill the Syrian leader.
Mourners at the funeral ceremony for slain Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Tuesday. Photo: Erfan Kouchari/Associated Press
Gen. Soleimani had long been a nemesis for U.S. generals in Iraq by overseeing the arming of Shiite militias in the country that attacked American forces. He also had spearheaded Tehran’s support for Mr. Assad in Syria. The U.S. holds him responsible for years of attacks on U.S. interests in the Mideast.
In the days after a Dec. 27 militia rocket attack killed U.S. contractor Nawres Hamid, a linguist for Valiant Integrated Services LLC, at a base in Kirkuk, Iraq, and the temporary siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Mr. Trump was told Gen. Soleimani was planning more attacks against the U.S. The president made it clear to his advisers that he believed the general had gotten away with too much for too long and that he should have been eliminated years ago, according to people familiar with the matter.
The way the strike was handled has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans. Critics say the decision was hasty, considering the risk of all-out war. They also question whether the intelligence that prompted the action was as clear-cut and alarming as the White House has said, and see the move as doing little to further U.S. interests in the region.
Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.
Don't think it's bonkers at all. Kind of a an odd line in the context of the article. There has been plenty of reason to go after this guy for many years.
Pelosi actually said they would consider removing the AUMF.
I haven’t read the resulting, but the reporting of it I saw was basically saying it says the president must follow the constitution. Is there something else in it that makes it unconstitutional?
If AUMF’s are still in force, ie, we are at war, the president is commander in chief and is in charge of prosecuting the war. You can’t say it’s OK to be at war and then handcuff the commander.
There is a legal debate if the 2002 AUMF gives the power to attack Iran. I don’t think it’s really clear cut either way, but instead of having the legal debate, this was congress saying that it doesn’t and Trump needs to go to congress for authorization for escalation with Iran unless there is an imminent threat. That seems fairly reasonable and in line with the constitution.
Hypocritical political stunt, given how these AUMF’s have been used by the last 3 presidents.
End foreign entanglements, not handcuff in the name of cheap political charade.
The language in the 2002 AUMF was ambiguous where it authorized the use of force to respond to the threat posed by Iraq. We extended that phrase to terrorist groups who operated within Iraq. Certainly debatable, but was not challenged so that is how it stands.
Is Iranian influence in terrorism part of the threat posted by Iraq, or would that be the threat posed by Iran? I could certainly see that argument that the AUMF applies, but it is congress who gets to decide that outside of an imminent threat.
The terrorist should have been killed decades ago. Past admins too afraid of Iran to try anything. Iran should fear the US not the other way around. Same story with past admins being too afraid to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Finally got a President with some balls
Last edited:
