Jump to content
mugtang

Sen Mike Lee goes off on Administration over the Iran briefing

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

What when you complained his dick was too short to go completely down your throat?  Was that it?

It’s actually pretty common, I understand, that folks with more extreme TDS have hallucinations of Trump together with other people they hate interacting with each other using Trump’s penis as a common point between the 2 party’s. 

It’s at this point, researchers say, that their Micro Penis Phobia presents itself with protective thoughts of “only bad people can have a micro penis and good people like me, can’t”. It’s very interesting stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mugtang said:

You didn’t rip Trump about anything today.  Here are all of your posts for the day today:

 

 

 

You’re the mod and you can’t even find it? Keep looking and I’ll show you if you can’t find it. Jesus Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

You’re the mod and you can’t even find it? Keep looking and I’ll show you if you can’t find it. Jesus Christ. 

I went through all of your posts you’ve made today. That’s all of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I went through all of your posts you’ve made today. That’s all of them. 

See my new thread. I posted this earlier. 

  • Idiot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Then why did the administration make the claim of an imminent threat?   I don’t think you can prove he was commanding those forces.  

Prove it?  This is not a a court of law and we rely on the information gathered by our intelligence.  Our intelligence said he was commanding those forces and another attack on US assets was imminent.

Trump handled this about perfectly.  One of the finest examples of foreign policy of the last 60 years.  Killed the man who just orchestrated an attack on our embassy and in doing so prevented another imminent attack on US assets. Showed remarkable restraint when Iran retaliated, letting cooler heads prevail.  Now Iraq is actually asking us to leave, hell yes. 

  • Cheers 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sactowndog said:

I don’t doubt but your circumstantial evidence but again Trump choose to base it on an imminent threat.   Perhaps you should join the administration so you can tell them they took the wrong tack.

They launched rockets at our base, killing an American and maiming others, and days later tried to burn down our embassy with our people inside. I don’t know how much more imminent a threat you need, but I for one don’t even need classified debriefings to look at the situation to see we were being pressed, Americans were already dying and appeasement wasn’t going to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

They launched rockets at our base, killing an American and maiming others, and days later tried to burn down our embassy with our people inside. I don’t know how much more imminent a threat you need, but I for one don’t even need classified debriefings to look at the situation to see we were being pressed, Americans were already dying and appeasement wasn’t going to stop it.

Then they should have no problem convincing a bi partisan group of Senators should they?   I’m not against the action per se.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Then they should have no problem convincing a bi partisan group of Senators should they?   I’m not against the action per se.   

Have you been paying attention to congress at all the last 20 years?

You are +++++ing joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Then they should have no problem convincing a bi partisan group of Senators should they?   I’m not against the action per se.   

You can convince a bipartisan group of senators that an 18 year old soldier shouldn’t be able to legally buy tobacco. I’m not gonna use that standard as the baseline for my own personal judgement. They have their reasons, but I’m not blind either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rocket said:

Trumpistan still carrying water after all. That's dedication, shameful and low but dedicated, not sure to what end though. The guy has always been about money. Follow the money back to Jared and they'll still carry water. Amazing goons.

Sure sounds like there wasn't any "imminent" threat. Not only have two Republican senators accused Pompeo and the guy who's head of the joint chiefs of giving an explanation that's clear as mud, Trump has now changed his line from one US embassy that intel said was going to be attacked to multiple embassies. Pompeo has been Boltonesque about wanting to draw Iran into a war and Mr. Grumpy is at best a fool so at this point I'm thinking history will not look favorably on this action.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Then they should have no problem convincing a bi partisan group of Senators should they?   I’m not against the action per se.   

Not me either but the fact Iran launched missiles against us AFTER we killed two of their top military experts sure doesn't convince ME that an attack was imminent.

For that matter, nothing President No-Cred would say would convince me either and Pompeo's fully blaming Obama on Sunday morning was downright laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Sure sounds like there wasn't any "imminent" threat. Not only have two Republican senators accused Pompeo and the guy who's head of the joint chiefs of giving an explanation that's clear as mud, Trump has now changed his line from one US embassy that intel said was going to be attacked to multiple embassies. Pompeo has been Boltonesque about wanting to draw Iran into a war and Mr. Grumpy is at best a fool so at this point I'm thinking history will not look favorably on this action.

Yea I saw that too. There's a lot of money involved. I don't condone it, i don't support it, i don't know why some posters here would consent to it but I understand it. The reason I'm against it is because of the human cost. What I can't fathom is being such a sociopath and  sleep at night knowing you caused the deaths of millions of humans to line your own pockets with money. Is there anything worse than that? That's +++++ed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 10:10 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

You can convince a bipartisan group of senators that an 18 year old soldier shouldn’t be able to legally buy tobacco. I’m not gonna use that standard as the baseline for my own personal judgement. They have their reasons, but I’m not blind either.

Trump now moving away from the imminent threat justification.   Trump continues to blithely shred the separation of powers.
 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/pompeo-barr-soleimani-strike-iran-rationale/index.html
 

Rep. Justin Amash slammed the attorney general's comments, tweeting that the "red herring here is from Bill Barr."
"When there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, then there is no excuse for the administration not to have sought an authorization from Congress, as the Constitution demands. Otherwise, imminence is required," the independent from Michigan added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Trump now moving away from the imminent threat justification.   Trump continues to blithely shred the separation of powers.
 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/pompeo-barr-soleimani-strike-iran-rationale/index.html
 

Rep. Justin Amash slammed the attorney general's comments, tweeting that the "red herring here is from Bill Barr."
"When there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, then there is no excuse for the administration not to have sought an authorization from Congress, as the Constitution demands. Otherwise, imminence is required," the independent from Michigan added.

God bless Amash’s heart because his commitment to this isn’t reliant on who is president but he knows Congress has already authorized this. It’s what you get when you pass an AUMF authorizing the killing of terrorists in Iraq without a sunset clause in the bill. Repeal that or you got nothing, certainly no shredding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what really happened with this whole episode...tell me I am wrong:

Because Trump has such strong Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) he immediately saw the parallels with the protests (where nobody was killed) at the embassy were a great opportunity to troll Obama and Hillary on Twitter abou Benghazi so he wanted a strong show of force.  That would allow him to say,  "See this is how STRONG presidents react to an embassy situation, unlike the weak Obama/Biden/Hillary response to BHENGHAZI!!!!"

So, he needed a BIGLY event that would show on TV and be major news so he could have a big news conference and get lots of attention.   So, he impulsively thought he would target Sulemani as that would make a "big media splash."  That was literally probably the extent of how far ahead he thought.

So..he kills Sulemani and things quickly spiral out of control.  He tries to threaten and bluster but he has a history of showing that 90% of his red lines and threats are complete BS and he won't follow through with them.  He is full of hot air and our foreign rivals know this.  Trump has miscalculated and we are potentially on the brink of a real war when all Trump wanted was to control a news cycle and go off on a tweetstorm to distract against his impeachment.  We are now at the mercy of the Iranians to respond (as they must) in a way that gets us out of a deep jam.  Terrorists that are not high ranking officials of foreign states do not send massive rocket attacks but Iran has the ability to target us...and they did...without the promised military response to the "red lines."  I am sure Kim and our other rivals were watching how we back off of our "red lines."

Unfortunately during the confusion of nearly accidentally starting a war with Iran a bunch of people on an airline got killed who would still be alive today had we not engaged in this conflict.  The fact of the matter is those innocent people would still be alive if we hadn't bombed Sulemani.  The Iranians are responsible for their mistake during the fog of war but has Trump owned his mistakes?  When you think starting a war is simply a "made for twitter" opportunity to trash Obama this is what happens.  That is why Congress is supposed to be involved when we declare wars on a foreign state.  People will die and unintended consequences will happen and the nation needs to fully consider these consequences.   This isn't just a "made for TV" moment to control a news cycle for a thin skinned president.

Now, instead of taking the Ayatollah's example and owning his mistake we are in the midst of a major gaslighting and lying campaign.  First there was an imminent threat but no evidence...then he doubled down and lied about 4 embassies...but nobody will back up that claim...now "he was a bad guy anyway."  We are once again in a situation where the president is using classified information to gaslight and lie to the American people.  I suppose the evidence about this whole ordeal will be safely locked up in a classified server next to the Ukraine calls until after the 2020 election.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

God bless Amash’s heart because his commitment to this isn’t reliant on who is president but he knows Congress has already authorized this. It’s what you get when you pass an AUMF authorizing the killing of terrorists in Iraq without a sunset clause in the bill. Repeal that or you got nothing, certainly no shredding.

Well apparently Amash and a number of Republican Senators disagree with you.   Assassinating a member of the Iran govt in their opinion requires an immediate threat or a new approval from Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×