SecDef Esper: 'I didn't see [evidence] with regard to four embassies'

itsbob

I bowl overhand
He was a military person, not a politician, he was responsible for the deaths of Americans.. he was in a combat area that he shouldn't have been in..


He was not assassinated.. we killed him. Killed him good.

But I digress.. did he assassinate the 600 Americans, did he murder them, or did he just kill them?? I'm curious what your opinion is on the people he killed.
 
Everyone wants to see the evidence of the imminent attacks. Problem is that by disclosing that evidence the source of it or the method of obtaining it might well be disclosed thereby resulting in a loss of the source or the method. Is it any wonder that many are talking around it versus just spilling their guts.
How about just showing it to Congress then, like they're supposed to.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
thats one way to look at it. The rerality is that Iran has designated all US troops, and military and politcal leaders as terrorist, so their rebuttle will be very similar when they assasinate one of ours.....
Oh, I get it. So, I consider you to be an unpatriotic, America-hating communist. :rolleyes:
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Oh, I get it. So, I consider you to be an unpatriotic, America-hating communist. :rolleyes:
You actually seem to be getting it, completely by accident.....
Try killing someone and then justify it by claiming you think they are an American hating communist and see how that works out for.
 
Greetings:

There is no requirement for this to have been shared with Congress.
That's debatable. But why go out of your way to make it difficult to obtain the material if you're willing to share it. They had a briefing last Wednesday that even many Republicans are criticizing for being uninformative and non-specific on details. Some concluded they didn't have any sufficient evidence to present an imminent threat. So why does Trump's story keep changing? Why does nothing Pompeo say support the idea the danger was imminent? If the attack didn't need to be imminent, why did he claim it was?
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Sorry, sir. You don't get to decide who is American.
Are you military? Just wondering. And, yes, WOG, and me, and other patriots get to decide who is American. Do you not understand The Constitution, or the patriot soldiers that have fought,and died to defend your stupid crap? In other words, you are not deployed to defend our Country, and others that need Our help. I feel sorry for you, in the fact that Americans have died so you can say your stupid spew. You are not a patriot. Back in my youngin’ days, you would be called a pansy. Period.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
You actually seem to be getting it, completely by accident.....
Try killing someone and then justify it by claiming you think they are an American hating communist and see how that works out for.
We do not on any minute level have to give any credence to how Iran views anything especially this country. The fact that you believe Iran's thoughts about our military and political leaders is somehow valid is disturbing; but not all that surprising.
 

Barabbas

Member
That's debatable.
Actually, it's not. I mean, I guess you can argue anything you want, but there's really no substantive debate as there is no requirement. The debate would be pretty easily won against your position.

But why go out of your way to make it difficult to obtain the material if you're willing to share it.
Just guessing, but my guess would be that the material they obtained would lead to how it was obtained, and thus - if shared - would lead to who allowed it to be obtained or to what flaw in the enemy's system allowed it to be obtained. That risk, since most everything Congress gets is leaked, is not worth the goal of briefing Congress on something they choose to write laws exempting themselves from knowing.

They had a briefing last Wednesday that even many Republicans are criticizing for being uninformative and non-specific on details. Some concluded they didn't have any sufficient evidence to present an imminent threat.
Their conclusion are not evidence they are correct. People conclude inaccurate things all the time.

So why does Trump's story keep changing?
Probably because he's a blowhard.

Why does nothing Pompeo say support the idea the danger was imminent?
That would be a conclusion you are drawing from Pompeo's words. Interesting, it is a perfect example of how people conclude inaccurate things all the time.

If the attack didn't need to be imminent, why did he claim it was?
Probably because it was, whether it needed to be or not.
 
Last edited:

PsyOps

Pixelated
That's debatable. But why go out of your way to make it difficult to obtain the material if you're willing to share it. They had a briefing last Wednesday that even many Republicans are criticizing for being uninformative and non-specific on details. Some concluded they didn't have any sufficient evidence to present an imminent threat. So why does Trump's story keep changing? Why does nothing Pompeo say support the idea the danger was imminent? If the attack didn't need to be imminent, why did he claim it was?
When they killed Bin Laden, was he posing an imminent threat? I mean, he was holed up in a compound in Pakistan with his family. This is what's so annoying you folks from the left; you refuse to accept that we are still at war with terrorists. Soleimani was a terrorist. Regardless of whether there was an imminent threat, we know damn-well that he was still planning more attacks on Americans. It was his job. With people like that (just like with Bin Laden), you seize the opportunity to strike when that door is open. Why is this a hard thing to accept? That killing this guy is just one more dead terrorist, and less problem to deal with.
 
When they killed Bin Laden, was he posing an imminent threat? I mean, he was holed up in a compound in Pakistan with his family. This is what's so annoying you folks from the left; you refuse to accept that we are still at war with terrorists. Soleimani was a terrorist. Regardless of whether there was an imminent threat, we know damn-well that he was still planning more attacks on Americans. It was his job. With people like that (just like with Bin Laden), you seize the opportunity to strike when that door is open. Why is this a hard thing to accept? That killing this guy is just one more dead terrorist, and less problem to deal with.
144297


Oh, look! A man made of straw...

I'm sorry, but you seem to be arguing against a position I don't hold. Please engage with the arguments presented.
 
Actually, it's not. I mean, I guess you can argue anything you want, but there's really no substantive debate as there is no requirement. The debate would be pretty easily won against your position.



Just guessing, but my guess would be that the material they obtained would lead to how it was obtained, and thus - if shared - would lead to who allowed it to be obtained or to what flaw in the enemy's system allowed it to be obtained. That risk, since most everything Congress gets is leaked, is not worth the goal of briefing Congress on something they choose to write laws exempting themselves from knowing.



Their conclusion are not evidence they are correct. People conclude inaccurate things all the time.



Probably because he's a blowhard.



That would be a conclusion you are drawing from Pompeo's words. Interesting, it is a perfect example of how people conclude inaccurate things all the time.



Probably because it was, whether it needed to be or not.

Here's a link the War Powers Resolution. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg555.pdf

I just read the whole thing. Here are some of the highlights:


From Section 3, Consultation.

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introduction United States Armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from situations."

From Section 4, Reporting.

"a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced...the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speak of the House of Representative and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"

"b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad."

I can debate anything I want. Clearly there's no substance here.
 
Top