Originally Posted by ilduclo
Donald Trump claims that his unexpected strike on Iran that killed top military official Qasem Soleimani came on the heels of an imminent threat against the United States – but less than 24 hours after the president officially announced the assassination, his entire rationale for the military action has collapsed.
As NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel said on Saturday, there is “no direct evidence” that there was a specific threat against the United States that would justify the strike.
“There has been no direct evidence presented by the administration and nothing that we’ve seen,” Engel said on MSNBC’s AM Joy. “When you listen to officials at the U.S. State Department, and they described yesterday in a call to reporters what this imminent attack was all about, it was quite vague in their explanation. ”
The NBC News correspondent said the administration is presenting “a very, very broad picture that doesn’t necessarily explain the kind of pinpoint specific attack that would necessarily justify this kind of imminent threat logic.”
— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) January 4, 2020
There has been no direct evidence presented by the administration and nothing that we’ve seen. But frankly speaking, the — that is what Qasem Soleimani did. We don’t know if he was organizing what kind of attack, we don’t know if he was organizing something imminent in the future, where, when or how but the fact that Qasem Soleimani would have been meeting with Shiite militia leaders – and he was meeting with Shiite militia leaders – because they were in the same convoy that was killed for him, that’s not that unusual and the things that they would meet to do would be to carry out attacks against the U.S. That is something they’ve done in the past. That is something that is in their strategic interest. They generally both want the United States out of this country. That is what they have been set up to do. But, no, we don’t have any specific information but you can draw a logical conclusion that that’s the kind of thing they would be talking about. And frankly when you listen to officials at the U.S. State Department, and they described yesterday in a call to reporters what this imminent attack was all about, it was quite vague in their explanation. They said that it was going to be attack on U.S. personnel or U.S. bases in Iraq or Syria or the region or Lebanon, a very, very broad picture that doesn’t necessarily explain the kind of pinpoint specific attack that would necessarily justify this kind of imminent threat logic.
This is about Trump boosting his reelection bid – full stop
Had you attempted to post this on the thread specifically geared towards this issue )entitled: The Death of General Qassem Soleimani
, you might have noticed the following paragraph in my original post to that thread:
"The wisdom of the attack is another matter, as, should the intelligence that the President was given concerning the imminence of the threat prove as faulty as that given to President Johnson concerning the Gulf of Tonkin and the Dominican Republic, the President might just find himself committed to yet another war founded upon false pretenses of the type which ultimately destroyed Johnson's presidency."
I can only hope that what we both fear in this instance may not be the case. I do tend to trust President Trump over the corporate media, however, so let's just see what turns out to be true.