PDA

View Full Version : Trump Admin Inflated Iran Intel, U.S. Officials Say



Ethereal
05-11-2019, 12:33 PM
(The Daily Beast) Trump Admin Inflated Iran Intel, U.S. Officials Say (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-inflated-iran-intelligence-us-officials-say)

John Bolton and other Team Trump hawks are trumpeting intelligence that Tehran is readying attacks on U.S. forces. They’re exaggerating the threat, officials tell The Daily Beast.

Betsy Woodruff, Adam Rawnsley | 05.07.19 8:30 PM ET

On Sunday, the National Security Council announced that the U.S. was sending a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Persian Gulf in response to “troubling and escalatory” warnings from Iran—an eye-popping move that raised fears of a potential military confrontation with Tehran. Justifying the move, anonymous government officials cited intelligence indicating Iran had crafted plans to use proxies to strike U.S. forces, both off the coast of Yemen and stationed in Iraq. National Security Adviser John Bolton also discussed the intelligence on the record. A consensus appeared to be emerging: that Iran was gearing up for war.

But multiple sources close to the situation told The Daily Beast that the administration blew it out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually was.

“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it.

Another source familiar with the situation agreed that the Trump administration’s response was an “overreaction” but didn’t dispute that a threat exists. Gen. Qasem Soleimani—the head of the Quds Force, Iran’s covert action arm—has told proxy forces in Iraq that a conflict with the U.S. will come soon, this source noted...

The Trump administration is obviously lying about the "possible attack" on US forces. It's just more cooked up "intel" meant to justify yet another disastrous "regime change" war - Iraq war 2.0

If the Trump administration is really in possession of such intelligence, then let them bring it immediately to the congress so that it can be assessed by the representatives of the States and the people. If what they say is true, then there is no reason for them to withhold that information from the congress.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 12:38 PM
“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it. Another source familiar with the situation agreed that the Trump administration’s response was an “overreaction” but didn’t dispute that a threat exists.


The administration's actions appear to be prudent. If the unnamed officials believe they have a case to make let them come forward, be identified and let them make their case.

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 12:46 PM
“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it.Another source familiar with the situation agreed that the Trump administration’s response was an “overreaction” but didn’t dispute that a threat exists.


The administration's actions appear to be prudent. If the unnamed officials believe they have a case to make let them come forward, be identified and let them make their case.
The administration's actions are based on nothing more than unproven allegations. Let them go to the congress first. If what the administration says is true, then they should have no objections.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 12:49 PM
The administration's actions are based on nothing more than unproven allegations. Let them go to the congress first. If what the administration says is true, then they should have no objections.
Why would the administration go to Congress?

MMC
05-11-2019, 12:51 PM
“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it.Another source familiar with the situation agreed that the Trump administration’s response was an “overreaction” but didn’t dispute that a threat exists.


The administration's actions appear to be prudent. If the unnamed officials believe they have a case to make let them come forward, be identified and let them make their case.

From his own link. Hugh Hewitt and couple of others jumped on the Daily Beast talking about their misleading headline. But how way down in the article they had to admit where the legitimate sources came from.


“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it.


The source added that the administration’s steps are a way to tell the Iranian government that the U.S. will hold them responsible for their surrogates’ actions.


A third U.S. government official close to the situation described the administration’s response this way: “It is meant to send a clear message and remove any ambiguity from a tense situation. We’re demonstrating the overwhelming capability we can bring to the region.”


The Daily Beast has not reviewed the intelligence itself, which is all but certain to be classified. That means that the characterization of the intel—both on the record and anonymously—is crucial. And in this case, there is not a consensus in intelligence and military circles on whether the administration’s interpretation, used to justify the deployment of an addition U.S. aircraft carrier and Air Force bomber task force to the Gulf, was accurate.


A senior administration official insisted the Iranian threat intelligence in this case was strong, and said officials in the office of Gen. Joseph Dunford (https://www.thedailybeast.com/obama-to-pick-joint-chiefs-head), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drafted the statement and sent it to NSC specifically asking for Bolton to approve it and that it go out from the White House, rather than the Department of Defense, to highlight the threat’s significance......snip~


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-inflated-iran-intelligence-us-officials-say



Note how the Beast sources tell us what the Trump Administration is doing. Yet the sources from the US marine General that is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the one that gave it to Bolton and the White House. Wanting it sent out from there so as to be taken seriously.


So no the Trump Administration wasn't lying and its nothing more than Ethereal trying to make shit up to roll with his usual narrative.


I was waiting for him to come with the Beast's Bullshit. Been waiting for it the last 3 days. I already dropped the links in the other thread and with what ABC had linked up.

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 12:56 PM
Why would the administration go to Congress?
Why wouldn't they?

The congress has the power to declare war. The congress has the power to appropriate funds. The congress is supposed to represent the States and the people. How can the Trump administration legitimately take military action without involving the congress first? Do you prefer a dictatorship to a constitutional republic?

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 12:59 PM
Why wouldn't they?
What role do you believe Congress has in day to day military deployments?


The congress has the power to declare war. The congress is supposed to represent the States and the people. The congress has the power to appropriate funds. How can the Trump administration legitimately take military action without involving the congress first? Do you prefer a dictatorship to a constitutional republic?
Who is waging a war?

Yes, the Executive branch can legitimately take military actions without involving Congress. Are you unaware if this?


When you went on patrol was Congress consulted?

MMC
05-11-2019, 01:02 PM
What role do you believe Congress has in day to day military deployments?

Who is waging a war?

Yes, the Executive branch can legitimately take military actions without involving Congress. Are you unaware if this?


When you went on patrol was Congress consulted?



Here was the straight dope on it.


Intelligence on Iran that prompted US carrier move came on ... (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/intelligence-on-iran-that-prompted-us-carrier-move-came-on-friday-afternoon/ar-AAB5SKJ)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/intelligence-on-iran-that-prompted-us-carrier...
Dunford added, "We saw the intelligence so we sent some messages on Friday to make sure that it was clear to Iran that we recognized the threat and we were postured to respond to the threat."



The intelligence that Iran (https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/iran) or its proxies were planning something against U.S. interests (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aircraft-carrier-middle-east-indications-iran-planned-attack/story?id=62843182)in the Middle East reached senior U.S. officials (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pompeo-cancels-trip-germany-minute-citing-pressing-issues/story?id=62875573) on Friday afternoon, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told Congress on Wednesday.


Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said Wednesday that the deployment (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administration-laying-legal-groundwork-military-action/story?id=62360052) of the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force was intended to deter Iran (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aircraft-carrier-middle-east-indications-iran-planned-attack/story?id=62843182) "so that there would be no ambiguity about our preparedness to respond to any threat (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pompeo-cancels-trip-germany-minute-citing-pressing-issues/story?id=62875573) against our people or our partners in the region."


The comments from the two senior defense officials were the first public comments about how new intelligence on Iran’s intentions (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pompeo-cancels-trip-germany-minute-citing-pressing-issues/story?id=62875573)led to a decision over the weekend (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-dismisses-irans-threats-withdraw-nuclear-deal-weighs/story?id=62905628) to send the additional military forces to the Middle East (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pompeo-cancels-trip-germany-minute-citing-pressing-issues/story?id=62875573) to deter Iran.


ABC News has learned that the intelligence (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-dismisses-irans-threats-withdraw-nuclear-deal-weighs/story?id=62905628) included indications that Iran or its proxies were planning attacks (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aircraft-carrier-middle-east-indications-iran-planned-attack/story?id=62843182) against U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria and at sea. .....snip~


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...oon/ar-AAB5SKJ (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/intelligence-on-iran-that-prompted-us-carrier-move-came-on-friday-afternoon/ar-AAB5SKJ)



Shanahan told the Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee that last Friday, he and the rest of the national security (https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/nsa) team were focused on the situation in Venezuela (https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/venezuela).

Then, "we received indications of this very, very credible intelligence on Friday afternoon," he said. "We went to work understanding the sources and to get the teams turning on "What does it mean? And how might we respond?" said Shanahan......snip~


Oh and note how the Acting Sec of Defense told the Senate Appropriations Sub Committee about it last Friday. Before the White House put out anything. Before Ethereal's Boogieman Bolton said anything.

FindersKeepers
05-11-2019, 01:20 PM
“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it. Another source familiar with the situation agreed that the Trump administration’s response was an “overreaction” but didn’t dispute that a threat exists.


The administration's actions appear to be prudent. If the unnamed officials believe they have a case to make let them come forward, be identified and let them make their case.

He didn't even read his own article. LOL

You just can't make this shit up...

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 01:20 PM
What role do you believe Congress has in day to day military deployments?


Who is waging a war?

Yes, the Executive branch can legitimately take military actions without involving Congress. Are you unaware if this?


When you went on patrol was Congress consulted?

I find it somewhat puzzling that you would compare a routine patrol inside a declared warzone to what the Trump administration has said and done.

Don29palms
05-11-2019, 01:22 PM
The Trump administration is obviously lying about the "possible attack" on US forces. It's just more cooked up "intel" meant to justify yet another disastrous "regime change" war - Iraq war 2.0

If the Trump administration is really in possession of such intelligence, then let them bring it immediately to the congress so that it can be assessed by the representatives of the States and the people. If what they say is true, then there is no reason for them to withhold that information from the congress.

Again a liberal with weak reading comprehension skills. An over reaction to a possible threat is not obviously lying about a possible threat.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 01:22 PM
I find it somewhat puzzling that you would compare a routine patrol inside a declared warzone to what the Trump administration has said and done.
Why is it puzzling? How is moving a Patriot battery different from moving a rifle squad?

Are you aware that Navy ships move about routinely without an act of Congress?

A long time ago as a primary staff officer in a brigade I responded to changes in readiness states as we prepared to move from one defense readiness condition to another. Do you believe Congress was consulted?

Congress has no role to play in day to day operations.

Having said that the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees are kept aware of significant intelligence.

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 01:23 PM
He didn't even read his own article. LOL

You just can't make this $#@! up...

Wow.

I guess any pretense of civility between us has been set aside.

Anyway, I did read the article. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise. In my book, exaggeration is a form of lying. Maybe Trump supporters have become so used to dishonesty that they now see it as normal. I don't know. But if the Trump administration is making a serious allegation against the sovereign nation of Iran, then that allegation should be backed up with some form of proof.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 01:26 PM
Wow.

I guess any pretense of civility between us has been set aside.

Anyway, I did read the article. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise. In my book, exaggeration is a form of lying. Maybe Trump supporters have become so used to dishonesty that they now see it as normal. I don't know. But if the Trump administration is making a serious allegation against the sovereign nation of Iran, then that allegation should be backed up with some form of proof.
Some unnamed bureaucrat has a policy difference with the administration he or she serves. Let the individual resign in protest.

Don29palms
05-11-2019, 01:27 PM
Wow.

I guess any pretense of civility between us has been set aside.

Anyway, I did read the article. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise. In my book, exaggeration is a form of lying. Maybe Trump supporters have become so used to dishonesty that they now see it as normal. I don't know. But if the Trump administration is making a serious allegation against the sovereign nation of Iran, then that allegation should be backed up with some form of proof.

So you admit you are lying about someone lying?

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 01:30 PM
Why is it puzzling? How is moving a Patriot battery different from moving a rifle squad?

Are you aware that Navy ships move about routinely without an act of Congress?

I'm not saying the president can't direct US armed forces. I'm saying he needs to back up his allegations somehow. Why would you be opposed to that? If you're so confident that Trump is telling the truth as opposed to exaggerating, then you should welcome the opportunity for Trump to apprise congress of the intelligence.


A long time ago as a primary staff officer in a brigade I responded to changes in readiness states as we prepared to move from defense readiness condition to another. Do you believe Congress was consulted?

Congress has no role to play in day to day operations.

Having said that the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees are kept aware of significant intelligence.

That isn't enough in this case. We're talking about a potential war with Iran. That is an urgent matter which requires significant input and oversight from the congress. Not sure why you have such a huge problem with the congress getting involved in something that could lead to a major war. It seems like you just want to get into a war before anyone has time to ask important questions and make important determinations. And if it turns out that the intelligence was wrong, just like it was in Iraq, then oh well... the damage is already done.

pjohns
05-11-2019, 01:34 PM
It is quite revealing, I believe, that this report quotes only anonymous sources--which I have long had a strong tendency to discount (if not altogether discredit)--whatever their reasons might be for wishing anonymity.

But one person who has not remained anonymous is Gen. Qasem Soleimani—described as "the head of the Quds Force, Iran’s covert action arm"—who declared that "a conflict with the U.S. will come soon."

It appears to me, then, that it is Iran--and not the Trump administration--that is simply itching for a fight...

MMC
05-11-2019, 01:34 PM
So you admit you are lying about someone lying?

“It’s not that the administration is mischaracterizing the intelligence, so much as overreacting to it,” said one U.S. government official briefed on it.


The source added that the administration’s steps are a way to tell the Iranian government that the U.S. will hold them responsible for their surrogates’ actions.


A third U.S. government official close to the situation described the administration’s response this way: “It is meant to send a clear message and remove any ambiguity from a tense situation. We’re demonstrating the overwhelming capability we can bring to the region.”....snip~



There was no exaggeration. The Beast went with one source. That said something about an overreaction. Yet all the others stated exactly what was being done. Of course the Iranians themselves putting ballistic missiles on their ships. Kind of puts things into perspective. Upping their game. Which would naturally have to be responded to.

Oh and the Iranians had been threatening US troops ever since Trump team deemed the IRG as terrorists. Which goes back to early April.

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 01:34 PM
Again a liberal with weak reading comprehension skills.

Why am I a liberal? Because I think the government cannot be trusted? Because I want the congress involved in a potential war?


An over reaction to a possible threat is not obviously lying about a possible threat.

They're exaggerating the threat. It's obvious. The past seventeen years of John Bolton's life has revolved around attacking Iran somehow. He's just looking for any excuse he can find, no matter how flimsy, to serve as a pretext. It's the Iraq war all over again. It's exactly what Trump promised he would not do during his presidential campaign. But for whatever reason, many Trump supporters simply do not care if Trump lies or breaks his promises or behaves like a fool. It's always someone else's fault. Or Trump is just playing 3D chess. And anyone who says otherwise must be a "liberal" who hates America or something.

MMC
05-11-2019, 01:37 PM
It is quite revealing, I believe, that this report quotes only anonymous sources--which I have long had a strong tendency to discount (if not altogether discredit)--whatever their reasons might be for wishing anonymity.

But one person who has not remained anonymous is Gen. Qasem Soleimani—described as "the head of the Quds Force, Iran’s covert action arm"—who declared that "a conflict with the U.S. will come soon."

It appears to me, then, that it is Iran--and not the Trump administration--that is simply itching for a fight...

Well in fairness, the Beast did finally admit where the main sources were coming from.


A senior administration official insisted the Iranian threat intelligence in this case was strong, and said officials in the office of Gen. Joseph Dunford (https://www.thedailybeast.com/obama-to-pick-joint-chiefs-head), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drafted the statement and sent it to NSC specifically asking for Bolton to approve it and that it go out from the White House, rather than the Department of Defense, to highlight the threat’s significance......snip~




The comments from the two senior defense officials were the first public comments about how new intelligence on Iran’s intentions (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pompeo-cancels-trip-germany-minute-citing-pressing-issues/story?id=62875573)led to a decision over the weekend (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-dismisses-irans-threats-withdraw-nuclear-deal-weighs/story?id=62905628) to send the additional military forces to the Middle East (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pompeo-cancels-trip-germany-minute-citing-pressing-issues/story?id=62875573) to deter Iran.


ABC News has learned that the intelligence (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-dismisses-irans-threats-withdraw-nuclear-deal-weighs/story?id=62905628) included indications that Iran or its proxies were planning attacks (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aircraft-carrier-middle-east-indications-iran-planned-attack/story?id=62843182) against U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria and at sea. .....snip~


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...oon/ar-AAB5SKJ (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/intelligence-on-iran-that-prompted-us-carrier-move-came-on-friday-afternoon/ar-AAB5SKJ)

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 01:41 PM
It is quite revealing, I believe, that this report quotes only anonymous sources--which I have long had a strong tendency to discount (if not altogether discredit)--whatever their reasons might be for wishing anonymity.

Why is it okay for the Trump administration to flout unproven allegations against Iran but it's not okay for Trump's critics to cite anonymous sources from within the Trump administration?


But one person who has not remained anonymous is Gen. Qasem Soleimani—described as "the head of the Quds Force, Iran’s covert action arm"—who declared that "a conflict with the U.S. will come soon."

The US has been feverishly looking for any excuse to attack Iran, so he's probably right.


It appears to me, then, that it is Iran--and not the Trump administration--that is simply itching for a fight...

Why would Iran be itching for a fight when it has no chance of winning? If Iran is itching for a fight, then why did they enter into the nuclear agreement? Why is Iran stilling abiding by the requirements of that agreement? Why are our allies still abiding by the agreement? Clearly, the Trump administration are the only ones not interested in diplomacy. Clearly, it is the Trump administration who are itching for war.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 01:45 PM
I'm not saying the president can't direct US armed forces. I'm saying he needs to back up his allegations somehow. Why would you be opposed to that? If you're so confident that Trump is telling the truth as opposed to exaggerating, then you should welcome the opportunity for Trump to apprise congress of the intelligence.
What would you have his administration do that it has not done?
Administrations routinely brief the chairs and ranking members on significant intelligence. What makes you believe this time is any different?

Congress has no role to play in day to day operations.
Having said that the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees are kept aware of significant intelligence.

That isn't enough in this case. We're talking about a potential war with Iran. That is an urgent matter which requires significant input and oversight from the congress. Not sure why you have such a huge problem with the congress getting involved in something that could lead to a major war. It seems like you just want to get into a war before anyone has time to ask important questions and make important determinations. And if it turns out that the intelligence was wrong, just like it was in Iraq, then oh well... the damage is already done.
Congress has no role to play in day to day operations.

If the intelligence is wrong the Iranians and their handmaidens will not attack US forces and US interests. All shall be well. The same could be true if the intelligence is perfect. They know we know.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 01:47 PM
...
They're exaggerating the threat. It's obvious. The past seventeen years of John Bolton's life has revolved around attacking Iran somehow. He's just looking for any excuse he can find, no matter how flimsy, to serve as a pretext. It's the Iraq war all over again. It's exactly what Trump promised he would not do during his presidential campaign. But for whatever reason, many Trump supporters simply do not care if Trump lies or breaks his promises or behaves like a fool. It's always someone else's fault. Or Trump is just playing 3D chess. And anyone who says otherwise must be a "liberal" who hates America or something.
It is not obvious.

We are not attacking Iran with Patriot batteries and aircraft carriers. We are denying Iran and her proxies, a successful surprise attack against us.

roadmaster
05-11-2019, 02:17 PM
The Trump administration is obviously lying about the "possible attack" on US forces. It's just more cooked up "intel" meant to justify yet another disastrous "regime change" war - Iraq war 2.0

If the Trump administration is really in possession of such intelligence, then let them bring it immediately to the congress so that it can be assessed by the representatives of the States and the people. If what they say is true, then there is no reason for them to withhold that information from the congress.
He doesn't have to lie, all he has to say is Natenyahoo said it. That is who these rights worship. Just like they prompt up people like Ben Shapiro as a great American and conservative. The same guy when asked who is Jesus to him. The Messiah, no not even close, a prophet? No, then who, just some Jew who went against Roman authority like his followers and got what they deserve. They see this guy as wise, educated, a spokesman for them. So do you really expect them to admit Netenyahoo has been calling for war with Iran and putting up false bomb % for over 15 years, do you think they will admit he came out and said American needs to be on the ground in Iran front lines, do you really think they will admit Trump said let the nations around them take care of their problems. You are talking to people who speak out of both sides of their mouths.

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 02:18 PM
What would you have his administration do that it has not done?

Support its inflammatory allegations with some kind of evidence. Until they do that, nobody should believe a word they say.


Administrations routinely brief the chairs and ranking members on significant intelligence. What makes you believe this time is any different?

Because this time it could result in a major war with another sovereign nation.


Congress has no role to play in day to day operations.

When those "day-to-day" operations threaten to embroil the entire country in a major war, it absolutely does have a role.


If the intelligence is wrong the Iranians and their handmaidens will not attack US forces and US interests. All shall be well. The same could be true if the intelligence is perfect. They know we know.

If the intelligence is wrong, then that means the Trump administration is falsely accusing another country in front of the whole world. If the intelligence is wrong, then that means the Trump administration's actions constitute a grave military provocation that could needlessly precipitate a war.

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 02:20 PM
It is not obvious.

Sure it is.

Just look at who is behind it: John Bolton.

He lied about Iraq and now he's lying about Iran.

Trump needs to fire that maniac immediately.


We are not attacking Iran with Patriot batteries and aircraft carriers. We are denying Iran and her proxies, a successful surprise attack against us.

How would you react if Iran sent a fleet of its ships off our shores in a "show of force"?

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 02:23 PM
So you admit you are lying about someone lying?
How am I lying?

Don29palms
05-11-2019, 02:25 PM
How am I lying?

You said exaggerating is lying so by your own standards you're "obviously lying".

Ethereal
05-11-2019, 02:26 PM
You said exaggerating is lying so by your own standards you're lying.
What did I exaggerate?

Don29palms
05-11-2019, 02:32 PM
What did I exaggerate?

About the Trump administration obviously lying when they are not. They are "obviously " reacting to a threat. Even the article says as much. Maybe they are overreacting and maybe not but there is still a threat. And you're obviously exaggerating so by your own standards you're obviously lying.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 02:32 PM
What would you have his administration do that it has not done?

Support its inflammatory allegations with some kind of evidence. Until they do that, nobody should believe a word they say.
You are free to disbelieve.

Meanwhile, this administration will position forces to deny Iran a successful surprise attack.

I bet you would have been on the wrong side on December 6th 1941.


Administrations routinely brief the chairs and ranking members on significant intelligence. What makes you believe this time is any different?

Because this time it could result in a major war with another sovereign nation.
Other than compromising our intelligence sources what would you expect Congress to do?
Congress has no role to play in day to day operations.

When those "day-to-day" operations threaten to embroil the entire country in a major war, it absolutely does have a role.
No. Congress has no role to play in day-to-day operations. It never has. It never will. These movements are likely to prevent a war. If the Iranians want to chance it they can still act. And we can defend.

If the intelligence is wrong the Iranians and their handmaidens will not attack US forces and US interests. All shall be well. The same could be true if the intelligence is perfect. They know we know.


If the intelligence is wrong, then that means the Trump administration is falsely accusing another country in front of the whole world. If the intelligence is wrong, then that means the Trump administration's actions constitute a grave military provocation that could needlessly precipitate a war.
Nonsense. There is nothing provocative about positioning forces to defend against an attack.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2019, 02:34 PM
Sure it is.
Just look at who is behind it: John Bolton.
He lied about Iraq and now he's lying about Iran.
Trump needs to fire that maniac immediately.

How would you react if Iran sent a fleet of its ships off our shores in a "show of force"?
No.

The Iranians are free to float their boats anywhere they choose to do so as long as they remain in international waters. So are we.

FindersKeepers
05-11-2019, 03:11 PM
Wow.

I guess any pretense of civility between us has been set aside.

Anyway, I did read the article. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise. In my book, exaggeration is a form of lying. Maybe Trump supporters have become so used to dishonesty that they now see it as normal. I don't know. But if the Trump administration is making a serious allegation against the sovereign nation of Iran, then that allegation should be backed up with some form of proof.

You're right. I shouldn't have said that. I apologize.

Just AnotherPerson
05-11-2019, 04:18 PM
He doesn't have to lie, all he has to say is Natenyahoo said it. That is who these rights worship. Just like they prompt up people like Ben Shapiro as a great American and conservative. The same guy when asked who is Jesus to him. The Messiah, no not even close, a prophet? No, then who, just some Jew who went against Roman authority like his followers and got what they deserve. They see this guy as wise, educated, a spokesman for them. So do you really expect them to admit Netenyahoo has been calling for war with Iran and putting up false bomb % for over 15 years, do you think they will admit he came out and said American needs to be on the ground in Iran front lines, do you really think they will admit Trump said let the nations around them take care of their problems. You are talking to people who speak out of both sides of their mouths.

I read something that was curious once. It said that Israel does not "really" want to go to war with Iran. They just like to keep the threat alive. In order to garner support from the American people.

They said it was because Israel does not really have anything to offer the US. So they like to keep the threat alive, so that we will keep supporting and protecting them. I thought that was a pretty good argument. Our only real connection with them is the religious thing. We support them majorly. They are afraid if they lose favor, or are not in our headlines, that the American people will no longer want to support their nation.

We basically give them welfare. But we want to cut Americans off of welfare but we are fine with giving it to Israel because of some religious ideology. Anyways that was the gist of what I read. It makes sense. But we are really taking this war drum thing to the next level. I believe we are serious. I think that the current administration is going to find any reason they can, and that they really will start the war with Iran. It is pretty awful really.

roadmaster
05-11-2019, 04:34 PM
I read something that was curious once. It said that Israel does not "really" want to go to war with Iran. They just like to keep the threat alive. In order to garner support from the American people.

They said it was because Israel does not really have anything to offer the US. So they like to keep the threat alive, so that we will keep supporting and protecting them. I thought that was a pretty good argument. Our only real connection with them is the religious thing. We support them majorly. They are afraid if they lose favor, or are not in our headlines, that the American people will no longer want to support their nation.

We basically give them welfare. But we want to cut Americans off of welfare but we are fine with giving it to Israel because of some religious ideology. Anyways that was the gist of what I read. It makes sense. But we are really taking this war drum thing to the next level. I believe we are serious. I think that the current administration is going to find any reason they can, and that they really will start the war with Iran. It is pretty awful really.
Correct they don't want to they want the US to wage war on Iran and Natenyahoo has came out the said it. There is no religious connection with them. There is nothing in the Bible that says we are to support a country of people who reject Christ, in fact He warns against this. Just like they didn't want to go head to head with Iraq and refused to put their troops on the ground over there. They always talk big when they are bombing but when a war starts they claim they are just a small country trying to survive and we don't want to make enemies. The rights over here give them the same excuse. I didn't like Hitler because he was a sell out Zionist but he said one thing right, "if you tell a lie over and over the bigger the better, people will start to believe it".

MMC
05-11-2019, 06:07 PM
No.

The Iranians are free to float their boats anywhere they choose to do so as long as they remain in international waters. So are we.

Well he was completely wrong about Bolton being behind it. Even knowing he was completely wrong about this whole matter and still came with Trump should fire that maniac. Plus he didn't know the Acting Def Sec was involved.


And yes he would have sided with Japan back then. As that is what an Anti American would do.

Peter1469
05-11-2019, 07:06 PM
Moving an additional super carrier and its battle group, along with a heavy bomber element is likely to prevent any Iranian aggression. If Bolton wanted war with Iran he would follow a different path: weaken US response ability in the Persian Gulf to allow Iran to attack. Then the American people would be on board with war.

roadmaster
05-11-2019, 07:11 PM
They are getting ready to release the peace plans. It's already been leaked in Alerderson sp the casino owner here, paper in Israel. If you can read Hebrew it details it.

Captdon
05-11-2019, 09:11 PM
The administration's actions are based on nothing more than unproven allegations. Let them go to the congress first. If what the administration says is true, then they should have no objections.

Go to Congress about what? Our Navy has every right to defend itself.

Captdon
05-11-2019, 09:11 PM
Why would the administration go to Congress?

Because Ethereal says they should.

Captdon
05-11-2019, 09:14 PM
Why wouldn't they?

The congress has the power to declare war. The congress has the power to appropriate funds. The congress is supposed to represent the States and the people. How can the Trump administration legitimately take military action without involving the congress first? Do you prefer a dictatorship to a constitutional republic?

Our Navy has the right to defend itself. Obtuse post.

Captdon
05-11-2019, 09:16 PM
I find it somewhat puzzling that you would compare a routine patrol inside a declared warzone to what the Trump administration has said and done.

Freedom of passage doesn't need Congressional approval. It never has. This is why you have me on ignore. I'm smarter than you.

Captdon
05-11-2019, 09:18 PM
Wow.

I guess any pretense of civility between us has been set aside.

Anyway, I did read the article. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise. In my book, exaggeration is a form of lying. Maybe Trump supporters have become so used to dishonesty that they now see it as normal. I don't know. But if the Trump administration is making a serious allegation against the sovereign nation of Iran, then that allegation should be backed up with some form of proof.

Can't bad-mouth Iran with you. Your loyalties are fucked up.

Captdon
05-11-2019, 09:23 PM
He doesn't have to lie, all he has to say is Natenyahoo said it. That is who these rights worship. Just like they prompt up people like Ben Shapiro as a great American and conservative. The same guy when asked who is Jesus to him. The Messiah, no not even close, a prophet? No, then who, just some Jew who went against Roman authority like his followers and got what they deserve. They see this guy as wise, educated, a spokesman for them. So do you really expect them to admit Netenyahoo has been calling for war with Iran and putting up false bomb % for over 15 years, do you think they will admit he came out and said American needs to be on the ground in Iran front lines, do you really think they will admit Trump said let the nations around them take care of their problems. You are talking to people who speak out of both sides of their mouths.

Anti-Semitism raises its ugly head.

MMC
05-12-2019, 07:32 AM
You're right. I shouldn't have said that. I apologize.

No you have the Right to call him out when he purposely leaves out material that completely debunks his own bullshit.

MMC
05-12-2019, 07:35 AM
Freedom of passage doesn't need Congressional approval. It never has. This is why you have me on ignore. I'm smarter than you.

Don't let that stop you from posting up links that debunks his bullshit. The more it is shown that he doesn't have a clue. The less propaganda he will post.

Tahuyaman
05-12-2019, 11:42 AM
Why wouldn't they?

The congress has the power to declare war. The congress has the power to appropriate funds. The congress is supposed to represent the States and the people. How can the Trump administration legitimately take military action without involving the congress first? Do you prefer a dictatorship to a constitutional republic?

Strategically moving forces in response to certain events does not require congressional approval, nor is it declaring war.

Tahuyaman
05-12-2019, 11:44 AM
Moving an additional super carrier and its battle group, along with a heavy bomber element is likely to prevent any Iranian aggression. If Bolton wanted war with Iran he would follow a different path: weaken US response ability in the Persian Gulf to allow Iran to attack. Then the American people would be on board with war.

A refreshingly reasonable comment.

MMC
05-12-2019, 12:23 PM
Strategically moving forces in response to certain events does not require congressional approval, nor is it declaring war.
I don't think he fully comprehends what deterrence is.

Tahuyaman
05-12-2019, 12:25 PM
I don't think he fully comprehends what deterrence is.
He just looks for ways to blame America for anything and everything.

pjohns
05-12-2019, 12:30 PM
The past seventeen years of John Bolton's life has revolved around attacking Iran somehow. He's just looking for any excuse he can find, no matter how flimsy, to serve as a pretext.
Would you care to elucidate, please?