Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
January 4, 2020
With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don’t Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into Iraq
Here we go again.
David Corn
Matt Cohen
Shortly after the news broke that a US airstrike in Baghdad ordered by President Donald Trump had killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, Ari Fleischer went on Fox News and proclaimed, “I think it is entirely possible that this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani.”
Here we go again.
Fleischer was press secretary for President George W. Bush when the Bush-Cheney administration deployed a long stretch of false statements and lies—Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda! Saddam had WMDs! Saddam intended to use WMDs against the United States! Saddam’s defeat would lead to peace and democracy in Iraq and throughout the region!—to grease the way to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that position, Fleischer was a key spokesperson for the war. Prior to the invasion, he promised the war would lead to a bright future: “Once the Iraqi people see that Saddam and those around him will be removed from power, they’ll welcome freedom, they’ll be a liberated people.” Instead, Iraq and the region were wracked with destabilization and death that continues to this day. About 200,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the chaos and violence the Bush-Cheney invasion unleashed, and 4,500 US soldiers were killed in their war.
Back then, Fleischer was just one of many cheerleaders for the Iraq war inside and outside the administration. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush-Cheney officials (including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), neocon pundits, Capitol Hill lawmakers, and some liberal pundits were beating the drums of war, inciting the public with claims that Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. They insisted that a war with Iraq would be quick, easy, and cheap and turn Iraq and the Middle East into a bastion of democracy brimming with gratitude to the United States. They were wrong, they were misguided, they were arrogant, and in some cases they outright lied to whip up fear and boost popular support for the war. With Trump’s attack in Baghdad prompting talk about another US war in the Middle East, it’s a good time to remember those who misled the public prior to the Iraq war, so if they now try to participate in the national discourse about Trump’s potential war with Iran, we won’t get fooled again. At least not by them.
At the top of this list, of course, are the key architects and salespeople of that war: Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. None of these people should be given a podium—unless they come clean with the mother of all mea culpas. Colin Powell, the secretary of state at the time, may be a slightly different case. He became the No. 1 pitchman for the war, delivering an important speech at the United Nations weeks before the invasion to lay out the case for military intervention, but he was widely known at the time to be hesitant about the assault. He still has not disavowed his support for the attack, but he did concede in 2015 that the Bush-Cheney administration made “terrible strategic mistakes” during the war.
Whether or not the Bush-Cheney gang ride into the current picture, we will be seeing some of the same commentators from 2003 who paved the path to war. Here are a few to watch out for:
Sean Hannity: The Fox News loudmouth was pushing the same bombastic style in 2003. A month before the invasion, he declared, “We’re going to go in and we’re going to liberate this country in a few weeks and it’s going to be over very quickly. No, it’s going to be over very quickly. And what I’m going to tell you here is, you’re going to find, I predict, mass graves. We’re going to open up those…gulags and those prisons and you’re going to hear stories of rape and torture and misery, and then we’re going to find all of the weapons of mass destruction.” In the aftermath of the Soleimani attack—no surprise—he hailed Trump. As the top propagandist at Trump State TV, he will undoubtedly blow a similar horn this time.
David Brooks: Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, Brooks, then a writer for the Weekly Standard, participated in a panel discussion and summed up his support for the war by asking: Don’t you believe the people of Iraq desire democracy just as much as we do? It was really that simple for him. Days prior to the attack, he penned a column poking fun at people who approached the question of invading Iraq as a complex matter, and he praised Bush for being “resolute.” Bush’s manner seemed to matter more to him than pondering the possible consequences of the upcoming war. Now at his perch at the New York Times, will Brooks once again try to make the simplistic seem sophisticated?
more...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/with-a-war-against-iran-brewing-dont-listen-to-the-hawks-who-lied-us-into-iraq/
David Corn, Matt Cohen:With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don't Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into
With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don’t Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into Iraq
Here we go again.
David Corn
Matt Cohen
Shortly after the news broke that a US airstrike in Baghdad ordered by President Donald Trump had killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, Ari Fleischer went on Fox News and proclaimed, “I think it is entirely possible that this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani.”
Here we go again.
Fleischer was press secretary for President George W. Bush when the Bush-Cheney administration deployed a long stretch of false statements and lies—Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda! Saddam had WMDs! Saddam intended to use WMDs against the United States! Saddam’s defeat would lead to peace and democracy in Iraq and throughout the region!—to grease the way to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that position, Fleischer was a key spokesperson for the war. Prior to the invasion, he promised the war would lead to a bright future: “Once the Iraqi people see that Saddam and those around him will be removed from power, they’ll welcome freedom, they’ll be a liberated people.” Instead, Iraq and the region were wracked with destabilization and death that continues to this day. About 200,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the chaos and violence the Bush-Cheney invasion unleashed, and 4,500 US soldiers were killed in their war.
Back then, Fleischer was just one of many cheerleaders for the Iraq war inside and outside the administration. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush-Cheney officials (including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), neocon pundits, Capitol Hill lawmakers, and some liberal pundits were beating the drums of war, inciting the public with claims that Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. They insisted that a war with Iraq would be quick, easy, and cheap and turn Iraq and the Middle East into a bastion of democracy brimming with gratitude to the United States. They were wrong, they were misguided, they were arrogant, and in some cases they outright lied to whip up fear and boost popular support for the war. With Trump’s attack in Baghdad prompting talk about another US war in the Middle East, it’s a good time to remember those who misled the public prior to the Iraq war, so if they now try to participate in the national discourse about Trump’s potential war with Iran, we won’t get fooled again. At least not by them.
At the top of this list, of course, are the key architects and salespeople of that war: Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. None of these people should be given a podium—unless they come clean with the mother of all mea culpas. Colin Powell, the secretary of state at the time, may be a slightly different case. He became the No. 1 pitchman for the war, delivering an important speech at the United Nations weeks before the invasion to lay out the case for military intervention, but he was widely known at the time to be hesitant about the assault. He still has not disavowed his support for the attack, but he did concede in 2015 that the Bush-Cheney administration made “terrible strategic mistakes” during the war.
Whether or not the Bush-Cheney gang ride into the current picture, we will be seeing some of the same commentators from 2003 who paved the path to war. Here are a few to watch out for:
Sean Hannity: The Fox News loudmouth was pushing the same bombastic style in 2003. A month before the invasion, he declared, “We’re going to go in and we’re going to liberate this country in a few weeks and it’s going to be over very quickly. No, it’s going to be over very quickly. And what I’m going to tell you here is, you’re going to find, I predict, mass graves. We’re going to open up those…gulags and those prisons and you’re going to hear stories of rape and torture and misery, and then we’re going to find all of the weapons of mass destruction.” In the aftermath of the Soleimani attack—no surprise—he hailed Trump. As the top propagandist at Trump State TV, he will undoubtedly blow a similar horn this time.
David Brooks: Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, Brooks, then a writer for the Weekly Standard, participated in a panel discussion and summed up his support for the war by asking: Don’t you believe the people of Iraq desire democracy just as much as we do? It was really that simple for him. Days prior to the attack, he penned a column poking fun at people who approached the question of invading Iraq as a complex matter, and he praised Bush for being “resolute.” Bush’s manner seemed to matter more to him than pondering the possible consequences of the upcoming war. Now at his perch at the New York Times, will Brooks once again try to make the simplistic seem sophisticated?
more...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/with-a-war-against-iran-brewing-dont-listen-to-the-hawks-who-lied-us-into-iraq/
January 4, 2020
Trump Thinks Attacking Iran Will Get Him Reelected. He’s Wrong.
Jonathan Chait
22 hrs ago
Beginning in 2011, and continuing through the next year, Donald Trump began obsessively predicting that President Obama would start a war with Iran in order to be reelected. Trump stated it publicly, on at least a half-dozen occasions, explicitly positing that attacking Iran would help Obama win reelection.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1212938627279466503
Just like Trump’s notions that Obama would direct his attorney general whom to investigate or not, or pressure the Federal Reserve to loosen the money supply in order to help his party win the next election, Trump’s attacks on Obama were the purest form of projection. They reflect his cynical belief that every president will naturally abuse their powers, and thus provide a roadmap to his own intentions.
And indeed, Trump immediately followed the killing of Qasem Suleimani by metaphorically wrapping himself in the stars and stripes. No doubt he anticipates at least a faint echo of the rally-around-the-flag dynamic that has buoyed many of his predecessors. But Trump’s critics need not assume he will enjoy any such benefit, and should grasp that their own response will help determine it.
snip//
Americans historically support their presidents in foreign conflicts, both the wise ones and unwise ones alike, at least initially. Trump no doubt believes the halo effect will last at least through November — that he might undertake an action that would harm his reelection out of some larger sense of duty to the nation or the world is unfathomable.
But presidents traditionally benefit from a presumption of competence, or at least moral legitimacy, from their opposition. Trump has forfeited his. He will not have Democratic leaders standing shoulder to shoulder with him, and his practice of disregarding and smearing government intelligence should likewise dispel any benefit of the doubt attached to claims he makes about the necessity of his actions. Trump has made it plain that he views American war-fighting as nothing but the extension of domestic politics. We should believe him.
Trump Thinks Attacking Iran Will Get Him Reelected. He's Wrong.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-thinks-attacking-iran-will-get-him-reelected-hes-wrong/ar-BBYAqYM?fbclid=IwAR2jCXRArnfYSxhHVLuyXsjPJtAnEIds3Rj2mPTZcDdZhSC088w0-qyyAFkTrump Thinks Attacking Iran Will Get Him Reelected. He’s Wrong.
Jonathan Chait
22 hrs ago
Beginning in 2011, and continuing through the next year, Donald Trump began obsessively predicting that President Obama would start a war with Iran in order to be reelected. Trump stated it publicly, on at least a half-dozen occasions, explicitly positing that attacking Iran would help Obama win reelection.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1212938627279466503
Just like Trump’s notions that Obama would direct his attorney general whom to investigate or not, or pressure the Federal Reserve to loosen the money supply in order to help his party win the next election, Trump’s attacks on Obama were the purest form of projection. They reflect his cynical belief that every president will naturally abuse their powers, and thus provide a roadmap to his own intentions.
And indeed, Trump immediately followed the killing of Qasem Suleimani by metaphorically wrapping himself in the stars and stripes. No doubt he anticipates at least a faint echo of the rally-around-the-flag dynamic that has buoyed many of his predecessors. But Trump’s critics need not assume he will enjoy any such benefit, and should grasp that their own response will help determine it.
snip//
Americans historically support their presidents in foreign conflicts, both the wise ones and unwise ones alike, at least initially. Trump no doubt believes the halo effect will last at least through November — that he might undertake an action that would harm his reelection out of some larger sense of duty to the nation or the world is unfathomable.
But presidents traditionally benefit from a presumption of competence, or at least moral legitimacy, from their opposition. Trump has forfeited his. He will not have Democratic leaders standing shoulder to shoulder with him, and his practice of disregarding and smearing government intelligence should likewise dispel any benefit of the doubt attached to claims he makes about the necessity of his actions. Trump has made it plain that he views American war-fighting as nothing but the extension of domestic politics. We should believe him.
January 4, 2020
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-pete-hegseth-says-us-can-still-work-with-allieslike-the-kurds-on-iran?ref=home
Fox’s Pete Hegseth on Iran: We Can Still ‘Work With Allies...Like the Kurds’
UMMMM
Justin Baragona
Contributor
Published Jan. 03, 2020 6:49PM ET
Fox's Pete Hegseth on Iran: We Can Still 'Work With Allies...Like the Kurds'
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-pete-hegseth-says-us-can-still-work-with-allieslike-the-kurds-on-iran?ref=home
Fox’s Pete Hegseth on Iran: We Can Still ‘Work With Allies...Like the Kurds’
UMMMM
Justin Baragona
Contributor
Published Jan. 03, 2020 6:49PM ET
Defending President Donald Trump’s region-shaking decision to order an airstrike and kill top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, Fox News host Pete Hegseth on Friday said America could rely on other Middle East allies if Iraq voted to expel the U.S. military from their country. “If you are not satisfied yet, if you won’t follow through and defend yourself yet, then at what point do we decide it is not in our interest?” Hegseth exclaimed. “We can do some [military action] from further away and work with allies that are still there like the Kurds.”
Unfortunately for Hegseth, relying on the Kurds as an American ally may be a bit more difficult following Trump’s decision in October to essentially abandon the Kurdish in Northern Syria, paving the way for Turkish forces to invade.
Unfortunately for Hegseth, relying on the Kurds as an American ally may be a bit more difficult following Trump’s decision in October to essentially abandon the Kurdish in Northern Syria, paving the way for Turkish forces to invade.
January 4, 2020
The Impeachment Stalemate Is Working Fine for Democrats
The Impeachment Stalemate Is Working Fine for Democrats
No one is blinking yet.
By Jeremy Stahl
Jan 03, 20207:26 PM
As the second session of the 116th Congress got underway on Friday, the biggest question on Congress’ plate at the start of 2020—how a Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump might be conducted and when it will even happen—moved no closer to a resolution. That’s a good thing—for now.
On Friday morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that he had no plans of acceding to Democratic leaders’ demands that a Senate trial include witnesses and document production, as past impeachment trials did. “About this fantasy that the speaker of the House will get to hand-design the trial proceedings in the Senate, that’s obviously a nonstarter,” McConnell said on the floor of the Senate. He also suggested that he was fine with an indefinite stalemate. “We can’t hold a trial without the articles,” McConnell said. “The Senate’s own rules don’t provide for that. So, for now, we’re content to continue the ordinary business of the Senate while House Democrats continue to flounder.”
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to blink. Before Christmas, she pledged not to transmit impeachment articles until she knew what the rules of a Senate trial would be. Pelosi suggested on Friday afternoon that the ball was in McConnell’s court. “The GOP Senate must immediately proceed in a manner worthy of the Constitution and in light of the gravity of the president’s unprecedented abuses,” Pelosi said.
Neither side has any reason to budge at this point. McConnell does not want to force the more vulnerable members of his caucus to vote for the unpopular proposition to bar witnesses from the Senate trial when there is still a possibility that new information could come to light while Pelosi withholds the articles. So, it doesn’t make sense for him to announce and hold a vote on an official plan on new impeachment rules before it is certain that Pelosi will actually send them over.
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, are hoping that new information will trickle out to increase pressure on vulnerable Republican members in the Senate to support a trial that includes witnesses and document production, as in all past impeachments. Indeed, in his own remarks on the Senate floor on Friday, Schumer cited a trio of news developments over the winter break that would support his call for specific witnesses and document production. Those developments were the administration’s production of heavily redacted documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding its decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine while the president pressed that country to investigate his political rivals, a report in the New York Times about how senior officials argued for releasing the aid to no avail, and a report in Just Security showing that as late as the end of August orders for the hold came directly from the president.
“Each new revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth,” Schumer said.
Pelosi echoed this argument in her own statement. “Leader McConnell is doubling down on his violation of his oath, even after the exposure of new, deeply incriminating documents this week which provide further evidence of what we know: President Trump abused the power of his office for personal, political gain,” Pelosi said.
more...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/impeachment-senate-trial-stalemate.html
January 4, 2020
Trump’s administration is deeply dishonest and it’s foolish to trust them
Don’t trust liars — especially about matters of war and peace.
By Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com Jan 3, 2020, 11:50am EST
Every international crisis generates more than its fair share of insta-experts, charlatans, and Wikipedia summarizers, so it’s probably best for political pundits to try to stick to subjects we’re genuinely knowledgeable about.
For example: President Donald Trump is a deeply dishonest person.
Since long before he was a politician, he’s lied frequently and even written in multiple books about his profound belief in the value of lying as a means to get ahead. And he’s good at it. After his Atlantic City casinos went bust, he successfully duped a bunch of mom-and-pop equity investors out of their money to get out of debt and had them pay him a salary for the privilege. He then got himself elected president and immediately started bullshitting about everything from the size of his inaugural crowds to the way NATO works to Chinese currency manipulation.
When someone has proven over and over again that they are not trustworthy, you can, and in important situations should, stop trusting them.
Unfortunately, in the escalating crisis with Iran, many people seem to have forgotten this basic principle.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on CNN earlier this morning to explain that the Trump administration killed a top Iranian general to forestall an “imminent threat” and that the decision to do so “saved American lives.” Those remarks are simply echoed uncritically in the Washington Post’s main write-up of the story, along with the observation that Pompeo “stressed that Washington is committed to de-escalation” — a fairly dubious assertion given the current cycle of escalating hostilities dates to Trump’s unprovoked decision to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal. An ABC News write-up of the story stresses the risks of Iranian retaliation, but simply takes Pompeo’s claim of an imminent threat at face value.
It’s obviously possible that this is true. But it’s somewhat at odds with the Department of Defense’s statement Thursday night saying merely that Suleimani was “actively developing plans” for attacks and that the American bombing was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans” rather than disrupting an ongoing one. And indeed, David Sanger’s news analysis piece in the New York Times takes the Pentagon’s deterrence account at face value without noting that the secretary of state actually claims the attack was about something else.
Beyond the contradictions, telling the truth about something would be a strange, new departure for the Trump administration, and it seems unwise to assume that’s something they would do.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048079/trump-pompeo-iran-lies
Trump's administration is deeply dishonest and it's foolish to trust them
Trump’s administration is deeply dishonest and it’s foolish to trust them
Don’t trust liars — especially about matters of war and peace.
By Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com Jan 3, 2020, 11:50am EST
Every international crisis generates more than its fair share of insta-experts, charlatans, and Wikipedia summarizers, so it’s probably best for political pundits to try to stick to subjects we’re genuinely knowledgeable about.
For example: President Donald Trump is a deeply dishonest person.
Since long before he was a politician, he’s lied frequently and even written in multiple books about his profound belief in the value of lying as a means to get ahead. And he’s good at it. After his Atlantic City casinos went bust, he successfully duped a bunch of mom-and-pop equity investors out of their money to get out of debt and had them pay him a salary for the privilege. He then got himself elected president and immediately started bullshitting about everything from the size of his inaugural crowds to the way NATO works to Chinese currency manipulation.
When someone has proven over and over again that they are not trustworthy, you can, and in important situations should, stop trusting them.
Unfortunately, in the escalating crisis with Iran, many people seem to have forgotten this basic principle.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on CNN earlier this morning to explain that the Trump administration killed a top Iranian general to forestall an “imminent threat” and that the decision to do so “saved American lives.” Those remarks are simply echoed uncritically in the Washington Post’s main write-up of the story, along with the observation that Pompeo “stressed that Washington is committed to de-escalation” — a fairly dubious assertion given the current cycle of escalating hostilities dates to Trump’s unprovoked decision to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal. An ABC News write-up of the story stresses the risks of Iranian retaliation, but simply takes Pompeo’s claim of an imminent threat at face value.
It’s obviously possible that this is true. But it’s somewhat at odds with the Department of Defense’s statement Thursday night saying merely that Suleimani was “actively developing plans” for attacks and that the American bombing was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans” rather than disrupting an ongoing one. And indeed, David Sanger’s news analysis piece in the New York Times takes the Pentagon’s deterrence account at face value without noting that the secretary of state actually claims the attack was about something else.
Beyond the contradictions, telling the truth about something would be a strange, new departure for the Trump administration, and it seems unwise to assume that’s something they would do.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048079/trump-pompeo-iran-lies
January 3, 2020
Posted on Fri, Jan 3rd, 2020 by Jason Easley
Former Fox Reporter Accuses Trump Of Unwanted Sexual Advances
Former Fox News reporter Courtney Friel is accusing President Donald Trump of unwanted sexual advances.
The New York Daily News reported:
The journalist who now works as an anchor at KTLA-TV in Los Angeles says she was “shocked” by the advance.
Friel’s name can be added to the list of dozens of women who have come forward to accuse Trump of everything from sexual harassment to rape. As Trump is running for a second term in office, Friel’s account is a reminder of the character of the man who is currently occupying the Oval Office. At the time when Trump made his move on Friel, he was married to current First Lady Melania Trump.
None of this is new behavior, but a message to voters about the unfitness of Donald J. Trump.
Former Fox Reporter Accuses Trump Of Unwanted Sexual Advances
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/03/former-fox-reporter-accuses-trump-of-unwanted-sexual-advances.htmlPosted on Fri, Jan 3rd, 2020 by Jason Easley
Former Fox Reporter Accuses Trump Of Unwanted Sexual Advances
Former Fox News reporter Courtney Friel is accusing President Donald Trump of unwanted sexual advances.
The New York Daily News reported:
She says Trump told her she was “the hottest one at Fox News” and called her office line a few weeks after she mentioned an interest in working as a judge on his Miss USA beauty pageant.
“Though he said I couldn’t be a judge since I worked at a different network, he did ask me about my career goals and complimented my work at FNC,” Friel, 39, wrote in a sneak peek of her book shared with the Daily News.
“Then, out of nowhere, he said: ‘You should come up to my office sometime, so we can kiss,’” Friel claimed.
“Though he said I couldn’t be a judge since I worked at a different network, he did ask me about my career goals and complimented my work at FNC,” Friel, 39, wrote in a sneak peek of her book shared with the Daily News.
“Then, out of nowhere, he said: ‘You should come up to my office sometime, so we can kiss,’” Friel claimed.
The journalist who now works as an anchor at KTLA-TV in Los Angeles says she was “shocked” by the advance.
Friel’s name can be added to the list of dozens of women who have come forward to accuse Trump of everything from sexual harassment to rape. As Trump is running for a second term in office, Friel’s account is a reminder of the character of the man who is currently occupying the Oval Office. At the time when Trump made his move on Friel, he was married to current First Lady Melania Trump.
None of this is new behavior, but a message to voters about the unfitness of Donald J. Trump.
January 3, 2020
At a time when Trump needs credibility most, he's already destroyed it on the world stage
Kerry Eleveld
Daily Kos Staff
Friday January 03, 2020 · 2:47 PM EST
Why now? is the question everyone is asking. Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the top Iranian commander that the U.S. just assassinated, isn't a new figure or new threat by any means.
Now that Donald Trump has taken the polar opposite tack, Cooper added, "The Pentagon is still scrambling right now to tell a story of, Why now? The 'Why now?' is sort of a central question that the Trump administration hasn't really explained." Cooper said she wasn't sure there was any "game plan at this point" in the aftermath of the strike that killed Soleimani.
The lack of administration planning has been particularly evident in the fact that the administration failed to brief the Gang of Eight congressional leaders in advance of the strike, along with the notable absence of administration officials who were prepared to explain the strike shortly after its execution. In fact, all that was presented in the immediate aftermath of the attack was an American flag tweeted out by Trump, who as of 3:00 pm ET Friday had yet to address the nation about the strike in any real way. But Trump pinned that flag tweet to the top of his Twitter page, so 'nuff said, apparently.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post's David Ignatius echoed Cooper's bafflement on MSNBC, saying, "I'm troubled by all the things we don't know about where the administration is going."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been trying to sell the notion that killing Soleimani was an absolutely necessary deterrent to future attacks. “The risk of doing nothing was enormous,” Pompeo told Fox News Friday morning, claiming that Soleimani was plotting an "imminent" attack and that doing nothing "shows weakness" and "emboldens Iran."
But as the administration tries to reverse-engineer a rationale for an operation that risks spiraling into an all-out military conflict in the Gulf region, Trump needs the one thing that he's already spent a thousand times over: credibility. Trump has now made more than 15,000 false or misleading statements since the beginning of his presidency. He's also in the middle of a high-profile impeachment scandal as he continues to trumpet a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election and is hiding a DNC server—something every global power with an intelligence operation knows is laughable. In the meantime, Trump's attorney general has been trotting around the globe seeking information from foreign allies to buttress another disproven Trump claim—that the FBI's Russia probe was ill-conceived. It’s a global embarrassment, with the U.S. Justice Department by all appearances turning on the CIA. Trump is indeed such a political joke right now that foreign leaders were recently caught on video giggling about him together at the latest NATO gathering in December.
As national security expert and legal analyst Susan Hennessey noted Friday morning, "This is the moment where the White House will pay the price for demolishing its credibility with endless lies. Who will believe Pompeo this morning? Is the United States prepared to show the evidence behind this claim to our partners or the public?"
It appears no one in the entire Trump administration bothered to think about that ahead of pulling the trigger on a military operation that is already upending the region and could result in a spiraling conflict with no end in sight.
At a time when Trump needs credibility most, he's already destroyed it on the world stage
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/3/1909275/-At-a-time-when-Trump-needs-credibility-most-he-s-already-destroyed-it-on-the-world-stageAt a time when Trump needs credibility most, he's already destroyed it on the world stage
Kerry Eleveld
Daily Kos Staff
Friday January 03, 2020 · 2:47 PM EST
Why now? is the question everyone is asking. Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the top Iranian commander that the U.S. just assassinated, isn't a new figure or new threat by any means.
"We've had a bead on this guy for more than a decade and we've tracked him and followed him for more than a decade," New York Times Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper told MSNBC Friday, "and both President Bush and President Obama made decisions not to assassinate him and not to strike him because they were afraid of where this could lead."
Now that Donald Trump has taken the polar opposite tack, Cooper added, "The Pentagon is still scrambling right now to tell a story of, Why now? The 'Why now?' is sort of a central question that the Trump administration hasn't really explained." Cooper said she wasn't sure there was any "game plan at this point" in the aftermath of the strike that killed Soleimani.
The lack of administration planning has been particularly evident in the fact that the administration failed to brief the Gang of Eight congressional leaders in advance of the strike, along with the notable absence of administration officials who were prepared to explain the strike shortly after its execution. In fact, all that was presented in the immediate aftermath of the attack was an American flag tweeted out by Trump, who as of 3:00 pm ET Friday had yet to address the nation about the strike in any real way. But Trump pinned that flag tweet to the top of his Twitter page, so 'nuff said, apparently.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post's David Ignatius echoed Cooper's bafflement on MSNBC, saying, "I'm troubled by all the things we don't know about where the administration is going."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been trying to sell the notion that killing Soleimani was an absolutely necessary deterrent to future attacks. “The risk of doing nothing was enormous,” Pompeo told Fox News Friday morning, claiming that Soleimani was plotting an "imminent" attack and that doing nothing "shows weakness" and "emboldens Iran."
But as the administration tries to reverse-engineer a rationale for an operation that risks spiraling into an all-out military conflict in the Gulf region, Trump needs the one thing that he's already spent a thousand times over: credibility. Trump has now made more than 15,000 false or misleading statements since the beginning of his presidency. He's also in the middle of a high-profile impeachment scandal as he continues to trumpet a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election and is hiding a DNC server—something every global power with an intelligence operation knows is laughable. In the meantime, Trump's attorney general has been trotting around the globe seeking information from foreign allies to buttress another disproven Trump claim—that the FBI's Russia probe was ill-conceived. It’s a global embarrassment, with the U.S. Justice Department by all appearances turning on the CIA. Trump is indeed such a political joke right now that foreign leaders were recently caught on video giggling about him together at the latest NATO gathering in December.
As national security expert and legal analyst Susan Hennessey noted Friday morning, "This is the moment where the White House will pay the price for demolishing its credibility with endless lies. Who will believe Pompeo this morning? Is the United States prepared to show the evidence behind this claim to our partners or the public?"
It appears no one in the entire Trump administration bothered to think about that ahead of pulling the trigger on a military operation that is already upending the region and could result in a spiraling conflict with no end in sight.
January 3, 2020
Meet the Iran Hawks Inside Trump’s Administration
John Bolton earned all the headlines for his anti-Iran views, but he was never the only one.
Dan Spinelli
snip//
No other Trump administration official was willing to state the quiet part in such loud, blunt terms, but Bolton was far from alone in cheering for this particular outcome. With Bolton out of the picture, three senior officials—Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, and diplomat Brian Hook (who is responsible for coordinating the US government’s approach to Iran)—have picked up where he left off, ushering in the most tense period of Iran-US relations since the 1979 revolution.
Long before he signed up with Trump, Pompeo was eager to see the US engaged in a military conflict with Iran. When talking with reporters back in 2014, Pompeo, then a member of Congress, pushed for an attack inside Iran against nuclear facilities. “This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces,” he said. Once Barack Obama reached a deal with Iran in 2015 to halt nuclear weapon production, Pompeo didn’t mince words. “The Iranian regime is intent on the destruction of our country,” Pompeo said in a press release. “Why the President does not understand is unfathomable.”
Trump pulled out of Obama’s nuclear deal in May 2018, giving Pompeo and the other hawks in the administration a chance to radically reshape American policy toward Iran. At a speech weeks later, Pompeo laid out 12 conditions for Iran to meet before another deal could be negotiated. These demands—end missile production, stop threatening Israel and Saudi Arabia, halt nuclear enrichment entirely—were wishful thinking. Outside of a revolution toppling Iran’s clerical government, it was impossible to imagine a scenario where Iran acceded to those terms.
The nuclear deal was a central, animating concern for Iran hawks in the past decade, but it’s far from the only complaint they have about Iran’s behavior. As far back as 2008, Bolton argued in favor of bombing Iranian camps that the US said were training insurgents to oppose American troops in Iraq. Pompeo, Hook, and other Iran hawks have harshly criticized the regime for supporting Shia militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other proxy groups with weapons and funding. Soleimani, the Iranian official killed by the US strike on Thursday, was the mastermind of this strategy and played a crucial role in supporting proxy groups throughout Iraq and Syria.
snip//
Like his allies in the Trump administration, O’Brien’s criticism of Iran centered mainly on its ability to fund proxy groups in opposition to US interests. The “tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief” that Iran would receive under Obama’s deal would be redirected to “Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Shia militias in Iraq and Houthis rebels in Yemen, not to mention Hamas in Gaza,” he wrote in 2015.
Bolton’s exit in September seemed like a victory for the “Donald the Dove” crowd, the pundits who positioned Trump as a more passive, careful corrective to Bolton’s warmongering. Trump has even echoed this view occasionally, telling reporters in May that he “is the one that tempers” Bolton and chirping on Twitter after Bolton’s departure that he “disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration.” Even after he signed off on the strike to kill Soleimani, Trump tried to have it both ways Friday, claiming he doesn’t want regime change for Iran while also threatening further attacks against the country’s leaders. “We do not seek regime change,” Trump said during a Mar-a-Lago press conference. “However, the Iranian regime’s aggression in the region, including use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors, must end and it must end now.”
Meet the Iran Hawks Inside Trump's Administration
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/iran-hawks-inside-trumps-administration-mike-pompeo-bolton-robert-obrien-brian-hook/Meet the Iran Hawks Inside Trump’s Administration
John Bolton earned all the headlines for his anti-Iran views, but he was never the only one.
Dan Spinelli
snip//
No other Trump administration official was willing to state the quiet part in such loud, blunt terms, but Bolton was far from alone in cheering for this particular outcome. With Bolton out of the picture, three senior officials—Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, and diplomat Brian Hook (who is responsible for coordinating the US government’s approach to Iran)—have picked up where he left off, ushering in the most tense period of Iran-US relations since the 1979 revolution.
Long before he signed up with Trump, Pompeo was eager to see the US engaged in a military conflict with Iran. When talking with reporters back in 2014, Pompeo, then a member of Congress, pushed for an attack inside Iran against nuclear facilities. “This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces,” he said. Once Barack Obama reached a deal with Iran in 2015 to halt nuclear weapon production, Pompeo didn’t mince words. “The Iranian regime is intent on the destruction of our country,” Pompeo said in a press release. “Why the President does not understand is unfathomable.”
Trump pulled out of Obama’s nuclear deal in May 2018, giving Pompeo and the other hawks in the administration a chance to radically reshape American policy toward Iran. At a speech weeks later, Pompeo laid out 12 conditions for Iran to meet before another deal could be negotiated. These demands—end missile production, stop threatening Israel and Saudi Arabia, halt nuclear enrichment entirely—were wishful thinking. Outside of a revolution toppling Iran’s clerical government, it was impossible to imagine a scenario where Iran acceded to those terms.
The nuclear deal was a central, animating concern for Iran hawks in the past decade, but it’s far from the only complaint they have about Iran’s behavior. As far back as 2008, Bolton argued in favor of bombing Iranian camps that the US said were training insurgents to oppose American troops in Iraq. Pompeo, Hook, and other Iran hawks have harshly criticized the regime for supporting Shia militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other proxy groups with weapons and funding. Soleimani, the Iranian official killed by the US strike on Thursday, was the mastermind of this strategy and played a crucial role in supporting proxy groups throughout Iraq and Syria.
snip//
Like his allies in the Trump administration, O’Brien’s criticism of Iran centered mainly on its ability to fund proxy groups in opposition to US interests. The “tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief” that Iran would receive under Obama’s deal would be redirected to “Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Shia militias in Iraq and Houthis rebels in Yemen, not to mention Hamas in Gaza,” he wrote in 2015.
Bolton’s exit in September seemed like a victory for the “Donald the Dove” crowd, the pundits who positioned Trump as a more passive, careful corrective to Bolton’s warmongering. Trump has even echoed this view occasionally, telling reporters in May that he “is the one that tempers” Bolton and chirping on Twitter after Bolton’s departure that he “disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration.” Even after he signed off on the strike to kill Soleimani, Trump tried to have it both ways Friday, claiming he doesn’t want regime change for Iran while also threatening further attacks against the country’s leaders. “We do not seek regime change,” Trump said during a Mar-a-Lago press conference. “However, the Iranian regime’s aggression in the region, including use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors, must end and it must end now.”
January 3, 2020
Americans Deserve Answers Rather than Dangerous Disruption in the Entire Middle East, Says Rep. Waters
January 3, 2020
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43), a founding member of the Congressional No War With Iran Caucus, issued a statement on the deadly U.S. drone strike at the Baghdad International Airport that targeted Iraqis and Iranians, and killed Iranian Quds Force Commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani:
Americans Deserve Answers Rather than Dangerous Disruption in the Entire Middle East: Maxine Waters
https://waters.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/americans-deserve-answers-rather-dangerous-disruption-entire-middle-east?fbclid=IwAR2sLaFkN8zp-wfECyqfwEESuMYxx4NoP0xH_4Z6xprT9JCL9yia8i8aC3kAmericans Deserve Answers Rather than Dangerous Disruption in the Entire Middle East, Says Rep. Waters
January 3, 2020
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43), a founding member of the Congressional No War With Iran Caucus, issued a statement on the deadly U.S. drone strike at the Baghdad International Airport that targeted Iraqis and Iranians, and killed Iranian Quds Force Commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani:
“We’re just three days into 2020, and already Americans are waking up to a world that is more dangerous and unstable than we’ve experienced in recent years. There is no question that Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani was a murderous general who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in the Middle East, but so many questions remain about what information the administration had alleging that additional attacks on Americans were forthcoming. While no patriotic American laments the death of such a heinous individual nor would anyone deny that Iran is a hostile adversary, we cannot allow this president and his administration to take impulsive actions that needlessly escalate tensions and start a deadly war with Iran.
“Sadly, the writings have always been on the wall. Donald Trump and his administration have failed to develop a comprehensive strategy in the Middle East or seek out diplomatic solutions in tandem with our western allies. In 2018, Donald Trump recklessly withdrew the United States from the Iran Nuclear Deal with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Iran, formally knowns as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), thus allowing Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program—unconstrained, without United Nations inspectors, and without any recourse to stop them short of a U.S-led war and occupation. Last year, Trump tweeted, “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran…,” and he ordered a military strike in Iran, only to later cancel it. The assassination of Iran’s notorious high-ranking top paramilitary general, who is immensely popular in Iran, could trigger a deadly galvanized response from the regime and undoubtedly lead us to the brink of war. Tragically, he has done so without securing an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran from Congress or properly briefing the American people.
“I’m concerned that the now impeached president’s actions may have been predicated in politics rather than sound foreign policy. In 2011, he tweeted, ‘In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran,’ and in 2012, he again tweeted, ‘Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.’ Perhaps Donald Trump believes that if he drags the country into war, the American people and Congress will rally behind him. Perhaps he thinks that war is a diversionary tactic. Perhaps he thinks it will drown out the criticisms of his scandal-plagued administration and protect him from removal by the Senate.
“Donald Trump is dangerous, and his actions could have dire consequences for the safety and security of Americans. He has cozied up with dictators like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, shielded for a Saudi regime that murdered a journalist, turned his back on our Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria, and isolated our western allies. He has lied more than 15,000 times, and he cannot be trusted with matters as important as war and peace.
“The American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, deserve to have information regarding the administration’s decision to assassinate Soleimani. The House and Senate must be immediately briefed by the appropriate intelligence officials and given a complete explanation concerning how the president made this decision and on what intelligence his decision was based. Did the president seek counsel from the intelligence community he has called disgraceful and compared to Nazi Germany, or consult with his top generals and military leaders after previously claiming that they did not know as much about foreign policy and military strategy as he does? Given the president’s track record of siding with Russia over the US intelligence community, while seeming to appease and cede geopolitical ground to dictatorships and strengthening the Kremlin’s position in the Middle East, the American people must be given a proper accounting of the information Trump received that led to this significant escalation in military action against a sovereign nation at this time
“As a founding member of the No War With Iran Caucus in the House, I stand with my colleagues in opposing an escalation of force and war with Iran. When countless lives are on the line, a presidential tweet of an American flag is insufficient. This president and his administration must immediately brief Congress and the American people on the path forward in Iran and the Middle East.”
“Sadly, the writings have always been on the wall. Donald Trump and his administration have failed to develop a comprehensive strategy in the Middle East or seek out diplomatic solutions in tandem with our western allies. In 2018, Donald Trump recklessly withdrew the United States from the Iran Nuclear Deal with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Iran, formally knowns as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), thus allowing Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program—unconstrained, without United Nations inspectors, and without any recourse to stop them short of a U.S-led war and occupation. Last year, Trump tweeted, “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran…,” and he ordered a military strike in Iran, only to later cancel it. The assassination of Iran’s notorious high-ranking top paramilitary general, who is immensely popular in Iran, could trigger a deadly galvanized response from the regime and undoubtedly lead us to the brink of war. Tragically, he has done so without securing an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran from Congress or properly briefing the American people.
“I’m concerned that the now impeached president’s actions may have been predicated in politics rather than sound foreign policy. In 2011, he tweeted, ‘In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran,’ and in 2012, he again tweeted, ‘Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.’ Perhaps Donald Trump believes that if he drags the country into war, the American people and Congress will rally behind him. Perhaps he thinks that war is a diversionary tactic. Perhaps he thinks it will drown out the criticisms of his scandal-plagued administration and protect him from removal by the Senate.
“Donald Trump is dangerous, and his actions could have dire consequences for the safety and security of Americans. He has cozied up with dictators like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, shielded for a Saudi regime that murdered a journalist, turned his back on our Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria, and isolated our western allies. He has lied more than 15,000 times, and he cannot be trusted with matters as important as war and peace.
“The American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, deserve to have information regarding the administration’s decision to assassinate Soleimani. The House and Senate must be immediately briefed by the appropriate intelligence officials and given a complete explanation concerning how the president made this decision and on what intelligence his decision was based. Did the president seek counsel from the intelligence community he has called disgraceful and compared to Nazi Germany, or consult with his top generals and military leaders after previously claiming that they did not know as much about foreign policy and military strategy as he does? Given the president’s track record of siding with Russia over the US intelligence community, while seeming to appease and cede geopolitical ground to dictatorships and strengthening the Kremlin’s position in the Middle East, the American people must be given a proper accounting of the information Trump received that led to this significant escalation in military action against a sovereign nation at this time
“As a founding member of the No War With Iran Caucus in the House, I stand with my colleagues in opposing an escalation of force and war with Iran. When countless lives are on the line, a presidential tweet of an American flag is insufficient. This president and his administration must immediately brief Congress and the American people on the path forward in Iran and the Middle East.”
January 3, 2020
Trump Celebrates New Decade by Trying to Start World War III
By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
Published January 3, 2020
I have maintained a straightforward core operating principle for the last 20 years: If John Bolton is happy, we are all in deep trouble. The assassination on Sunday of Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani on the orders of Donald Trump has made Bolton — a bloodthirsty neocon war-hawk whose lust for war in Iran is bottomless — a very happy man.
That core operating principle of mine is now three days into its third decade. We are all in deep trouble.
snip//
Trying to ascertain Trump’s motivations for this attack is like trying to peer into the bottom of a bowl of mud … or blood. The recent assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad by Iran-backed protesters may have spooked him into this rash action; the image of Jimmy Carter wrestling with a hostage crisis during an election year probably loomed large in his — or somebody’s — mind.
This attack also serves as a nifty distraction from his looming impeachment trial in the Senate. I am waiting for the moment when Sen. Floopdoodle from Red State America storms the chamber and demands all impeachment proceedings be suspended so the commander-in-chief can focus on our glorious new war in Iran. Frankly, I’m astonished this hasn’t happened yet.
Thanks to Donald Trump, this assassination has placed the United States into a de facto state of war with Iran. Airports, sporting events, large public gathering places of any kind in every city in the country, and even the benign skies above Nebraska became fearful places after Sunday night. Well … more fearful, anyway; the ever-present threat of an angry white man running amok with an AR-15 has already made most ground-bound spaces frightening enough as it is. Now we have this.
If this is the world you want, you’ve got it with spangles and bunting. If fear, assassinations of major world figures without congressional approval and wars compounded by wars are not what you were hoping for in the new year, now is the time to act. John Bolton got what he has always wanted on Sunday night. When will it be your turn? Let’s find out together.
Trump Celebrates New Decade by Trying to Start World War III
https://truthout.org/articles/trump-celebrates-new-decade-by-trying-to-start-world-war-iii/Trump Celebrates New Decade by Trying to Start World War III
By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
Published January 3, 2020
I have maintained a straightforward core operating principle for the last 20 years: If John Bolton is happy, we are all in deep trouble. The assassination on Sunday of Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani on the orders of Donald Trump has made Bolton — a bloodthirsty neocon war-hawk whose lust for war in Iran is bottomless — a very happy man.
“Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani,” Bolton tweeted first thing Monday morning. “Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran’s malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.”
That core operating principle of mine is now three days into its third decade. We are all in deep trouble.
snip//
Trying to ascertain Trump’s motivations for this attack is like trying to peer into the bottom of a bowl of mud … or blood. The recent assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad by Iran-backed protesters may have spooked him into this rash action; the image of Jimmy Carter wrestling with a hostage crisis during an election year probably loomed large in his — or somebody’s — mind.
This attack also serves as a nifty distraction from his looming impeachment trial in the Senate. I am waiting for the moment when Sen. Floopdoodle from Red State America storms the chamber and demands all impeachment proceedings be suspended so the commander-in-chief can focus on our glorious new war in Iran. Frankly, I’m astonished this hasn’t happened yet.
Thanks to Donald Trump, this assassination has placed the United States into a de facto state of war with Iran. Airports, sporting events, large public gathering places of any kind in every city in the country, and even the benign skies above Nebraska became fearful places after Sunday night. Well … more fearful, anyway; the ever-present threat of an angry white man running amok with an AR-15 has already made most ground-bound spaces frightening enough as it is. Now we have this.
If this is the world you want, you’ve got it with spangles and bunting. If fear, assassinations of major world figures without congressional approval and wars compounded by wars are not what you were hoping for in the new year, now is the time to act. John Bolton got what he has always wanted on Sunday night. When will it be your turn? Let’s find out together.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,102
