Is how we should read the sentence?

Interesting take.

I think you will surprised how often it works out.

So if I say, I am a liberal, BUT what the Orange Shitstain did has merit. Does that really mean I am not a liberal BUT rather a shit stirrer who supports tRump?

This is really hard for me even though English is my native language.

Just because in your mind it doesn’t mean that, in others’ minds it probably does.

The reasoning would be that no liberal would think the best way to deal with a volatile tinderbox of a situation is to aggravate it even more.

Now, if it’s proven that this assassination actually saved American lives because of direct actions from this individual and that his death would make the difference then liberals might concede that it was necessary.

The NYT reports that the military gave Trump multiple options for a response.

We knew that all the way back in the 1980's when Reagan went behind Carter's back and made a deal to detain the hostages until after the election and then made the deal to sell Iran weapons that Iran was a "state sponsor of terror" which is why it was illegal to sell them weapons hence the Iran part of the Iran-Contra scandal. We know that Iran backed the bombings in Beirut in 1984.

It is likely obvious that they were backing activity in Iraq and planning more acts prior to the strike.

The military did give multiple options of which the strike against the general was the last and worst option. The problem is assassinating a high ranking Iranian government official. The problem is Trump is an idiot who doesn't know what the hell he is doing. The problem is that the GOP, rather than admitting the above, continues to contort itself to excuse Trump's idiocy.

Where have I heard that before, the NYT reports,.... give me a bit of time it will come to me.

You've never heard of anything that was generally true with limited exceptions?

What a strange black and white existence that must be.

"We don't allow pets, but we do allow service dogs."

You actually can't figure out what something like that means?

it is more true than not. You will notice it now and understand.

It's news to me, FWIW. I heard Schiff say earlier he'd seen the intel, and didn't believe it supports the conclusion that killing Soleimani will stop Iranian plotting or reduce risk to American lives.

Which is miles away from it not existing.

and nearly continuously since then. Some have come to violent fruition from factions that have links to him and to Iran.

Actionable Intelligence is one thing. But the background intelligence that does NOT rise to an actionable response AND "IMMINENT" danger is quite another.

I'm not hearing anyone saying they don't believe there was ANY intelligence pointing to Soleimani and future acts. There is quite a difference, however, in that which rises to ACTIONABLE, IMMINENT, and JUSITIFIABE to support an assassination of a Senior Leader of an independent and sovereign country.

I'd urge everyone to be precise in defining the issues on this one.

is safer than leaving Soleimani alive.

in this case as far as I am aware, is we haven't had an independent source from the intelligence community to confirm the report, and in fact I am hearing mixed messages getting reported by various media outlets

And Bin Laden actually conducted an attack against us. There was nothing imminent, it was manifest.

inspectors who contradicted what was being said

Unfortunately, the majority of our illustrious media was did not do due diligence, and acted as lapdogs or the bush administration, in spite of evidence to the contrary that there were not WMDs, or an imminent threat

In this case there are many sources questioning and contradicting the so called threat, and it is far from being confirmed, in fact just the opposite

... getting into tit for tats the US made it illegal to kill cabinet level officials that we're not in an official declared war with.

There is no such leak that has any credibility to it. This bozo continues to make problems and then take credit for solving what wasn't a problem. It's all misdirection for the impeachment and the proof that will come out possible changing some Republicans without a hydraulic spine's minds.

Welcome to DU!

communities about what "imminent" means and what our reaction to it should be. Bush and Obama had the same exact information about Soleimani and chose not to assassinate him. "BUT" is doing a lot of work in your OP title and I don't think it's enough to do what you think it's doing.

You seem to fence sitting.

The only claim I’ve seen is this crap:

“ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told "Face the Nation" that the administration would "do our best" to release evidence about what type of plot or plots Soleimani was allegedly planning against American”

They’ve got nothing. They are backfilling excuses for Trumps bully-boy bullshit.

Pentagon officials say threats from Iranian military leader killed by Trump ‘did not appear to be imminent’: NYT

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/pentagon-officials-say-threats-from-iranian-military-leader-killed-by-trump-did-not-appear-to-be-imminent-nyt/

Some officials at the Department of Defense are throwing cold water on President Donald Trump and his administration’s claims that the late Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani posed an imminent threat to American citizens.

The New York Times reports that these officials say they are unaware of any plots being hatched by Suleimani that were particularly noteworthy at the time of his death.

accept Trump's version of anything? I'll take Adam Schiff's word on what the intel says any day.

Why would anyone believe the change in conversation a good 24 hours when they have had time to compile a story? Also, Schiff too said there was nothing new to warrant the assassination. I believe him.

actions were necessary. Had the Embassy or something else been overrun, we would have been on trump’s rear for that.

Even Obama was criticized for what he did, or didn’t do, in ME.

We need to pack up and leave, especially before Iraq changes its mind and asks us to stay again.

Nice try

That's how I have come to treat anything that he says.

These are the people you're trusting to give legitimate intelligence summaries. Just like their summaries of previous intel. Noted.

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2020, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

No doubt so they had time to pick up defense and oil stocks.

How anyone could trust him now is beyond me.

I don't want another hide, but man, I have some questions.

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2020, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

DT's disregard for known facts have no equivalency in the inability to prove said hypothetical negative. A chronic, compulsive liar has no credibility. Neither does a DOD that supposedly presented him with the option of assassinating someone that cost innocent lives and endangers us.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations had identified Suleimani as an instigator of militant strikes against Americans. They had both decided that the repercussions of going after him weren't worth it. Trump was (according to the NY Times) given less controversial options for a response to whatever was seen as the imminent risk, but chose the most severe.

there was no evidence of any "imminent" attacks being planned.

And the only way to have justified Trump's decision was an imminent attack.

Nothing in the statement implies anything of the sort.

But I get it.... that's kinda what you do-- tell people they mean something other than what they say.

You pretend a concern is 'fear.'

You pretend no statistical change is a 'surge.'

Maybe bring in Condoleeza Rice and Ari Fleischer. Some other practiced liars from the Iraq War. Didn't the government finally admit that whole misadventure was a fraud perpetrated by Bush/Cheney to steal oil? I don't trust any of them at this point. I wouldn't let any of them drive my granny to church.

This.

there's always a but

I thought Schiff said that wasn't true.

Either full acceptance or full denial. Not really any room for anything else.

Again.

I get it... it's very convenient (mentally, if not rhetorically) to do as such.

1) Trump was telling the truth about intelligence and the action was warranted

2) Trump was telling the truth about intelligence and the action was not warranted

3) Trump was not telling the truth about intelligence but the action was warranted

4) Trump was not telling the truth about intelligence and the action was warranted

I fall into category 2, on the basis that, when Trump disputes intelligence he doesn't like, we tend to find out about it through leaks. Most people here default to category 4, which means they're disregarding intelligence information just as Trump does whenever it's inconvenient.

How long does it take to learn you don't trust fucking liars.

NYT reported that we approached the General for peace discussions, set up the meeting and he was travelling there when we killed him.
This sounds nothing like rushed killing as it was portrayed. Sounds like nothing new except wagging the dog and possibly silencing Bolton were the only true aims of this horrendous illegal murder of distraction and bribes.