• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,665
Reaction score
16,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=1]A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’[/h]WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”

Until that message on Twitter, the administration had insisted in various ways that General Suleimani, Iran’s most important military official, was planning myriad “imminent” attacks. The unraveling of the explanations accelerated over the weekend after Mr. Trump said four embassies were under immediate threat, a charge that his own administration could not back.
...
“Trump has finally admitted the true motivation for the killing of Suleimani who had American blood on his hands: retaliation,” said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, who is sponsoring legislation to prevent the administration from spending federal funds on unauthorized military action in Iran.


I think it does matter, that the president lied about Suleimani being an imminent threat. What he's admitting is that there was no valid rationale for ordering a strike against Suleimani, that killed others too, without even notifying Congress.
What he's admitting is that his actions were indeed reckless and that the only legal authority to take action, that Suleimani was an imminent threat, was lacking.




I think it does matter that the American people can't trust a word their president says.
 

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
12,870
Reaction score
6,130
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[h=1]A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’[/h]WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”

Until that message on Twitter, the administration had insisted in various ways that General Suleimani, Iran’s most important military official, was planning myriad “imminent” attacks. The unraveling of the explanations accelerated over the weekend after Mr. Trump said four embassies were under immediate threat, a charge that his own administration could not back.
...
“Trump has finally admitted the true motivation for the killing of Suleimani who had American blood on his hands: retaliation,” said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, who is sponsoring legislation to prevent the administration from spending federal funds on unauthorized military action in Iran.


I think it does matter, that the president lied about Suleimani being an imminent threat. What he's admitting is that there was no valid rationale for ordering a strike against Suleimani, that killed others too, without even notifying Congress.
What he's admitting is that his actions were indeed reckless and that the only legal authority to take action, that Suleimani was an imminent threat, was lacking.




I think it does matter that the American people can't trust a word their president says.

Agreed. It should matter if one values accuracy. Trump and his administration said there were imminent threats then couldn't piece together one event that met this criteria. Had the administration stated they took him out because "he wasn't a good guy" then that's a different criteria altogether. From what I read, Trump was given options against Iran and was set to act on them if an American life was lost. The contractor that was killed during the rocket attack in Kirkuk was the trigger to kill Soleimani. As I've stated in another thread on the topic, the question for me continues to be whether this was a wise move in the much broader concern of potential blowback and the risk that poses for Americans in Iraq and beyond.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
37,678
Reaction score
44,759
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Right. Trump only waited until one American had been killed. He really should have waited until 100 Americans had been killed...or maybe 1000...or maybe it really doesn't matter how many Americans were killed because he's Trump and nothing he does is justifiable.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,451
Reaction score
3,463
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020

Apparently both sides like to slice what a politician says when they say something doesn't matter.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
19,942
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
[h=1]A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’[/h]WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”

Until that message on Twitter, the administration had insisted in various ways that General Suleimani, Iran’s most important military official, was planning myriad “imminent” attacks. The unraveling of the explanations accelerated over the weekend after Mr. Trump said four embassies were under immediate threat, a charge that his own administration could not back.
...
“Trump has finally admitted the true motivation for the killing of Suleimani who had American blood on his hands: retaliation,” said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, who is sponsoring legislation to prevent the administration from spending federal funds on unauthorized military action in Iran.


I think it does matter, that the president lied about Suleimani being an imminent threat. What he's admitting is that there was no valid rationale for ordering a strike against Suleimani, that killed others too, without even notifying Congress.
What he's admitting is that his actions were indeed reckless and that the only legal authority to take action, that Suleimani was an imminent threat, was lacking.




I think it does matter that the American people can't trust a word their president says.
I agree with Trump. The demand to show some justification of a specific "imminent threat" before eliminating a known purveyor of terrorism is ridiculous. That would be like claiming Osama Bin Laden should not have been killed because at the moment of his attempted "capture" he was not an "imminent threat."

Soleimani was a planner and purveyor of terrorism, and as such he was always an imminent threat. Does anyone think he had stopped after his last effort which resulted in an attack on our Iraqi embassy? Planning terrorist attacks was his JOB. And he was good at it.

So please, cry me no rivers because IMO Trump did the right thing when he took the opportunity to cut one more head off the Hydra of international terrorism.
 
Last edited:

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,665
Reaction score
16,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I agree with Trump. The demand to show some justification of a specific "imminent threat" before eliminating a known purveyor of terrorism is ridiculous. That would be like claiming Osama Bin Laden should not have been killed because at the moment of his attempted "capture" he was not an "imminent threat."

Soleimani was a planner and purveyor of terrorism, and as such he was always an imminent threat. Does anyone think he had stopped after his last effort which resulted in an attack on our Iraqi embassy? Planning terrorist attacks was his JOB. And he was good at it.

So please, cry me no rivers because IMO Trump did the right thing when he took the opportunity to cut one more head off the Hydra of international terrorism.
What you are agreeing with is that a president can use deadly force against someone not an imminent threat to the United States, which is the legal requirement for not consulting Congress. Thus, your contention is that the president doesn't have to follow the law.

Whenever these issues come up now, I ask the question: Would you be making this same argument to justify Obama taking a similar action?
 

Praxas

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
21,718
Reaction score
11,373
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think it does matter, that the president lied about Suleimani being an imminent threat. What he's admitting is that there was no valid rationale for ordering a strike against Suleimani, that killed others too, without even notifying Congress.
The bolded part is where I have the problem with Trump's decision. Had he notified congress, and they approved, this wouldn't have been an issue. It isn't the fact he ordered a bad guy killed. The guy was bad, however, in THIS case there was NO imminent threat and he should have notified congress first. However, much like his other actions, he thinks he is a king or dictator and can do whatever he pleases. Why does he think this? Because he knows he has the DoJ as his personal lawyer and he knows Republicans in the senate like Moscow Mitch will let him do whatever he wants.

The Republicans really should be outraged by this, but they aren't.

What he's admitting is that his actions were indeed reckless and that the only legal authority to take action, that Suleimani was an imminent threat, was lacking.
Exactly, he doesn't follow proper procedures and puts this country at risk. Add into the fact he uses unsecure cell phone for sensitive communication and he is a National Security Risk.

I think it does matter that the American people can't trust a word their president says.
Exactly.
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,665
Reaction score
16,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Right. Trump only waited until one American had been killed. He really should have waited until 100 Americans had been killed...or maybe 1000...or maybe it really doesn't matter how many Americans were killed because he's Trump and nothing he does is justifiable.
Before this admission, there were two issue:
1. Was Trump actions consistent with his legal authority?
2. Was it a wise decision?

The answer to the first question is now suspect, because the imminent threat argument is no longer valid.

The question as to whether it was a good idea is questionable as well, as the risk of such an action spinning out-of-control is high, causing more deaths than not taking any action.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
19,942
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What you are agreeing with is that a president can use deadly force against someone not an imminent threat to the United States, which is the legal requirement for not consulting Congress. Thus, your contention is that the president doesn't have to follow the law.

Whenever these issues come up now, I ask the question: Would you be making this same argument to justify Obama taking a similar action?
In a word? Yes.

Moreover, I don't understand why you would assume my position is somehow partisan? That it would only apply to Trump?

I actually voted for Obama. But even if I hadn't I would still support Obama's taking out enemies of the USA catch as catch can.

For example, I opposed both the Iraq wars, and the war in Afghanistan. I've always advocated "black ops" against not only Osama bin Laden, but any other purveyor of terrorism. As opposed to all out war and the quagmire such action typically results in. Cut off the head of a snake and it eventually dies. With a Hydra like terrorism, cut off each head and burn the stump, and it eventually dies. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
25,540
Reaction score
17,395
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So it's safe to assume that the political left and the OP would prefer Soleimani remain among us. The architect of Iranian expansion, purveyor of death and mutilation, the man behind the recent attack on our embassy in Baghdad, should remain alive to continue his hellish work? Great. That position completely obliterates the notion that the political left places country above politics. Good job.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
32,235
Reaction score
7,110
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He was certainly an inevitable threat.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
32,235
Reaction score
7,110
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The bolded part is where I have the problem with Trump's decision. Had he notified congress, and they approved, this wouldn't have been an issue. It isn't the fact he ordered a bad guy killed. The guy was bad, however, in THIS case there was NO imminent threat and he should have notified congress first. However, much like his other actions, he thinks he is a king or dictator and can do whatever he pleases. Why does he think this? Because he knows he has the DoJ as his personal lawyer and he knows Republicans in the senate like Moscow Mitch will let him do whatever he wants.

The Republicans really should be outraged by this, but they aren't.



Exactly, he doesn't follow proper procedures and puts this country at risk. Add into the fact he uses unsecure cell phone for sensitive communication and he is a National Security Risk.



Exactly.
Dude, they weren't going to approve. Your hypothetical assumes they would have. Its drawing a poor conclusion.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
37,678
Reaction score
44,759
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Before this admission, there were two issue:
1. Was Trump actions consistent with his legal authority?
2. Was it a wise decision?

The answer to the first question is now suspect, because the imminent threat argument is no longer valid.

The question as to whether it was a good idea is questionable as well, as the risk of such an action spinning out-of-control is high, causing more deaths than not taking any action.
How much more "imminent" do you want than "he already caused the death of one American a week or two before" and "He was meeting with the leader of the militia that killed that American and that was managing the protest that burnt the entry to our embassy"? I mean, seriously, you guys wanted him standing there with a knife to some kid's throat before he was taken out. You guys, like Obama, figure these terrorists are essentially the same as the kid from a bad neighborhood that steals a candy bar because he's broke and hungry. That's not the guy or the situation we were dealing with.
 

Praxas

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
21,718
Reaction score
11,373
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dude, they weren't going to approve. Your hypothetical assumes they would have. Its drawing a poor conclusion.
You are assuming that, however, that is the procedure he needed to follow. It's also the RIGHT of congress to NOT approve of it. Don't like it, vote them out. Trump isn't king and he doesn't just get to do what he wants to because he doesn't get approval.

Do you guys not realize what precedent you are setting? Do you want a Dem President to have that power without congressional oversight?
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
32,235
Reaction score
7,110
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You are assuming that, however, that is the procedure he needed to follow. It's also the RIGHT of congress to NOT approve of it. Don't like it, vote them out. Trump isn't king and he doesn't just get to do what he wants to because he doesn't get approval.

Do you guys not realize what precedent you are setting? Do you want a Dem President to have that power without congressional oversight?
???? Obama already did it. The precedent was set by a Democratic President. Where was your condemnation and principles then?
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
36,537
Reaction score
16,561
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How much more "imminent" do you want than "he already caused the death of one American a week or two before" and "He was meeting with the leader of the militia that killed that American and that was managing the protest that burnt the entry to our embassy"? I mean, seriously, you guys wanted him standing there with a knife to some kid's throat before he was taken out. You guys, like Obama, figure these terrorists are essentially the same as the kid from a bad neighborhood that steals a candy bar because he's broke and hungry. That's not the guy or the situation we were dealing with.
Sulimani wasnt just an imminent threat to this country, he was a constant threat to this country. This is nothing but phony outrage but Trump haters, edition 5328.
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,665
Reaction score
16,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So it's safe to assume that the political left and the OP would prefer Soleimani remain among us. The architect of Iranian expansion, purveyor of death and mutilation, the man behind the recent attack on our embassy in Baghdad, should remain alive to continue his hellish work? Great. That position completely obliterates the notion that the political left places country above politics. Good job.
Yeah, because Soleimani can never be replaced with anyone else who would target Americans.
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,665
Reaction score
16,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sulimani wasnt just an imminent threat to this country, he was a constant threat to this country. This is nothing but phony outrage but Trump haters, edition 5328.
Your claim that Sulimani was an imminent threat to this country is undermined by Trump himself, as the lead article stated.
 

Praxas

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
21,718
Reaction score
11,373
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
???? Obama already did it. The precedent was set by a Democratic President. Where was your condemnation and principles then?
I didn't agree with Obama's actions. However, he at least TRIED to go to congress to get it approved did he not? Did Trump go to congress? No.

Also you righties disagreed with Obama so why are you now approving of Trump doing something you didn't approve of Obama doing?
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
23,665
Reaction score
16,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
???? Obama already did it. The precedent was set by a Democratic President. Where was your condemnation and principles then?
When, bin Laden? That attack on the mastermind of 911 after Congressional consultation with the 'gang of eight." Moreover, the attack recently was planned for days, giving plenty of time to consult with Congress.
 

j brown's body

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
10,362
Reaction score
4,936
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Right. Trump only waited until one American had been killed. He really should have waited until 100 Americans had been killed...or maybe 1000...or maybe it really doesn't matter how many Americans were killed because he's Trump and nothing he does is justifiable.
So why lie about it?
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
36,537
Reaction score
16,561
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Your claim that Sulimani was an imminent threat to this country is undermined by Trump himself, as the lead article stated.
Right. He was just in Baghdad to meet with the other terrorist leader to pass out clothing at the local orphanage. I dont care why Sulimani was taken out. He had it coming.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
10,938
Reaction score
7,943
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Meh, nothing matters anymore. Trump is truly Teflon Don.
 

j brown's body

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
10,362
Reaction score
4,936
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Sulimani wasnt just an imminent threat to this country, he was a constant threat to this country. This is nothing but phony outrage but Trump haters, edition 5328.
He was actually no threat to this country.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
36,537
Reaction score
16,561
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I didn't agree with Obama's actions. However, he at least TRIED to go to congress to get it approved did he not? Did Trump go to congress? No.

Also you righties disagreed with Obama so why are you now approving of Trump doing something you didn't approve of Obama doing?
I dont recall anyone on the right disagreeing with it.
 
Top Bottom