Iran

Trumpists Who Attacked the 'Deep State' Now Instinctively Trust U.S. Intelligence Agencies About the Soleimani Strike

Be skeptical of the spymasters.

|

Many conservatives have spent the past several years arguing that U.S. intelligence officials not only have attempted to undermine President Donald Trump, they also favor the kind of interventionist foreign policy that Trump condemned on the 2016 campaign trail. Why, then, are these conservatives suddenly willing to parrot baseless claims by American intelligence officials that the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was a strategic necessity?

To be clear, the existence of a cabal of anti-Trumpist officials within the nation's top law enforcement agencies was exaggerated by Trump's defenders. That said, the FBI did, in fact, make grave errors in its investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, as demonstrated by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General's report. The FBI violated the rights and privacy of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, considered evidence against Page the FBI knew to be misleading, and ignored sources that clashed with their preferred narrative of events.

Of course, the Trump-Russia investigation is hardly the only time that intelligence officials have misled the public about the strength of their case. The intelligence that persuaded President George W. Bush, Congress, and the American people to go to war with Iraq turned out to be spectacularly wrong; and our spymasters and generals have a long history of hiding the extent to which the government surveils American citizens.

One of the only exciting things about Trump's candidacy was that he condemned the Bush administration's Iraq campaign and the disinformation that launched it. In 2008, Trump told CNN he thought Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) should pursue impeachment charges against Bush for "getting us into this horrible war by lying."

But now, following Trump's decision to order a drone strike on Iranian terror architect Soleimani, Trump, as well as his staffers and supporters, say the intelligence that led to that decision is unquestionable.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham complained today that "a lot of people are now questioning the intel. That's really unfortunate."

Grisham declined to explain what specific, imminent threat Soleimani posed to U.S. persons, and said that the intelligence would soon be shared with Congress. This is unacceptable: The correct order of operations here is to consult Congress before pursuing military action that could start a war with Iran. The Constitution gives Congress—not the president, and not the State Department—the sole authority to declare war.

The State Department, meanwhile, has given every indication that there was no credible, imminent threat from Soleimani. When asked about this at a press conference on Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "We know what happened at the end of last year and ultimately led to the death of an American. If you are looking for imminence, look no further than the days that led up to the strike." Something that already happened cannot be considered imminent.

Soleimani was a terrorist, responsible for appalling crimes. But there is good reason to question whether killing him serves America's long-term interest in disentangling its military from Middle East politics. Any conservative who takes Pompeo or Trump on blind faith has lost the right to complain about the deep state.

If you really think the spymasters are out to get Trump—or just frequently incompetent in general—you should be very skeptical that what they whispered in his ear about Iran was the truth.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Major California Upzoning Bill Is Back, but Faces an Uncertain Future

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Killing a designated terrorist and framing a duly elected President using domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the goal of removing said President from power are, I suppose, completely comparable … if you have shit for brains.

    “Reason”

    1. Robby is dumb as a fucking post.

      1. Indeed. Yet he still gets to be on TV. Must be the hair.

      2. The leader of the Iranian Quds force, four Quds generals, the leader of the PMU and six other PMU leaders are all confirmed dead by their respective nations.

        And I’m the one who is “instinctively trusting” US intelligence.

        No, I’d say the dead confirm thei accuracy of their reports. But hey, what use is common sense?

        1. And it confirms their employment and title. Which is kinda key to the whole thing.

        2. I should also add that, if one is concerned about the machinations of a deep state, then government agents making statements supportive of Trump, being statements against self interest, are deemed more reliable.

          But, there again, you have to not be an idiot to grok such complexity and nuance.

      3. No, these bloggers are not dumb. They’re sacrificing their credibility by appearing this dumb, though — straining to put together pieces like this one. By now you still think they’re sincere?

    2. From the beginning, the Russia “interference” looked like bullshit.
      From the beginning, the Iraqi “protest” looked like bullshit.
      I know everyone wants to pick up this narrative that Trump supporters are skeptical or not of intel (ignoring that civilian and military intel are separate departments, but whatever) based on how it looks for Trump, but those pushing such a narrative prove only that they, not Trump supporters, are the ones incapable or unwilling to apply deeper thought.
      I, having been aware of Suleimani for a few years, knew immediately who ordered the embassy attack. Go back and look at the threads on the story when it first happened – you’ll see Trump many supporters, and others labeled Trunp supporters, calling out the Iranians immediately.
      And do the math on the prospects for future attacks. Iranian controlled militias carried out 12 rocket attacks on bases with US forces present in the past 2 months. Suleimani was killed in Baghdad with the leader of those militias and the leader of Lebanon Hezbollah.
      But sure, let’s pretend nothing makes sense because the FBI and CIA tried to set up Trump

      1. “I agree with the intelligence community when it agrees with my gut feelings.”

        1. How nice of you to distill all of that into one retarded sentence that’s neither here nor there.

          Don’t ever stop Jeff.

          1. When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark.

            1. Jeff, you are the human pin cushion of this comment board. Everyone takes a stab at you, and you ask for seconds, and thirds. There are comfortable places to die that are not behind your keyboard defending your idiocy.

              Fuck off.

              1. More insults. My my my.

                I bet you’re a defense attorney, aren’t you? When they know they won’t prevail in court, they have to resort to trying to destroy the character of the accusers as well.

                People of good faith understand that when you respond to an argument with an insult, it’s because you can’t really refute the argument.

                1. You’ve made no actual argument to respond to dumbfuck. Glad you’re back even worse than before.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist
                  January.7.2020 at 5:56 pm

                  “I agree with the intelligence community when it agrees with my gut feelings.”

                  ^^
                  That is NOT an argument.

                  This is why people abuse you.

                  1. Sure it is. Too bad you aren’t perceptive enough to see it. See below.

                    1. Your below was as ignorant as your above. I already argued with the idiot tony earlier before he admitted he was god damn ignorant. You are worse than he was.

                    2. “Your below was as ignorant as your above.”

                      That’s what she said!
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      Ouch.
                      My pride.

                3. Pedo Jeffy, you aren’t worthy of anything other than insults. I suspect the only reason you’re alive is due charitable civility, the rule of law you so detest, and the fact that your fellow Canadians are passive followers for the most part.

                  You certainly aren’t worthy of respect, or consideration. And you have earned all the derision you receive here.

                  Really, just kill yourself.

                4. “More insults. My my my.”

                  More stoooooooooopidity. My, my, my.

                5. People of good faith understand that when you respond to an argument with an insult, it’s often because the arguer is stuck on stupid and the argument is unworthy of an answer.

            2. It was a retarded statement by you. I know you probably didn’t know Soleimani prior to last saturday due to your ignorance, but the rest of us arent that dumb.

              1. It was a snarky yet perceptive statement which revealed that Nardz, and you, and plenty of others, are only willing to believe the “experts” when those experts tell you things that you want to hear based on your own personal beliefs and feelings.

                Question: Do we actually KNOW if Soleimani was behind the embassy attack? What is the source of that knowledge? Oh right, the same IC types that we are told to disbelieve when it comes to Ukraine, etc.

                https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

                “Before the attacks, the U.S. intelligence community had reason to believe that Soleimani was involved in “late stage” planning to strike Americans in multiple countries, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, U.S. officials told Reuters Friday on condition of anonymity. One senior U.S. official said Soleimani had supplied advanced weaponry to Kataib Hezbollah.

                White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien told reporters on Friday that Soleimani had just come from Damascus, “where he was planning attacks on American soldiers, airmen, Marines, sailors and against our diplomats.””

                1. //Do we actually KNOW if Soleimani was behind the embassy attack?//

                  Yes.

                  “Outside the embassy, the protesters flung rocks at the gate while others carried banners with President Trump’s face crossed out and chanted, “No, no, America! … No, no, Trump!”

                  They scrawled “No to America!” and “Soleimani is my commander” on the embassy walls — referring to Iran’s pointman for Iraq, Revolutionary Guards commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani.”

                  https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/hundreds-of-iraqis-attempt-to-storm-us-embassy-in-baghdad/

                  Fucking idiot, Jeff.

                  We insult you because your arguments are dumb as fuck and factually wrong.

                  1. Oh. So some guy wrote “Soleimani is my commander” on the embassy wall, and that totally proves that Soleimani was the guy who ordered the attack.

                    That alone doesn’t prove shit. What DOES prove it, was the analysis from the IC folks which you all loathe, which indicated a buildup of Iranian violence in the area. See the article that I posted above.

                    Which is my point, and Robby’s point too I think to an extent anyway. What convinced Trump to order that attack was the analysis of the IC, not some words written on a wall.

                    1. And your bullshit begins where you demand we prove that the sky is blue.

                      Fuck you. You child rapist loving pile of offal.

                    2. chem, chem, chem…listen guy, you have this all wrong. Let me help you out here. You see, this is all just a terrible mistake.

                      Would you believe that we never even knew that General Soleimani was even there? Hell chem, we were just going after the leader of the militia who attacked and ransacked our embassy. I mean, we have that bastard smiling on camera. I know, unbelievable. The stupid son of a bitch posed for the fucking camera. I mean, how stupid can you get. So when we went to drone strike his ass…whoa! That is when we found out that we accidentally turned general Soleimani into red jello. Who knew? This was just tragic. A tragedy, I tell you.

                      So chem…what do you suppose General Soleimani was doing there in the first place? I guess this is just a REALLY bad case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                      That unbelievable coincidence aside, it is undisputed that Soleimani has American blood on his hands. I don’t think you should weep too much at his, how shall I say, untimely passing.

                    3. Al Jazeera had a reporter on sight for the attack on the embassy. She said she watched the Hezbollah commander lead the militia across the bridge and into the green zone. You know, the dead one. The one who was meeting with Soleimani. His boss.

                      Nobody over there questions these things. Iran says that’s who he was. Iraq says that’s who he was. Al Jazeera says that’s who he was. Only DNC shills are saying anything different.

                      Hell, even noted Trump hater Michael Moynahan was able to rattle off 5 minutes on why Soleimani deserved to die without any prep as the news of the missile strike came through during the 5th Column podcast. Not from some internet search, that region was his beat for a while, he spent time reporting from Libya. As soon as it was announced, he knew exactly who the guy was and was able to list off his atrocities.

                      But yeah… we need to be skeptical of any of that because otherwise we have to accept that the Russia thing was all on the up and up. Sheesh.

                2. Jesus christ you’re fucking stupid. Soleimani was literally killed with the leader of the militia that committed the attacks on the embassy and on the base that killed a citizen contractor.

                  How fucking dumb are you? Honest question? Who soleimani was is not a god damn secret.

                  1. “How fucking dumb are you?”

                    Certainly not so dumb as to believe that tariffs aren’t a type of tax.”

                    I actually do believe that Soleimani did it. But not because of some goddamn words written on a wall. There was a lot of intelligence and analysis by the IC folks that you otherwise loathe. The only reason you are willing to go with their judgment now is because Trump agreed with it.

                    1. So, basically, you weren’t making an argument, had no genuine doubts at to Soleimani’s involvement, but nevertheless chose to engage in a pedantic freshman year exercise of pointless sophistry in order illustrate … what? That the IC community could not have framed Trump and also have been correct about Soleimani?

                      Idiot. Just a complete fucking idiot. A troll of the lowest order.

                    2. That you are happy to rely on the reviled IC when they do something that you like. Where is the skepticism? Oh wait, all gone.

                    3. Because the intelligence community is either wrong and corrupt in every instance, or wholesome and beyond reproach in every instance.

                      Go suck on a handgun your worthless fucking twat.

                    4. Oh! So now we are getting somewhere.

                      No one is arguing that they are ALWAYS wrong or ALWAYS right. But where is the skepticism? Isn’t the intelligence community full of the exact same people who file whistleblower complaints about Trump’s call to the Ukrainian PM? How can you trust that they are right about this one?

                      Answer: You turn off the skepticism when they do something you like. Because you “just know”.

                    5. How do you know he just didn’t happen to be in the same area for vacation?

                    6. “But where is the skepticism?”

                      All out from the impeachment debacle. More on Friday. If the truck shows.

                    7. “…But where is the skepticism? Isn’t the intelligence community full of the exact same people who file whistleblower complaints about Trump’s call to the Ukrainian PM? How can you trust that they are right about this one?…”

                      In spite of whiny TDS victims, there are times when the evidence is sufficient to overcome skepticism.

                    8. We ready know your economic ignorance as well. No need to rush into that idiocy as well. Especially with strawman arguments proving you dont actually understand arguments.

                    9. “How do you know he just didn’t happen to be in the same area for vacation?”

                      He ‘was misinformed’.

                    10. Answer: You turn off the skepticism when they do something you like. Because you “just know”.

                      That is literally what you do, Pigeon. There is no bad behavior from the left you can’t justify. You credulously accept every accusation against the right. You have no principles at all. It’s quite rich that you pretend to have finally found some.

                    11. This is what the Trump defenders do here, all the time. Do you at least see that, Skippy?

                    12. it is literally what you do here every time. Do you see that, Jeffy?

                    13. There you go again.

                3. It’s no more idiotic than thinking the IC had Russiagate right but lied about WMD and this.

            3. You haven’t hit the mark at all, jeff, you’ve just displayed your ignorance of the world and inability to do math

              1. More and more insults. That is proof enough around here that I’ve not only hit the mark, but I’ve hit a nerve as well.

                1. You only deserve insults. No one wants to debate with a lying piece of shit like you.

                  1. Don’t you have more progressives to murder?

                    1. You insulted him Jeff, that means he’s on the mark.

                    2. What’s the latest Antifa style this winter? Is it still bike chains or are you planning on graduating to pipe bombs and IEDs from your martyrs?

                    3. I don’t know Skippy, why don’t you ask Antifa that.

                    4. I just did. Why won’t you answer?

                    5. You really think I’m Antifa? LOL

                2. “More and more insults. That is proof”

                  Then I’m the most correct motherfucker in the history of posting.

            4. “chemjeff radical individualist
              January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
              When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

              So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

        2. God damnit. Hes back from quora to be dumb again.

          1. He was oppresso yesterday.

            1. That’s every day.

            2. I like to pretend he isnt so he engages more. Dumb fuck cat on a string.

              1. Did he really retreat to a censored safe space?

                Libertarians do that?

        3. Oh hey look, it’s de espresso raging fabulist come to bore us all with his serial dishonesty.

        4. Nice to see a little confession from you.

        5. The political heads of the CIA and FBI, Obama appointees, are not the same as military intelligence.
          Although, I did read a convincing argument, I think at the Republic?, that SOS Pompeo had been lobbying to have the guy targeted for a while.

          1. He knows that. He’s just a dishonest piece of shit.

        6. You get destroyed in this thread scared little bitch.

        7. Were they wrong? Did we miss Suliemani and blow up some innocents? Why the big funeral then?

      2. Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, is alive and well, you idiot.

      3. The larger point: If Trump had kept his promise & brought home the troops like he said he would none of this would be happening!
        America’s IMMORAL & ILLEGAL wars, interventions, coups, occupations, drone strikes, and sanctions in these $hit-hole nations need to stop NOW!!!
        Who can blame these people for hating us after what we have done to their nations???. Nations that have never attacked us!!!
        ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

      4. It’s my opinion that trump is getting cornered into this Iran business and his only card to play is “support the military.” I mean Pelosi had to get that impeachment rushed before Christmas. Who was demanding specific timing.

        Iran is a trap. I don’t know how he’s supposed to navigate this, but don’t think for a minute the deep state Is sincerely collaborating with trump on how to fix Iran. They created this Iran scenario, just like they did Syria when trump tried to pull us out of there.

    3. No no. We should believe the deep state when they are overthrowing trump but ignore the 30+ years of multi country intel and iranian admission on what their Qud forces do.

      It would be a decent argument for Reason to make of Soleimani wasnt so well known. using the argument here is just being dumb.

    4. No one forced Trump’s people to contact Russian government agents then lie about it.

      That actually happened, and the FBI would have been derelict in its duty to ignore it.

  2. Leaning on “trust the IC” is a dumb move politically.

    I mean, shit – the leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah was travelling with Suleimani when they were both killed.

    If it were mine to spin, here would be my spin:

    “Gosh – we were just trying to take out the leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah after all the recent attacks he’s been responsible for. How very unfortunate that Suleimani happened to be in same car with him. While we’re on the subject, what do you suppose he was doing there?”

    1. I like it. Very subtle. 🙂

    2. I heard from someone that they were just pen pals in high school and that’s why they were meeting.

      1. Soleimani was just looking to check out the late night baklava vendors and wanted some local foodie Sherpas.

        1. I heard it was a blind date…

  3. Never-Trumpers who insisted the ‘Deep State’ are infallible paragons of non-partisan professionalism now claim the IC is lying about Suleimani to serve Trump.

    1. “Look it’s a 100 degrees out there, come up and we’ll talk about our grandkids.”

  4. The guy was a mass murdering war criminal. I’m pretty sure libertarianism allows for retaliatory force to be used against such a person.

    1. Seriously, does anyone contest that he has blood on his hands, and that meeting wasn’t a vacation?

      1. Sure, the guy was a mass murdering evildoer but … fuck, if we admit that, then we have to admit that Trump did us all a favor, which means admitting Trump did something good, so …. fuck it, Soleimani was a good damned poet and a father and Trump is a monster.

        When reality doesn’t look the way you want it do, close your eyes tightly and hyperventilate. The spots and colors will help you forget, and all will be well.

        1. No one is arguing that Soleimani is a saint. Get over yourself.

          1. They are arguing he was a poet. Feel better, fuckwad?

            1. Okay? So he wrote poetry. So what.

              Whether Trump did the right thing or not sorta depends on how Iran responds. If it leads to WW3, then perhaps Trump didn’t do the right thing after all, at least from a utilitarian perspective.

              1. No it doesnt. It only matters of it was legal dumbshit. Soleimani was killed in Iraq, a combat zone, where he had planned a series of attacks including one on the US embassy (they were even writing his god damn name in graffiti). Nobody is disputing this. If you cant dispute this then the attack was covered under the 2002 AUMF. It doesnt matter what the fuck Iran does because of where and how the strike went down.

                But keep appeasing Iran like a dumbshit. They are selling soleimani shirts for you to buy.

                1. Pedo Jeffy is with the terrorists, and the child molesters.
                  .

                2. Also, he was in uniform.

              2. //If it leads to WW3//

                How the fuck is this going to lead to WW3? You lefty idiots swallowed this asinine meme hook, line, and sinker and can’t seem to get it out of your head.

                1. Well let’s see. It only took 20 radicals organized by a non-state actor to provoke America into its current disastrous course in the Middle East. What do you think thousands of radicals organized by the government of Iran are capable of provoking America into doing?

                  Do you REALLY think the security theater, at the airports and elsewhere, is keeping us safe from terrorists?

                  1. “chemjeff radical individualist
                    January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
                    When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

                    So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

                  2. So you say we are provoked… which means someone else initiated it… yet you blame us for the provocation? That skirt was too short when you raped her baby jeffrey, totes her fault.

                    1. At this point you aren’t even reading what I write. It’s just Jeff Man Bad (to borrow a phrase).

                    2. Everyone is totes out to persecute jeff, as he could never be wrong about anything

                    3. You’ve seen the comments. I suffer a disproportionate level of shit from you right-wingers.

                    4. Jeff, you get what you sow. No one is out to get you, you just are so mendacious and disingenuous that it isn’t hard to point it out. Then you go crying that we are attacking you.

                    5. What am I mendacious and disingenuous about? That I don’t agree with the words you try to stuff in my mouth?

                      For the umpteenth time, I am not a progressive, I’m not voting for Team Blue, I don’t support Green New Deal, Medicare For All, or the other nuttier Democratic policy proposals.

                      From my point of view, the only reason I’m called things like “mendacious and disingenous” is because I don’t interpret left-wingers in the same way that you all do. I DON’T think they are evil seditious socialists just waiting to impose gulags on everyone. To the Team Red fanatics around here, that makes me an apologist for socialism or something. It is ridiculous.

                    6. “From my point of view”

                      There’s your problem.
                      You continuously do what you accuse others of. To a striking degree. People tell you this, and you feel persecuted.
                      Your point of view has very little in common with reality.
                      Your point of view is psychotic.

                    7. Your point of view has very little in common with reality.

                      TO YOU. See this is exactly my point. I don’t view Democrats as communists wanting to install gulags, and for that I’m called psychotic. It is insane.

                  3. Do you REALLY think that paying them Danegeld will stop their behavior? Oh wait, maybe if we just gave them Medicare for all.

                    1. Here’s a thought: let’s not surround Iran with a zillion military bases. Agreed?

                      https://everydayspy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screenshot-2020-01-03-at-2.06.09-PM-620×400.png

                    2. Ah, the short skirt argument. And that justifies everything they do, right? Those 1500 Iranians that they just murdered were probably American sympathizers and asking for it.

                      Or wait, that British tanker was clearly a righteous retaliation for seizing an Iranian tanker in violation of the oil embargo against Syria. Or maybe it was the Crusades. What is the latest talking point from the Journolist? And who likes those fucking Japanese anyway?

                    3. I never said it “justifies everything they do”. You must thoroughly enjoy putting words in my mouth. But I don’t exactly blame them if they feel besieged.

                  4. AirPorT sECurItY iS oNE StEp FRom Ww3! Reee!

                    1. Did you even read what I write?
                      We don’t have all that much to fear from Iran in the context of a conventional war.
                      We do have a lot more to fear from Iran in the context of unrestricted asymmetric warfare.
                      Get it?

                    2. Do you even think about what you write? What evidence do you have that Iran isn’t and hasn’t already conducted terror acts?

                    3. Of course they do. Do you think that is all they are capable of doing?
                      Once again, 20 fanatics financed by a private millionaire was able to change world history. What do you think a state sponsor of terror with nothing to lose is willing to do?

                  5. Serious question. How old are you?

        2. What favor did Trump do us? Seriously? Unless I’m a military contractor, oil company executive, Israeli or Saudi politician, then what the fuck do I care.
          All this does is embroil us in the shit show that is SW Asia even further.
          If Trump really wants to do his country a favor, he’d ignore the neocons and liberal-interventionalists and extricate us from that part of the world like he said he would.

          1. I know. We should have continued letting run iran proxy attacks against it unchecked. I mean it was only a couple of thousand deaths in the region. Pish posh.

            1. Oh so killing this guy will stop the proxy attacks? I didn’t realize it was so simple. If only past administrations knew it was so simple we could have avoided all of the bloodshed and wasted capital.

              Jesse, YOUR A FUCKING GENIUS!

              1. Hey mr strawman, why did you say something fucking stupid again?

                So letting him live will also stop the attacks right Eric? I mean that’s as stupid as your strawman argument. Except your version was already happening and escalating. Dont be a Jeff Eric.

                Now back to the discussion.

                1. You can’t deflect this time Jesse. You’ve got nothing but shitty MOAR WAR solutions to peddle and you obviously can’t see beyond one chess move.
                  “Oh Joy! I captured my opponent’s bishop. I’m obviously kicking his ass at this game!”

                  1. Suleimani would be a queen if he were a chess piece, but the rest of your post is also shallow thinking stupidity

                    1. A queen? So he and Eric have something in common.

                    2. You don’t get it. This killing does nothing for this country if we don’t strategically change direction. At best, If we stay the same course in SW Asia then some other asshole will step in to Suleimani‘s role and continue attacking our interests in the region. At worst, Iran will respond in a way that escalates the stakes and forces an in-kind escalation from us. What’s the end game?

                    3. Shitty, that’s supposed to be between us you bitch!

                    4. Yeah. Paying off iran with billions of dollars stopped their expansion Eric it truly did maybe we should just cower on fear instead of responding to repeated attacks. You be youEric, a weak lil baby. ,

                    5. “This killing does nothing for this country if we don’t strategically change direction. At best, If we stay the same course in SW Asia then some other asshole will step in to Suleimani‘s role and continue attacking our interests in the region. At worst, Iran will respond in a way that escalates the stakes and forces an in-kind escalation from us. What’s the end game?”

                      Completely separate issues.
                      Killing Suleimani was a proportionate response to an act of war perpetrated against the US. Nations who don’t respond to such things invite more of them. As evidence, I present the way the US has dealt with Iran the past 15 years.
                      Leaving the middle east is a separate discussion. If it is the best interests of the US to leave, it’s a decision that must be made without consideration of any aggression received there.
                      The US will be hated by some no matter if we are present in the mid east or not. Hell, “death to America” has been the Iranian regime’s motto since long before the US had bases in the region.
                      Pulling out from Mogadishu was the correct move, but doing it in response to losing soldiers there all but convinced Bin Laden to hit the states in the 9/11 attacks.
                      The decision about US mid east presence has to come down to our geopolitical goals and strategic interests, considering such factors as what abandoning the Saudis (and petrodollar) and ceding the region to Chinese dominance will lead to.
                      Leaving may very well be the best move for Americans, but assuming do without analysis of all those factors is shallow and short sighted.
                      Leaving because we’re scared, on the other hand, will only invite more aggression.
                      If you want to avoid world war 3, you’d better think damn hard about unintended consequences

                  2. And you’ve got nothing but appeasement. Iran was in violation of JCPOA from day one and they were in violation of the NPT for years before that. But your answer is to just give them a little more lebensraum and blame their victims. I wonder, do you wear a tophat was well as Chamberlain did?

                    1. Appeasement worked well in the early 1930s. What could go wrong?

                    2. If Iran was even close to our borders or threatened any vital resource or critical ally your silly comparison would work. Instead you just sound like a neo-con and this ain’t Commentary magazine.

                    3. And yet you think that a war with Iran, which is a stretch to say the least, will become WWIII. You are shitting your pants about your son being drafted into the militariez!!!

                      What’s it like being one of the 10 remaining subscribers to Jacobin?

                  3. Deflect what? A strawman argument I didnt make? Dont be a baby jeffrey Eric.

                    1. That’s the best you got? If so then you’d better get LC in here to articulate your position for you Jesse.

                    2. Is that the best YOU have?

                      No offense man, but the only reason you stand out is because of how little you have to say. Do better. Come hard on the next one.

          2. See, Trump did us a favor because he struck down a Very Bad Man. I mean, who cares about the consequences or the ramifications or the long-term impact. Only librulz think about those silly things. We’re supposed to cheer and applaud as Uncle Sam behaves like Superman and defeats the evil Lex Luthors all over the world.

            1. “chemjeff radical individualist
              January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
              When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

              So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

            2. The only people not discussing possible consequences and long term ramifications are you and Eric, jeff.

              1. The only thing you care about is pwning the libs. Oh the irony.

                1. You realize everybody can see what’s written all up and down this page?

          3. Sounds great. So what do you do when your military or cia decides they want to fuck with you while you’re being impeached?

      2. How about, he was there to attend funerals for the Iraqi militiamen, and to deliver Iran’s response to Saudi Arabia’s outreach, which Trump himself had asked Mahdi to facilitate.

        That Democrats haven’t drawn up a new article of impeachment based on this very real high crime only proves they’re stupid, not that one wasn’t committed.

  5. Either find a living victim in Ted Bundy’s trunk right now or just leave the poor man alone.

    1. It’s like #WapoDeathNotices wasnt bad enough and all the dumbass naive “libertarians” and liberals (I repeat myself) here decided to tell wapo to hold their beer.

  6. You don’t have to trust the current administration at all to correctly conclude that Soleimani has been a terrorist for years now, and deserved to be killed multiple times over for things he did even before Trump came to power.

    Get your shit together Reason.

  7. Yeah, I don’t need intelligence agencies to verify what we already know. Soleimani and the whole IRCG are terrorist-backing scum. I bet you think him being in Aleppo was just a coincidence too.

    1. “What’s a leppo?”

  8. In general, American conservatives are skeptical about almost everything the government says, except when it wants to kill someone. Then they are in agreement.

    1. Well, unreason is against killing this guy and his pals that killed Americans, so it must be right.

    2. Be fair – that’s really the only time American Progressives are in agreement with Conservatives.

    3. Iran doesnt really hide what the Qud forces are dimwit.

  9. The Deep State that unreason supports is an enemy of this Republic.

    If Trump finally has a few intel persons on his side, then I give them some skeptical trust.

    unreason’s side is full of claims without any evidence. But they want us to believe them.

    1. No evidence?!? Anonymous sources bro. When have they ever been wrong?

  10. >>suddenly willing to parrot baseless claims …

    you were having Soleimani over for dinner or something?

  11. Should we have a healthy skepticism of the IC in this instance? Absolutely.
    Does it matter if there was an imminent threat? Absolutely not.

    There was more than enough American blood on his hands to warrant termination.

    1. I really find it funny that all of the media is focusing on this narrow question so they dont have to explain the embassy or base attacks.

      1. You know, ‘Square = Circle’ had a really novel way of spinning what happened. His/her take: Geez, we (meaning the US) were only going after the leader of that militia that attacked our embassy the day before. And gosh by golly, we are so sorry that general Soleimani was there (picture a head smack) in the car with him at the same time. A real tragedy. But since you mention it, what do you suppose he was doing there in the first place?

        It was brilliant.

        This guy Soleimani had American blood on his hands. No one disputes this. That POS deserved death, and he received terminal justice, courtesy of the US military. The Iranians can mourn his death; I will celebrate it. And also raise a glass and give silent thanks to those who participated in the mission to kill that POS.

        1. To be honest, I’d never heard of the guy before. Besides, how many generals does Iran have? I don’t fucking care – that was rhetorical.

          Nevertheless, somethings going on, but soleilmoonfrye is a red herring. Fuck his bloody hands – whatever it is going on has nothing to do with Iran’s general.

    2. ^ This.

    3. I’m not convinced that this will end well but this guy was obviously more of a threat than Bin Laden was when he was killed or Saddam when he was dragged out of the spider hole or when Qaddafi had a bayonet shoved up his ass. Terrorist is this guy’s job description so he’s a threat by definition.
      The argument seems to be about the term “imminent” so maybe Robby could give us an acceptable definition. Would it have to tomorrow? Next week? Within the next 30 days? Is there a minimum body count? Is one American contractor enough or are we talking World Trade Center level casualties? Could it be an isolated event or would it require multiple attacks. If we’re going to debate the point give us some criteria to work with.

  12. Trumpists Who Attacked the ‘Deep State’ Now Instinctively Trust U.S. Intelligence Agencies About the Soleimani Strike

    Nothing unusual there – plenty of commenters here that mistrust the government. Until its something they don’t like the government is ‘opposing’. And then its all ‘give them more power!’

    1. OTOH – there have been tons of Trump opposers who were certain that the intelligence community had the goods on Trump re: undue influence by the Russian government, the Ukrainian government, Epstein, piss dossier, etc.

      So those people who swore the Deep State didn’t exist and that Comey was a stand-up guy are now running around telling us how the IC *shouldn’t* be trusted.

      Shoe’s now on the other foot.

      1. Finally, if the intelligence community – the one that’s been cooperating with faking evidence in order to smear Trump to help the Democrats remove him from office – is on the same page as Trump in this situation . . .

      2. So those people who swore the Deep State didn’t exist and that Comey was a stand-up guy are now running around telling us how the IC *shouldn’t* be trusted.

        That would include the author of this very piece.

  13. Ooo… I’m typically critical of your “both sidesism” and “to be sures”, Robby, but this is a bad article. The guy was tied to many attacks on Americans and US facilities. The “Trumpists” as you choose to smear them probably don’t really care if there was or wasn’t intelligence that tied him to the most recent attack. And it has little to do with trusting the intelligence agencies. Disagree if you want, but the average response is bad-guy-go-boom=good.

  14. See the part you are missing is that it doesn’t matter what the IC says in this case. His crimes weren’t some secret that everyone has to trust the CIA on. People without TDS aren’t suddenly trusting the IC. The IC is just saying the bloody obvious.

    1. “imminent threat”

      1. You really should have pushed that when Obama was president. Then it might look like you actually cared about the definition of ‘imminent’ rather than just scoring partisan participation points.

        1. If you were sincerely criticizing attempts to score “partisan participation points” then you’d be criticizing about 90% of the posts in these comment forums.

          This comment forum has become a cesspool of right-wing virtue signaling and pro-Trump propaganda. But *I’m* the one who is in the wrong here. Oh sure.

          1. Did you order your Soleimani t-shirt yet or what?

            1. There we go. Taken straight from the Dubya War On Terrorism playbook. If you’re not on Team Trump, you’re on Team Terrorist!

              1. “chemjeff radical individualist
                January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
                When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

                So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

            2. Case in point

          2. Finally you say something correct. Yes you’re the wrong one here.

          3. Pedo Jeffy reveres terrorists and child molesters. He is the toast of Toronto.

          4. “chemjeff radical individualist
            January.7.2020 at 6:29 pm
            If you were sincerely criticizing attempts to score “partisan participation points” then you’d be criticizing about 90% of the posts in these comment forums.”

            ??? What principle says one can’t do X without doing all of X?

            This comment forum has become a cesspool of right-wing virtue signaling and pro-Trump propaganda

            So your insults there, by your own stated logic, mean they’re on the mark.

            Have a lovely evening.

          5. As opposed to your endless justification of anything and everything the left does. You revealed yourself to be an ends jusstify the means progressive a long time ago. I can understand why your natural censorious instincts hate it when your repeatedly shown up.

            1. I already got him to break down and admit he is a biased know nothing fuck before his break. He is back to pretending again.

              1. Link? Pretty plz?

          6. Just because you’re doing the left-wing signalling’ thing in opposition the the ‘right wing signalling’ doesn’t mean you’re not the wrong one here.

            1. Oh too funny. I”m not actually doing “left wing signaling”. I am calling out the right-wing insanity that rages around here. And for that I’m lumped in with the AOC crowd. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

              Do you not see how nuts this place has become? It is only a few short steps away from becoming a full-on MAGA cultist zone.

              If you think my comments are “left wing signaling” then you need to get out more.

              1. Funny how you never call out the left, which is Agammamon’s point (as well as mine and a dozen others). And your justification is literally no different than those supposed ‘right-wingers’ that you demonize (while weeping when anyone criticizes the left).

                1. Jeff is the only one who is ever right.
                  He’s not crazy.
                  It’s everyone else who is totes wrong and totes crazy!

                2. Gee, yet one more malicious comment from you about how I’m not pure enough. That is all you ever fucking do. It is tiresome and boring.

              2. I have seen how nuts this place has become. And you’re one of the nuts. You and these others just spend all day spitting at each other.

                1. I actually haven’t been around for the past few weeks. Holiday obligations and all.

                  In your honest opinion, what is the source of the insanity?

                  1. You.

                  2. In my honest opinion – just an increase in the popularity of Reason leading to an influx of new people with the older ones fading (or leaving because the magazine pissed on them). New people that are ‘libertarian-curious’ but not, in any way, libertarian. And those people keep insisting that *their* way is the right way and that libertarianism isn’t workable when it comes to their particular bugaboo. And every time one of them gets het up, it hets up another one and the bad blood just keeps collecting until certain posters just need to see the name of certain other posters and they get their hackles up and . . . here we are.

                    And then there are the usual handful of insane people you find on any political board.

          7. Hahahahaha, that’s a good one Jeff.

      2. Yes. we get it. You’re focused on a tiny point that honestly has no fucking bearing. The strike was legal whether an attack was imminent or not based on the attacks soleimani was already part of this year.

        But you do you dumbfuck Jeff.

      3. Okay.

        This was the Iranian general in charge of all Iranian overseas military operations. So unless you’re going to try to argue that it was unlikely Iran was going to back an attack on a US asset anywhere in the world ever again, you agree that this guy was going to be responsible for a future attack on the US.

        So the only argument on the imminence question left for you (or Soave, or anyone else talking about the propensity of intelligence agencies to lie) is that whatever Soleimani was arranging (in this case in person with the leader of the militia that just hit the US Embassy, since the strike took him out, too) wasn’t going to happen soon enough to meet whatever definition of “imminent” you prefer.

        And, of course, given what’s known in open sources about what was being said after the December 27th airstrikes, there of course was going to be all sorts of chatter in, around, and about the Iranian-backed militias concerning various possible operations against the US. So the only debate about whether there was “credible” intelligence about an imminent attack is how good the intelligence needs to be to be characterized as “credible”

        At which point, you (or Soave, or anyone else) are being nothing but an idiot, because neither “imminent” nor “credible” has any goddamned fixed definition.

        Seriously, you want to argue the attack was unwise, feel free; there’s huge scope for that. But this quibbling bullshit is self-discrediting dumbassery. You look stupid when you do it.

  15. “To be clear”….

    The War Powers Resolution of 1974 requires POTUS to notify Congress within 48 hours after committing US forces. Trump did that. It limits the time US forces can stay engaged to 60 days without an AUMF or a Congressional declaration of war. US military forces are not remaining engaged with Iranian forces.
    Iran started this nonsense. It doesn’t take anyone to “instinctively” trust the IC to understand that Iran is the biggest bad guy in the region, and Soleimani is one of the absolute worst perpetrators.
    It is just like the other progtard sources saying things like “Israel broke the cease fire with Hamas when it retaliated for missile strikes coming from Gaza”.
    This was a reaction to the shit he and Iran have been doing.

  16. I’m assuming the Democrats now being against the intelligence community in contradiction to previous positions article is next up?

  17. Did Robby lose a bet or something? This is just embarrassing.

    1. It really is a grasping at straws to perpetuate a narrative article.

      1. Too bad he voted those straws away.

  18. The correct order of operations here is to consult Congress before pursuing military action that could start a war with Iran. The Constitution gives Congress—not the president, and not the State Department—the sole authority to declare war.

    Nobody declared war on Iran.

    A broadly bipartisan Congress gave whoever is the president authority to kill people all over the Mideast/central Asia/Near East/Africa etc.

    You don’t need to trust anything coming out of the “Deep State” to justify droning those dead motherfuckers was well-deserved.

    All this criticism reeks of “well, it’s fine to kill the wogs but targeting gentlemen just isn’t sporting!”

  19. I was mean to Robby, and Reason censors my actual posts.

  20. “To be clear, the existence of a cabal of anti-Trumpist officials within the nation’s top law enforcement agencies was exaggerated by Trump’s defenders. That said, the FBI did, in fact, make grave errors in its investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, as demonstrated by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General’s report. The FBI violated the rights and privacy of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, considered evidence against Page the FBI knew to be misleading, and ignored sources that clashed with their preferred narrative of events.”
    The FBI committed multiple felonies top to bottom including Comey and Yates who signed off on fraudulent FISA warrants. But yeah, Trump’s defenders were exaggerating.

    1. “Trumpists Who Attacked the ‘Deep State’ Now Instinctively Trust U.S. Intelligence Agencies About the Soleimani Strike

      To be clear, the existence of a cabal of anti-Trumpist officials within the nation’s top law enforcement agencies was exaggerated by Trump’s defenders. ”

      #LibertariansForTheDeepStateCoup because Orange Man Bad!

      Yet another demonstration that Leftists Always Project. We’re not the ones shilling for the DeepState.

      I haven’t heard a “Trumpist” care whether there were more attacks coming that were anymore “imminent” than the conveyor belt of attacks from the Iranians. Most say, like Trump, that the US should have offed this guy years ago.

  21. The shit has just hit the fan. 50-60 missiles launched by Iran, some from Iranian soil, some ballistic, against multiple US targets. So far, all in Iraq, AFAIK.

    1. We’ll see what kind of damage they do.
      Hopefully, no American lives will be lost.
      My guess, at this point, is it’s a *mostly* symbolic attack to save face.
      I could be wrong.
      Iran can’t win tit-for-tat and can’t win escalation.
      The regime has to realize that, but if they don’t think they can survive their own people than all options are on the table.
      US talking points should really hammer home the fact that the Iranian regime puts all its resources into pursuit of nuclear weapons and foreign paramilitary operations, and the cost of such pursuits is a devastated economy for the Iranian people.

      What’s interesting, and not exactly relevant, is that Iran launched cruise and ballistic missiles into Iraq… and no one’s really talking about Iraq or conflict between the two.
      If killing an enemy combatant engaged in active hostilities is “escalation”, I wonder how the Ds will view Iran shooting missiles into Iraq

  22. So, the argument is that people that were skeptical of the entire Russia collusion nonsense now have a choice to make. Admit that the Soleimani strike was another intelligence community boondoggle, or admit that the the intelligence community never tried to frame Trump. The intelligence community is either a villain in every case, or beyond reproach in every case.

    What a stupid fucking argument, through and through.

    1. Yeah, I enjoy pointing out shifting with the wind like that, but this isn’t that case.

      The dude was the head of the Iranian covert military operation, terrorist organization, foreign military assistance… whatever you want to call it. They run a bunch of militia / terrorist organizations around the region. He’s in charge of that. That isn’t a secret. We say that’s his job. Iran says that’s his job. Iraq says that’s his job. Syria says that’s his job. Russia says that’s his job. Nobody says otherwise.

      He’s in Baghdad meeting with the #2 guy at Hezbollah who runs the largest Iranian supported militia in Iraq. One that has just carried out two attacks on US interests in the last couple of weeks.

      Trump’s strike took them both out with one bomb. So we know they were meeting. You know… because they were in the same car…. the one that doesn’t exist anymore. So… you know…. meeting.

      You don’t need any intelligence reports. That is the intelligence report. Anything more would be gravy, but that is the proof.

      1. But only people who can do math get that conclusion, and math is oppressive to the Robbys and chemjeffs of the world

      2. The intelligence report is the guy whispering in Trump’s ear, “if you don’t bomb this guy right now, he’s going to do something bad! Imminently!”

        We are supposed to ignore that guy, though, because Soleimani was a bad dude.

        1. Except cyto, myself, and many other have been making the argument multiple times over multiple threads that the “imminent attacks” are irrelevant to the strike on Suleimani, which was just retaliation for the militia attacks on US bases and the US embassy.

          Further, Suleimani was killed with the leader of Kataib Hezbollah and several other militia leaders. That’s pretty solid evidence that more attacks were being planned. Also as evidence the twice per week rocket attacks of the preceding months.
          Learn math

          1. the “imminent attacks” are irrelevant to the strike on Suleimani

            Then why did Pompeo use “imminent attacks” to try to justify the attack against Soleimani?

            Here’s what I think. The same incompetent/malicious dingleberries in the IC who lied us into a war in Iraq, also lied about the supposed “imminence” about any upcoming attack, and Pompeo was either in on it or just repeating their talking points like a monkey.

            But in THIS case, complaining about this is viewed as “TDS” because you AGREE with this particular result, unlike perhaps the Iraq war. The skepticism of the IC is gone because you like the result. That is my complaint here.

            1. Shut the fuck up already. Nobody agrees with you, left, right, or center.

            2. “Here’s what I think. The same incompetent/malicious dingleberries in the IC who lied us into a war in Iraq, also lied about the supposed “imminence” about any upcoming attack, and Pompeo was either in on it or just repeating their talking points like a monkey.”

              Then you’re ignoring all the available evidence other than the IC being untrustworthy.
              Again, learn math

              1. So because I don’t agree with you, I’m psychotic. That is what it boils down to, does it?

  23. Something that already happened cannot be considered imminent.

    “It goes to state of mind, Your Honor.”

    1. You forgot to consider the totality of the circumstances.

  24. NBC just broke in with a news report…. MORE ATTACKS ON US BASES!!!!! (OK, actually it was that the Iranian government said that those rockets were theirs. But nice way to spin the lede there, Lester.

    So, here’s what they said. They are the greatest and toughest and they have struck mightily against the United States because of their killing of Sulaiman. If the US does any more attacks, they will retaliate swiftly and with great might.

    I heard them loud and clear.

    “We’ve had enough… Here’s your olive branch. We lobbed a couple of rockets in the general direction of a base. We are declaring victory. ”

    I hope the White House is smart enough to hear them. They are suing for peace with that ineffectual strike. They just offered everyone a way out. Trump can now act magnanimous and begin talks behind the scenes for ending all of the Iranian problems. The Mullahs can pound their chests before their people. Win-win.

    Oh, except for Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff et al. Those guys are in a pickle. Because if Trump is smart enough to take this opportunity, now they’ll be forced to switch sides again and call him a puss for not attacking Iran. That should be interesting to watch.

    1. Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.

      1. That is one of the dumber talking points, repeated by the dumber folks on the left. WWIII. Holy crap, that’s stupid.

        Exactly who are they expecting to jump in on Iraq’s side? Russia? No. Not a chance. China? Nah… not happening. India? Pbbbbt. They’d be on our side, if anything.

        France, Germany, England? Ha-ha!! Yeah, no.

        North Korea? Maybe….

        World War Three. Please….. Such an idiotic take.

      2. “Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.”

        Are the walls closing in Pod? Is this the beginning of the end? Perhaps the tipping point?
        Will you ever grow a second brain cell?

      3. And the walls are closing in on Trump.

      4. Pod works for MSNBC, or is just brainwashed by them?

        1. oof. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. I took that as sarcasm. Nobody would have seriously posted that as a straight response, would they? I mean, nobody is that dumb… right?

          1. Poes law 32.

            Yes there is someone and there is porn of them.

      5. This is an amazingly stupid meme.

        The gist is that Iran is allied with Syria and Syria is allied with Russia, so an attack on Iran will inevitably drag Russian into direct conflict. But it ignores several things.

        1. We’ve already been killing people in Syria in an effort to remove the Russian backed Bashar government. While Russians have been right beside us killing people to support it. That’s a direct conflict right there that didn’t get either of us shooting at each other then.

        2. The wars my allies *start* are not my wars. Just because Syria might send support to Iran – and gets struck back at by the US – doesn’t mean Russia will get involved.

        3. Allies are absolutely known to just flat out ignore treaty obligations. Ask the Brits how useful their allies were during the Falkland’s War.

        1. Putin is very much “Russia first”
          Russia has nothing to gain from intervening on Iran’s behalf, and everything to lose if they were to do so in a kinetic way.
          The Russia+China+Iran alliance is one of short term convenience and long term discomfort. They all view themselves as alphas, and have competing interests.
          At the moment, those competing interests are outweighed by their converging interests, especially US/Western opposition.
          China has greater interests in Iran (oil and the One Belt One Road initiative primarily) but not nearly enough to engage in open, martial hostilities with the US and our market.
          Nobody is risking war against the US to keep the Iranian regime in power or protect their pursuit of nuclear weapons

      6. Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.

        Oh, don’t worry, Pelosi and Schumer lack the votes.

  25. Why must I believe anything any intelligence department doles out? In this case an embassy was attacked by proxies of Iran. This demanded a response, from sending pallets of cash to nuking the Iranian parliament building. Snuffing a terrorist general seemed about right so the button was pushed. I see little of value in any further speculation.

    1. In this case an embassy was attacked by proxies of Iran.

      We know this only because the IC figured it out. The same IC which employs people like Col. Vindman. That’s kind of the point here.

      1. “chemjeff radical individualist
        January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
        When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

        So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      2. Vindman figured it out. Got it.

        Just shut the fuck up already.

      3. Well, and all the graffiti with the dead fuckers name that was sprayed all over the embassy.

        1. How do you know that wasn’t a setup? Someone could have known he was in town on vacation and framed him.

          1. Hmmmmm credible, very credible.

            1. Look, I don’t believe it, but you can’t prove it’s not true, so, gotcha!

      4. We know this only because the IC figured it out.

        No, we know it because it’s obvious from the political situation in Iraq and Iran; we don’t need the IC to tell us that.

        The same IC which employs people like Col. Vindman.

        Getting facts right doesn’t mean that people like Col. Windbag get to call the shots on policy.

  26. Hitler, AOC, Mao, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Robby Soave all say words.

    Clearly they’re all the same!

    At least, per Robby’s logic in this article.

  27. ‘Libertarians’ who laughed at the notion of a deep state suddenly find it convenient to fight the power again.

  28. I just kind of took him and the rest of Iran at their words. I didn’t even know the IC said anything about it.

    1. Exactly.

      I’m so tired of even the smart people being so mind-numbingly dumb. Nobody pretended he was anything other than what we say he was. Nobody is claiming that he wasn’t in charge of the militia that attacked the US embassy and US base.

      I don’t know how they invented this “Imminent attack” requirement, but that’s dumb too.

      This is obviously a target of opportunity. Dude was meeting with the head of a militia that has been attacking our troops and now our embassy. Both guys are in the same place at the same time. How often does that happen? How long do you have to take advantage of that situation?

      1. “Nobody is claiming that he wasn’t in charge of the militia that attacked the US embassy and US base.”

        Little Jeffy is. But then again he’s the perfect balance of dumb and dishonest.

        1. No I’m not. Read above.

          1. Suddenly it’s inconvenient to believe the IC because that hurts the left and helps Trump, so you quickly discard all of your previous talking points and pretend like you’ve maintained some consistent skepticism all along. Let’s not forget that you’re the same guy who was perfectly fine accusing Trump of something because you thought he was *capable* of doing it. Now suddenly you demand extensive proof in triplicate that someone with a long history of killing thousands of people inside and outside of Iran could be planning additional attacks.

            Amazing how selective your character assessments are. It’s almost as if all that matters is the partisan narrative to justify your progressive policies.

            1. You mean, I think people in positions of power are *capable* of abusing their power? That I wouldn’t put it past Trump to abuse his power? That I wouldn’t put it past ANYONE IN A POSITION OF POWER to abuse their power? You are upset that I said that?

              I have been extremely consistent on this point. You Trump cultists have lost your fucking minds. For once, pretend that Trump isn’t going to be president some day, and craft a principled argument on that basis. I’m not going to give the president the benefit of the doubt. Any president. Are you?

              1. As usual you intentionally miss the point. Somehow you DON’T think an Iranian terrorist is capable of being a terrorist. You are always willing to give the left the benefit of the doubt. Every. Single. Time.

                You’ve also been remarkably credulous when it comes to accusations from the government as long as it concerns someone on the right. Hell, you were more than willing to believe all of the nonsense thrown at Kavanaugh because it fit your political needs.

                So, no, you haven’t been consistent about anything except that the left is always right.

                1. No, this is you projecting your bias onto me. You are stuck in team tribal mode.

                  Somehow you DON’T think an Iranian terrorist is capable of being a terrorist.

                  You completely made that up.

                  You’ve also been remarkably credulous when it comes to accusations from the government as long as it concerns someone on the right.

                  Like what? Be specific.

                  Hell, you were more than willing to believe all of the nonsense thrown at Kavanaugh because it fit your political needs.

                  I said that what Kavanaugh was accused of doing sounds believable. I never said I believed all of it. And this comes right back to holding accountable people in positions of power. People like Kavanaugh, and Trump, and Biden, and Obama, and Hillary, and all of them, should be investigated and scrutinized to within an inch of their lives. Because they are going to be wielding power over all of us, a great deal of power, and I think we’re entitled to have a full and complete background check on the assholes trying to take away our liberty all the time. Don’t you agree?

                2. You are always willing to give the left the benefit of the doubt. Every. Single. Time.

                  Nope. They can be crazy and wrong too sometimes.

                  There’s craziness on both the left and the right. But you know what? The right has gone batshit insane crazy. QAnon, Trump MAGA cultism, “pwning the libs”, paranoid fear of Mexicans stealing jerbs, now mainstream acceptance on the right of demographic replacement theory nonsense, it is just too much. Again the left has their crazies. I don’t at all agree with Antifa, or Green New Deal, or Medicare for All, or many of the nutty policy proposals. I don’t agree with the far left’s continual bashing of the rich and the billionaires. But I also think that there is less raw fear-based paranoia-based emoting than on the right. That’s just my perception of how I see things. Go ahead and argue with it all you want.

                  1. Shut the fuck up. Nobody is interested in your freshman year sophistry.

                    1. No, I won’t.

                  2. “That’s just my perception of how I see things.”

                    And again, that perception has little to do with reality.

          2. “chemjeff radical individualist
            January.7.2020 at 8:33 pm
            No I’m not.”

            So your not as dumb as you appear, or you act dumb on purpose as part of your dishonest shtick?

            1. You are just upset that someone comes along and interrupts your little right-wing circle jerk that you’ve turned the Reason comment boards into.

              1. Except I’m a libertarian. I know it makes it easier for you to assume everyone that thinks you’re dishonest is right wing though.

                1. Oh I’m a libertarian. And there’s plenty of dishonest right-wingers around.

                  So why are you a libertarian, R Mac?

                  1. Dude, if you honestly think I’m going to engage you’re mendacious ass trying to convince you I’m a libertarian then you’re dumber than I thought. Or more dishonest? That’s always the question with you, isn’t it?

                  2. What are you afraid of?

                    That you’re going to waste your time? Dude you are already wasting your time typing snarky responses to me.

                    Honestly I see too much of this from the right-wingers around here. All they have is critique, and very little in the way of a confident declaration of what they stand for. They’ll tell you all day how much they hate the left. But you’ll have a hard time finding anything from them of what they would like to see accomplished.

                    1. It’s a good trick, one that dishonest people frequently use. The argument begins that I’m lying, and I must prove my innocence.

                      The more honest way:

                      Other than our differences on open borders, and me calling you a liar all the time, what evidence do you have that I am not?

                    2. The argument begins that I’m lying, and I must prove my innocence.

                      But I didn’t do that. Once you corrected me, I accepted you at your word, and then asked WHY you are a libertarian.

                      Other than our differences on open borders, and me calling you a liar all the time, what evidence do you have that I am not?

                      I don’t. But to be honest I don’t know very much about what you stand for. Which is why I asked the question.

                      So why are you a libertarian? What motivates you to adopt this philosophy?

                    3. Poor guy, you can’t help yourself.

                    4. They stand against leftist concern trolls, like you, that haunt the comments pretending to be libertarians.

                      You are a universal subject of scorn because of the dumb shit you say. Yet, like a true autist, you pretend everyone else is crazy.

                      You’re the idiot here. The sooner you off yourself, the better.

                    5. How charming.

                    6. Yet you’re scared to ask me questions to challenge my libertarianism.

                      In the end you hide like a bitch.

                    7. *I’M* scared? You are the one refusing to engage in a constructive conversation on the matter.

                      I am personally less interested in specific policy positions and more interested in your personal motivation for why you call yourself a libertarian. I agree with Gillespie that libertarianism is more about a pre-political philosophy about how to treat others, and less about specific policy proposals. That is why I asked.

                      So why are you a libertarian?

                    8. Why are you?

                    9. Run away Little Jeffy.

              2. You’re just upset that not every libertarian believes in the big state like you and the Niskanen ‘liberatarians’ do.

                1. Well I”m not an anarchist, if that is what you mean.

                  I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m more of a moderate libertarian and not a fire-breathing SMASH THE STATE type.

                  Here’s what I think:
                  1. Social Security should be transitioned into a system in which, after a transitionary phase, the government should deposit a certain percentage of a person’s paycheck into a private retirement account chosen from a list of approved high-quality investments.
                  2. Medicare should be transitioned into a system in which, after a transitionary phase, the government should deposit a certain percentage of a person’s paycheck into a private HSA.
                  3. Defense spending should be cut in at least half.
                  4. All drugs should be legalized.
                  5. Schools should be privatized, and all school support should end at the federal level. If states want to experiment with voucher-type subsidies in order to reach a goal of universal education, then that’s fine with me. But no state ownership of schools. That includes higher education.

                  That’s just off the top of my head. Do these not qualify as libertarian enough? It is certainly far beyond anything that Team Red or Team Blue would propose.

                  1. 6. Jeff needs to get his fucking teeth knocked out.

                    1. So libertarian.

                    2. You’re manifesto is boring.

                  2. 1. Social Security should be transitioned into a system in which, after a transitionary phase, the government should deposit a certain percentage of a person’s paycheck into a private retirement account chosen from a list of approved high-quality investments.

                    Massive handout to investment houses and big corporations.

                    2. Medicare should be transitioned into a system in which, after a transitionary phase, the government should deposit a certain percentage of a person’s paycheck into a private HSA.

                    Again, massive handout to investment houses and big corporations.

                    3. Defense spending should be cut in at least half.
                    4. All drugs should be legalized.
                    5. Schools should be privatized, and all school support should end at the federal level.
                    Do these not qualify as libertarian enough?

                    No. They are just a grab bag of policy preferences (and ill-defined ones at that). Libertarianism isn’t about a checklist of policies.

                    Face it: you’re a progressive who happens to prefer slightly different policies from other progressives.

          3. chemjeff radical individualist
            January.7.2020 at 8:33 pm
            No I’m not. Read above.

            We have been.
            It’s why we say what we say to you

            1. You say what you say about me because you have a fantasy in your head about me killing dragons or some such. It is florid, but false.

              1. I do appreciate that the metaphor, which was inspired at the moment by conversation with you but is not about you exclusively, has a permanent home in your head.
                Might do you well to try looking at from a few different perspectives

                1. You argued against the imaginary SJW progressive caricature in your head. It is not my fault that you try to project that caricature onto everyone who disagrees with you. That is your problem. Maybe you should learn to deal with it.

  29. Here’s what Al Jazeera has on the matter:

    IRGC: Rockets in revenge of Soleimani killing
    Iran’s Revolutionary Guards confirmed it fired rockets at US forces in Iraq in revenge for the killing of Soleimani.

    Iran threatens ‘more crushing responses’ if fresh US attack: State TV
    Tehran has threatened “more crushing responses” if the US retaliates for Wednesday’s rocket attack, Iranian state TV said.

    So Iran’s official position is that if the US doesn’t attack them again, they are done. They spent a chunk of change on their big rockets, probably didn’t do much in the way of damage. They are claiming victory.

    Take the win, Don. Take the win.

  30. Even the Washington Post concedes that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. servicepersons, and thousands of innocents in Iran-supported terrorist attacks.

    I really can’t figure how this is any different that Obama’s strike on Ben Laden.

    1. Bin Laden did not have the resources of a large state with a military including advanced missiles, submarines, mines, Chinese anti ship missiles, a large army including special forces, proxies and allies all over the region… Iran has been preparing for this precise thing for decades. This is their back yard. I would not underestimate them.

      By the time we hit Bin Laden he was a has been.

      1. Iran can’t even keep its air force flying. All of its assets are vulnerable to strikes and its oil infrastructure is extremely vulnerable.

        1. The Air Force sucks. That is why they invested in missiles and smaller assets which are designed for the region. They have those fancy Russian antiaircraft things now also.

          And then what. Iran just goes away? Yippie we showed those towel heads. How many years we been chasing down those goat herders in caves? 18 years and we lost. Just won’t admit it yet. When did we declare mission accomplished in Iraq? That sure worked out well. Just one more surge in Vietnam and we got it.

          Yes we could do a lot more death and destruction then they can. That is what war is all about isn’t it?

          Personally I hate war. Let us hope we don’t have one.

          1. You’re assuming that we have to occupy Iran. Because that same simple-minded Manichean choice is all that the Niskanen libertarians have. The lesson of the Barbary pirates is more apt.

            Iraq was a shell after 91. Iran’s military that you so terrifies you is no more a threat than Iraq was in 91. Less, in fact. But you conveniently conflate the nation-building nonsense with the conflict that was over in days/weeks.

            Israel already demonstrated that F-35’s can penetrate all the way to Tehran at their pleasure. Those Silkworms and S-300/400’s are so much secondary explosions waiting to happen.

            Yes we could do a lot more death and destruction then they can. That is what war is all about isn’t it?

            No, war is about making the other guy give up. The amount of death and destruction required is highly variable. I don’t see us trying to remake any countries anytime soon, but punitive expeditions have worked well in the past and until human nature changes are going to work well into the indefinite future.

            1. To paraphrase Patton, war is about making other bastard die for his country.

            2. And to paraphrase Sherman “the only way to end a war is to make those who support the war suffer until they give up”.

              1. Yeah, the thing is – Sherman was wrong. We conclusively proved that in WW2 where ‘total war’ was the strategy of the day and it had negligible effect on the enemy’s ability to wage war.

          2. Yes we could do a lot more death and destruction then they can. That is what war is all about isn’t it?

            Well, there is the kind of “war” where they attack something we care about and we send back some missiles hitting their palaces and isolate them more and more economically: specific, limited retaliation that doesn’t put Americans at risk and has no other objective but to punish.

            There is the other kind of war where people go in and try to liberate the population, democratize it, and build up a nation.

            The first kind of “war” is what we should be engaging in. The second kind of war is the costly, pointless, and ineffective favorite of neocons and progressives and ultimately costs many more lives.

            1. Neocons, like Nazis, are just a subset of progressives

      2. Iraq had the sixth largest military in the world and the largest in the Arab world.

        And, frankly, all the ME armies are shit outside of the Israelis.

  31. Bin Laden wasn’t killed because he was an imminent threat, he was killed as retaliation for 9/11. An extrajudicial death sentence he fully deserved, if the intelligence is to believed. (Pace Alex Jones and whoever else might believe it was Bush or the Illuminati or the Federal Reserve or the Lizard People behind 9/11.)

    Why was Soleimani killed? As retaliation for all the American blood he had on his hands same as bin Laden? No, no! says the intelligence community, he was killed because he was an imminent threat to do something really terrible and nasty!

    You got any proof of that?

    Of course, but it’s a secret so we can’t tell you what it is.

    Hmmm…is this anything like the secret proof you had that Trump was a Russian agent?

    Well look, he was right there in Iraq with his terrorist buddies!

    Yes he was, and that was a good opportunity to squish some cockroaches, but why not just say you were squishing some cockroaches, why you gotta make up this shit about having proof that he’s planning something big?

    Well, because when we squish a cockroach, like we did with bin Laden, that’s the end of it. If we claim he had big plans, we can claim he was acting on the orders of his bosses in Tehran and we can gin up a war with Iran. Look, interfering with the election didn’t work, the Russia shit didn’t work, the Ukraine shit isn’t working, dragging Trump into another Middle Eastern war is just our latest scheme to fuck Trump over. He was warned we had six ways to Sunday and it’s only Tuesday. We’ll get the bastard sooner or later, one way or another. Hillary shan’t be denied her throne forever.

    1. No no no, Jerry. You have it all wrong. The IC told Trump that Soleimani was an “imminent threat” and because he was a Bad Guy, and Trump acted courageously and heroically (and not at all impetuously or impulsively), we are now to believe the IC and how dare you even begin with this false equivalence.

      Hating on the IC is only allowed if they are doing something sneaky against Trump. If they are drawing us further into a Mideast quagmire, in a way that makes Team Red look like chest-thumping flag-waving patriots, then HAIL TO THE SPOOKS, I say!

      1. But you are certain that same IC was 100% correct that Trump abused his power in Ukraine and #Russia was complicit with Trump in stealing the 2016 election.

        I mean, they were *capable* of it, right?

        The IC must be disbelieved if they support something someone on the right said!! STOP BEING SO MEAN TO TEAM BLUE!

        1. Do you ever get tired of this nonsense? Do you think that if you make up nonsense about me, that it becomes true?

        2. This fuckwad talks about the IC like it is literally a person, an individual, exhibiting some sort of hypocrisy.

          Jeff is concern troll. He should be abused and/or ignored. For good measure, he should be thrown down a flight of stairs. Gravity is neutral.

          1. Do you feel better after typing out your violent fantasies?

    2. I think you’re making this more complicated than it is.

      Trump had Soleimani killed both because of his past transgressions and because he probably had more terrorism planned.

      I don’t see this going to war. War only happens if you actually want to conquer a country; progressives and neocons like war. For punishing a country, the US has an endless supply of missiles without ever need to set foot in the place.

  32. Trumpists Who Attacked the ‘Deep State’ Now Instinctively Trust U.S. Intelligence Agencies About the Soleimani Strike Be skeptical of the spymasters.

    I don’t need to “trust our spymasters” to believe that killing Soleimani was justified, at least as far as any killing by government is every justified.

    Whether it was a good idea is a foreign policy issue, not a “spymaster” issue. I don’t know; time will tell.

  33. This is another one of those Illogical Ideas that Leftists come up with to bash Republicans and Trump. Everyone knows that Soleimani was a bad guy going to Iraq to organize attacks on Americans and anyone who was not in Iran’s corner. This has nothing to do with the Deep State and trusting Intelligence Agencies. For the US I hope Trump’s Gamble works out but we will have to wait and see. I think one thing it will do is show how truly impotent Iran is.

  34. “One of the only exciting things about Trump’s candidacy was that he condemned the Bush administration’s Iraq campaign and the disinformation that launched it. In 2008, Trump told CNN he thought Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) should pursue impeachment charges against Bush for ‘getting us into this horrible war by lying.”‘ Really??

    Trump’s decisions today aren’t wrong or right based on whatever he thought or said over a decade ago (when he wasn’t even in a position to have the data to evaluate). Too often we see articles going with this approach, but the use of this illogical reasoning cheapens what you write.

    1. Talk about a non sequitur. Whoever wrote this has the mind of a child. It’s a really bad look.

    2. In 2008 Trump was a registered Democrat.

  35. Good article. Thanks for posting it. Note to the editors … you might want to consider ending comments on your articles as it draws mostly anti-Libertarians as this thread indicates. That was the decision at Lew Rockwell and it was correct.

    1. Some people actually care about the truth.

    2. How very “libertarian”. Yes shut down those voices that aren’t in lockstep with the opinion of the author.

  36. Anyone promoting the this is WW3 is gaslighting.

    We can take out the majority if Iran’s military structure in a matter of days, if not hours. Iran then loses big time. They know this and will not do any real escalation.

  37. “”Trumpists Who Attacked the ‘Deep State’ Now Instinctively Trust U.S. Intelligence Agencies About the Soleimani Strike””

    You could also do an article on liberals that now think the IC is not trustworthy after defending them when they have something negative about Trump. You showed your hand with “Trumpists”.

    A real libertarian writing for a magazine would criticizes both sides for their willingness to defend or callout the IC only when it fits their own belief or not.

  38. So, worst case we got the right guy for the wrong reason. Well, I have to say, that’s a helluva lot better than normal for the government.

  39. Funny, intel proves correct, bomb kills terrorist target, and idiot writer tries to insult Trump supporters because they support what was proven to be true, without the need for hysteria or opinion.

    Ok, Reason is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.

  40. Pompeo: ” If you are looking for imminence, look no further than the days that led up to the strike.”
    Soave: Something that already happened cannot be considered imminent.

    Somethings had already happened: the killing of an American contractor, the beseiging of the US Embassy in Iraq by a pro-Iranian mob.
    Who was General Soleimani with when he and they were struck at Baghdad airport? Check list (or check off list):
    Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
    _ Major General Qasem Soleimani
    _ Brigadier General Hossein Pourjafari
    _ Colonel Shahroud Mozafarinia
    _ Major Hadi Taremi
    _ Captain Vahid Zamanian.
    Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) including Kata’ib Hezbollah:
    _ deputy chairman Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis,
    _ chief of protocol & PR Muhammed Reza al-Jaberi
    _ Mohammad al-Shibani
    _ Hassan Abdul Hadi
    _ Heydar Ali
    Hmm. Were they just swapping goat recipes, or discussing sports fishing in the Strait of Hormuz? Or, maybe, further attacks on the Great Satan?

    Wikipedia: Tehran residents told Reuters that police were out in force in the capital on 12 January, with dozens of protesters in Tehran chanting “They are lying that our enemy is America, our enemy is right here,” and scores of demonstrators gathered in other cities also shown on social media.[124]
    124. Parisa Hafesi, “‘Our enemy is here’: Iran protesters demand that leaders quit after plane downed”, Reuters, 11 Jan 2020.

    Maybe Robby oughta go to Tehran and tell the Iranian protesters they are wrong, their enemy is Trump and Trumpists.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.