(01-03-2020 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

If it was made for the right reasons, then yes, it's a good move. But congress was not informed beforehand and I don't believe congress has seen the proof yet of this imminent threat. If there was one, then show congress and it's all good.

Our President will be speaking on TV today at 5 PM. He may well not go into details about what was known, who knew it, and when it was known. Things of that sort typically have to be stated in generic terms in order to protect how intelligence was obtained so as not to damage that methodology for the future.

If it was done for the right reasons you ask? Of course it was. Embassy was attacked, he was responsible for hundreds if not thousands of American deaths already along with even more being injured, he reportedly was planning even more death and destruction aimed at Americans .... what more do you need?