Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #972

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #968

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #967

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #966

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #964

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #962

---

Und auch das, was ihnen nach dem vorstehenden immer noch nicht klar ist, habe ich ausfuehrlich beantwortet. Lesen und begreifen muessen sie selbst. [/blau]

---

Um es besser zu verstehen, deshalb habe ich meine Frage zweigeteilt und präzisiert. Ich sehe ein, dass meine zweite Frage leicht nach Verarschung klingt, war aber gar nicht meine Absicht, sondern eine Variante, die Trump durchaus zutrauen würde. Genau wie diese Variante, dass gezeigt werden sollte, dass iranische Raketen auch ohne aktive Luftabwehr keine ernsthafte Bedrohung darstellen.

---

Ich zitiere aus meinem Posting #957:

"...Bei dem Raketenangriff auf die Basen im Irak als Reaktion auf das amerikanische Attentat:
Die Luftabwehreinheiten waren vorher abgezogen bzw. zum "stand down" befohlen worden. Alle wussten was da kam und warum.

Die Iraner hatten es vorher avisiert, weil auch sie sicherstellen wollten, dass niemand zu Schaden kam. ..."

---

Sorry! Damit niemand zu Schaden kommen soll, wird der Luftabwehr befohlen abzuziehen bzw. ein "stand down" angeordnet?
Wer oder was hätte denn Schaden nehmen können, wenn die US-Luftabwehr zum Einsatz gekommen wäre? In Israel wird andauernd die Luftabwehr eingesetzt, mir ist nicht bekannt, dass dadurch Schäden entstehen, die ohne die Einsätze hätten vermieden werden können.

---

Mann, sind sie schwer von Begriff.
1. Die Iraner wollten nicht das jemand zu Schaden kommt, denn das haette eine weitere Easkalation zur Folge gehabt. Trumski war diesbezueglich im Zugzwang. Wenn man weiss, was wann wo kommt, dann kann man auch aus der Gefahrenzone und zumindest in die Bunker gehen.
2. Die wollten aber dass die Raketen auch einschlagen. Fuer Propagandaeffekt. Ein Raketenintercept haette aber den Schlag neutralisiiert oder zumindest abgeschwaecht.
3. Jeder war damit einverstanden und so wurde es gemacht. Alle waren damit zufrieden.
4. Ohne den versehendlichen Abschuss der ukrainischen Linienmaschine war das Thema damit -erst einmal- vom Tisch.
5. Israel ist nicht das Mass aller Dinge. Und ist auch was ganz anderes.

---

Vieles leuchtet mir vollkommen ein, anderes weniger. Aber welche Botschaft bleibt hängen? Für mich die, dass es Trump tatsächlich gelungen ist, mit dem Iran eine abgestimmte Vorgehensweise umzusetzen: Mit der "alle zufrieden" sind. Schau mal einer an!

---

British ambassador Robert Macaire arrested in Iran accused of inciting protests
Tasnim News Agency reports that the 53-year-old diplomat was arrested for several hours accused of inciting protesters at Amir Akabir University
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news...acaire-21262966

More than a dozen Saudi servicemen to be expelled from US after review of December shooting at Naval Air Station
More than a dozen Saudi servicemen training at US military installations will be expelled from the United States after a review that followed the deadly shooting last month at a Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, multiple sources told CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/...-base-shooting/

Mother Of Marine Claimed Son Told Her Fox News Plays On Every TV On Base, Not Allowed To Change The Channel
After multiple reports emerged recently showing Donald Trump’s popularity among members of the military falling precipitously, it was only a matter of time before we found out that someone would take drastic measures to try and remedy that situation.

Usually something like that comes in the form of a directive from the top that makes its way down through the ranks, and this appears to be no different — ailing support for the Commander in Chief could cause massive morale issues among not just the rank and file, but officers and even top brass, as each level of the military has its own reason for the way they feel about the President, from lying about being the first to give them a raise in decades to ignoring actionable intelligence or information counter to Trump policies.

So what could, say, a general friendly to the President do to fix Trump’s battered image among soldiers and officers? Well, he could make sure that they’re not exposed to any more information that would further taint their perceptions of Trump — and that means no real reporting on anything bad about the President.

And if you want nothing but good news about Donald Trump, there’s only one station you can turn to: Fox News.
https://politicaltribune.org/mother-of-m...ge-the-channel/

Trump reportedly told associates he killed Qassem Soleimani because he was under pressure from GOP senators before his impeachment trial
President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who'll play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

In a lengthy piece detailing how the president's top advisers coalesced behind the strike on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, The Journal reported that Trump had told associates he felt pressured to satisfy senators who were pushing for stronger US action against Soleimani and who will run defense for him on impeachment.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-co...D3kSqpeMnpdadAM

The Mystery of the Trump Chaos Trades, Iran/Mar-a-Lago Edition
Back in July, when I first wrote about suspicious trading in a futures contract tied to the performance of the S&P 500 index, there was nary a peep. Maybe everyone was at the beach? Then, in October, I wrote a second story about the trading in these same futures contracts, known as e-minis, and about how it sure seemed like some people who were placing the bets on them at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange were benefitting from exquisite timing, (or something more nefarious) putting themselves in a position to reap millions of dollars in profit, assuming they sold when their future contracts were in the money. ...

Then came the U.S. drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani at around 1 a.m. local time in Baghdad on Friday, January 3. That was around 5 p.m. in Washington. It took the Pentagon another five hours or so—just before 10 p.m.—before it released its official statement telling the world that Soleimani had been killed. E-minis stop trading on the CME atabout 4 p.m. New York time (3 p.m. Chicago time) each day. There is then an hour of what’s known as aftermarket trading. Then there is a one-hour break in trading. Night trading in E-minis begins at 6 p.m. New York time, hours before the Pentagon made its official announcement about Soleimani’s killing. For the first two and a half hours of the night trading on January 2, the volume in the E-mini market was around 1,000 contracts every 10 minutes, according to the trading records from that night made available to me. Nothing particularly remarkable.

But then, around 8:30 p.m. ET, or still some 90 minutes before the Pentagon made its announcement, trading picked up considerably. The S&P 500 index was then at 3260. Suddenly, a trader or group of traders—but most likely not a single trade or trader—began making big bets that the S&P index would fall by selling the March 2020 E-mini futures contract. At 8:30 p.m. ET, 2,250 E-mini contracts were sold; at 8:40 p.m. ET, 5,790 E-mini contracts were sold; 10 minutes later, 7,113 E-mini contracts were sold. In sum, in the 70 minutes between 8:30 p.m. ET and 9:40 p.m. ET, 76,000 E-mini contracts were sold. By then, the S&P 500 index had dropped to 3236. After the attack was announced, the S&P 500 index dropped to 3206, a drop of around 50 points. A 50-point drop in the index generates a profit of $2,500 per contract, assuming those contracts were sold short, which in this case they were. 76,000 contracts sold short, at a gain of around $2,500 per contract, equals some $190 million in profit—on paper anyway—for whomever, or group of whomevers, was clever enough or lucky enough or informed enough about the impending bombshell news out of the Pentagon that the important Iranian leader had been killed. “Did someone or a group foresee the execution of top general of Iran?” an E-mini trader wondered in an email sent to me the other day. “…When volume goes from 1,000 every 10 minutes and jumps to as high as almost 17,000 in 10 minutes, something is going on.” ...

... Dean Baker, an economist and the cofounder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, tweeted that it was “very interesting” that Lockheed Martin’s stock went up 2% on January 2. “Looks like a lot of people should go to jail,” he wrote. Bill Corbett, who describes himself on Twitter as an “unapologetic Masshole,” tweeted that it wasn’t just Lockheed’s stock that went up either. He noted that the stocks of General Dynamics, Boeing, and Raytheon—big defense contractors all—also “began to spike” after the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s party and before the killing. Jonathan Alter, the MSNBC regular and author, tweeted “If the SEC hasn’t been totally politicized (a big If), it shouldn’t be hard to match the Mar-a-Lago guests who heard Trump say to expect something big and their investments.” ...

... After the Soleimani killing, I heard from Fergus Herries, who works in Hong Kong in financial-sector public relations. Like Baker and Corbett, he noticed the unusual trading in the stocks of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin in the hours before the drone strike in Baghdad and wondered why their stocks began to “surge” an hour before the hit. “If it is insider trading it would be fairly gobsmacking,” he wrote, “not to mention brazen, and while the implications of your previous [V.F.] article are egregious, behaviour like this involving assassination and the prospect of armed conflict is on another level altogether.” ...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/...4muuA3Szsht1eyU

Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran, feel less safe after strike: POLL
In a week dominated by increased tension with Iran and speculation over when impeachment articles would be delivered to the U.S. Senate, a majority of Americans said they disapprove of President Trump's handling of the situation with Iran and feel less safe, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority...ory?id=68219819

Überblick in Grafiken - Irans Kämpfernetzwerk

Im Kräftemessen mit den USA setzt Iran auf seine Armee - und auf ein Netzwerk von Schattenkriegern in vielen Staaten des Nahen Ostens. Wie das Regime aufgestellt ist, zeigt der Grafiküberblick.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/i...ce-8a1a49d37a72

Comical Ali II

Iran weist Vorwurf der Vertuschung zurück

Ein Sprecher der Regierung in Teheran sagt, Iran habe nicht gelogen, um den Abschuss des ukrainischen Flugzeugs bei Teheran zu verschleiern. Auch der Präsident habe erst nach zwei Tagen die Fakten erfahren.

Iran hat bestritten, die Fakten zum Abschuss eines ukrainischen Passagierflugzeugs vertuscht zu haben. „Der Regierung wurden Vertuschung und Lügen vorgeworfen, aber dies war wirklich nicht der Fall“, sagte Regierungssprecher Ali Rabiei am Montag.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausl...k-16578750.html

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #984

---

Comical Ali II

Iran weist Vorwurf der Vertuschung zurück

Ein Sprecher der Regierung in Teheran sagt, Iran habe nicht gelogen, um den Abschuss des ukrainischen Flugzeugs bei Teheran zu verschleiern. Auch der Präsident habe erst nach zwei Tagen die Fakten erfahren.

Iran hat bestritten, die Fakten zum Abschuss eines ukrainischen Passagierflugzeugs vertuscht zu haben. „Der Regierung wurden Vertuschung und Lügen vorgeworfen, aber dies war wirklich nicht der Fall“, sagte Regierungssprecher Ali Rabiei am Montag.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausl...k-16578750.html

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #985

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #984

---

Comical Ali II

Iran weist Vorwurf der Vertuschung zurück

Ein Sprecher der Regierung in Teheran sagt, Iran habe nicht gelogen, um den Abschuss des ukrainischen Flugzeugs bei Teheran zu verschleiern. Auch der Präsident habe erst nach zwei Tagen die Fakten erfahren.

Iran hat bestritten, die Fakten zum Abschuss eines ukrainischen Passagierflugzeugs vertuscht zu haben. „Der Regierung wurden Vertuschung und Lügen vorgeworfen, aber dies war wirklich nicht der Fall“, sagte Regierungssprecher Ali Rabiei am Montag.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausl...k-16578750.html

---

Der iranische Präsident kann sich ja nicht um alle Peanuts kümmern...

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #984

---

Comical Ali II

Iran weist Vorwurf der Vertuschung zurück

Ein Sprecher der Regierung in Teheran sagt, Iran habe nicht gelogen, um den Abschuss des ukrainischen Flugzeugs bei Teheran zu verschleiern. Auch der Präsident habe erst nach zwei Tagen die Fakten erfahren.

Iran hat bestritten, die Fakten zum Abschuss eines ukrainischen Passagierflugzeugs vertuscht zu haben. „Der Regierung wurden Vertuschung und Lügen vorgeworfen, aber dies war wirklich nicht der Fall“, sagte Regierungssprecher Ali Rabiei am Montag.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausl...k-16578750.html

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #983

---

Überblick in Grafiken - Irans Kämpfernetzwerk

Im Kräftemessen mit den USA setzt Iran auf seine Armee - und auf ein Netzwerk von Schattenkriegern in vielen Staaten des Nahen Ostens. Wie das Regime aufgestellt ist, zeigt der Grafiküberblick.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/i...ce-8a1a49d37a72

---

Zitat von nahal im Beitrag #987

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #984

---

Comical Ali II

Iran weist Vorwurf der Vertuschung zurück

Ein Sprecher der Regierung in Teheran sagt, Iran habe nicht gelogen, um den Abschuss des ukrainischen Flugzeugs bei Teheran zu verschleiern. Auch der Präsident habe erst nach zwei Tagen die Fakten erfahren.

Iran hat bestritten, die Fakten zum Abschuss eines ukrainischen Passagierflugzeugs vertuscht zu haben. „Der Regierung wurden Vertuschung und Lügen vorgeworfen, aber dies war wirklich nicht der Fall“, sagte Regierungssprecher Ali Rabiei am Montag.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausl...k-16578750.html

---

Die "Regierung" hätte nur bei den Revolutionsbrigaden anrufen müssen:
-Habt Ihr eine Rakete abgeschossen?
-Ach so, 2 sogar..
-Und, haben die zwei etwas getroffen, Inschallah?
- Nein??? SHIIIIT. Sicherlich ein Trick der Zionisten.

---

Zitat von ghassan im Beitrag #989

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #983

---

Überblick in Grafiken - Irans Kämpfernetzwerk

Im Kräftemessen mit den USA setzt Iran auf seine Armee - und auf ein Netzwerk von Schattenkriegern in vielen Staaten des Nahen Ostens. Wie das Regime aufgestellt ist, zeigt der Grafiküberblick.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/i...ce-8a1a49d37a72

---

Der Einzige der sich wirklich über den Tod des Generals freut, ist der IS-Führer
Man hätte vielleicht als Ausgleich auch den Kopf der Gegenseite abschlagen sollen.

---

Brian Klaas@brianklaas
After years of Trump, the British Defence Secretary is openly saying that the UK needs to re-think its foreign policy strategy that relies on the US because it's not as dependable any longer.
This is America's most powerful ally. Predictable. Depressing.
6:54 AM · Jan 13, 2020

Ben Wallace interview: We can’t rely on US
The defence secretary says it is important for Britain’s armed forces to ‘diversify’ in the Trump era, while online encryption presents a host of new threats
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben-w...on-us-pmwcgv398


The UK is abandoning its alliance with Trump as the United States 'withdraws from its leadership around the world'
President Donald Trump's order to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani has triggered a major rupture between the US and its historically closest ally, the UK.

In remarkably outspoken comments, UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in an interview published Sunday that Trump's isolationist foreign-policy stance had prompted the UK to look for alternative allies.
"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," he told The Sunday Times.

He added: "The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be."
The comments came after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government distanced itself from the attack that killed Soleimani, with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab labeling it a "dangerous escalation" that risked a conflict in which "terrorists would be the only winners."

A spokesman for Johnson was also quick to condemn Trump's threats to target Iranian cultural sites, if carried out, as a breach of international law and possibly a war crime.
The UK is now openly threatening to tear up its long-standing defense partnership with the US. ...

Wallace said the UK would need to reduce its dependence on US military assets.
"We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets," he said. "We need to diversify our assets."

Wallace told the paper that the UK would increasingly need to turn to other allies that more closely shared the UK's interests. ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-aband...buffer-politics

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #992

---

Brian Klaas@brianklaas
After years of Trump, the British Defence Secretary is openly saying that the UK needs to re-think its foreign policy strategy that relies on the US because it's not as dependable any longer.
This is America's most powerful ally. Predictable. Depressing.
6:54 AM · Jan 13, 2020

Ben Wallace interview: We can’t rely on US
The defence secretary says it is important for Britain’s armed forces to ‘diversify’ in the Trump era, while online encryption presents a host of new threats
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben-w...on-us-pmwcgv398


The UK is abandoning its alliance with Trump as the United States 'withdraws from its leadership around the world'
President Donald Trump's order to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani has triggered a major rupture between the US and its historically closest ally, the UK.

In remarkably outspoken comments, UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in an interview published Sunday that Trump's isolationist foreign-policy stance had prompted the UK to look for alternative allies.
"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," he told The Sunday Times.

He added: "The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be."
The comments came after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government distanced itself from the attack that killed Soleimani, with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab labeling it a "dangerous escalation" that risked a conflict in which "terrorists would be the only winners."

A spokesman for Johnson was also quick to condemn Trump's threats to target Iranian cultural sites, if carried out, as a breach of international law and possibly a war crime.
The UK is now openly threatening to tear up its long-standing defense partnership with the US. ...

Wallace said the UK would need to reduce its dependence on US military assets.
"We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets," he said. "We need to diversify our assets."

Wallace told the paper that the UK would increasingly need to turn to other allies that more closely shared the UK's interests. ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-aband...buffer-politics

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #993

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #992

---

Brian Klaas@brianklaas
After years of Trump, the British Defence Secretary is openly saying that the UK needs to re-think its foreign policy strategy that relies on the US because it's not as dependable any longer.
This is America's most powerful ally. Predictable. Depressing.
6:54 AM · Jan 13, 2020

Ben Wallace interview: We can’t rely on US
The defence secretary says it is important for Britain’s armed forces to ‘diversify’ in the Trump era, while online encryption presents a host of new threats
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben-w...on-us-pmwcgv398


The UK is abandoning its alliance with Trump as the United States 'withdraws from its leadership around the world'
President Donald Trump's order to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani has triggered a major rupture between the US and its historically closest ally, the UK.

In remarkably outspoken comments, UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in an interview published Sunday that Trump's isolationist foreign-policy stance had prompted the UK to look for alternative allies.
"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," he told The Sunday Times.

He added: "The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be."
The comments came after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government distanced itself from the attack that killed Soleimani, with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab labeling it a "dangerous escalation" that risked a conflict in which "terrorists would be the only winners."

A spokesman for Johnson was also quick to condemn Trump's threats to target Iranian cultural sites, if carried out, as a breach of international law and possibly a war crime.
The UK is now openly threatening to tear up its long-standing defense partnership with the US. ...

Wallace said the UK would need to reduce its dependence on US military assets.
"We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets," he said. "We need to diversify our assets."

Wallace told the paper that the UK would increasingly need to turn to other allies that more closely shared the UK's interests. ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-aband...buffer-politics

---

Na, das sind doch mal bemerkenswerte Neuigkeiten aus GB. An welche alternativen Alliierte B. Johnson und sein Verteidigungsminister da wohl im Stillen denken mögen? Any clou?

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #994

---

Klar. Europa in erster Linie. Und dann Canada und andere.
Das wahre Problem ist jedoch, dass die Tories ihr Militaer -aehnlich wie auch Deutschland- finanziell ausgeblutet haben. Und das jede Verbesserung der Verhaeltnisse -aehnlich wie auch in Deutschland- in erster Linie erhebliche Mehrausgaben bedeutet. Also im Falle von UK kraeftige Schuldenaufnahme.
Vom Brexit sind keine Mehreinnahmen zu erwarten, sondern genau das Gegenteil. Man hat sich also einen "double whammy" wie man hier sagt aufgehalst.

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #995

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #994

---

Klar. Europa in erster Linie. Und dann Canada und andere.
Das wahre Problem ist jedoch, dass die Tories ihr Militaer -aehnlich wie auch Deutschland- finanziell ausgeblutet haben. Und das jede Verbesserung der Verhaeltnisse -aehnlich wie auch in Deutschland- in erster Linie erhebliche Mehrausgaben bedeutet. Also im Falle von UK kraeftige Schuldenaufnahme.
Vom Brexit sind keine Mehreinnahmen zu erwarten, sondern genau das Gegenteil. Man hat sich also einen "double whammy" wie man hier sagt aufgehalst.

---

Bisher driftete GB von Europa weg, nun gibt es einen Anlass bzw. die Notwendigkeit sich der EU wieder anzunähern. Das muss kein Schaden sein. Und, ja da entstehen erhebliche Kosten, die vielleicht im Rahmen der "Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsunion" aufgebracht werden könnten.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A...teidigungsunion

Trumps Politik zwingt die Europäer sich wieder mehr anzunähern, anzugleichen und abzustimmen, um nicht in der Bedeutungslosigkeit zu versinken -

---

Zitat von mbockstette im Beitrag #991

---

Haben Sie bei ihrer Rechnung nicht noch eine Person übersehen, Ghassan?

---

Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from 'imminent' threat to deterrence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday that killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was part of a larger strategy of deterrence, a shift from the Trump administration's previous rationale that the strike was carried out to prevent an "imminent" attack.

Barr's comments were particularly noteworthy as he attempted to push back on criticism over the administration's claim that Soleimani was planning attacks that posed an imminent threat, calling the concept "something of a red herring."
"I believe there was intelligence of imminent attack, but I do believe that concept of imminence is something of a red herring," he said during a press conference on last month's deadly shooting at a Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. ...

... Trump administration officials have issued confusing explanations, contradicting each other about how imminent a threat the Iranian general posed, whether they had specific intelligence on the threat and even what that threat was, with Trump saying one thing, then another, while officials offered varying explanations.
Immediately after the strike, Pompeo told CNN Soleimani had been involved in planning an "imminent attack" in the region that put American lives at risk, adding that the US made an intelligence-based assessment that killing Soleimani would save Americans.
The Pentagon, however, offered a slightly different account, saying in a statement that the strike was carried out to deter future attacks against US interests. ...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/...MxZP75A_77cT0eg

Luegner bei der Arbeit.

Scientists Are Trying to Figure Out Why People Are OK with Trump’s Endless Supply of Lies
Researchers have answers—and they don’t bode well for democracy
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/trum...hfC056AO2Z9lzEU

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Out Trump’s Lies on Iran
President Donald Trump brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran by ordering the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the second most powerful figure in Iran. After Soleimani and four others were killed in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad International Airport Friday, Trump, offering no evidence, alleged that Soleimani was orchestrating imminent attacks on American personnel. We should be skeptical when Trump, or any leader, invokes secret “intelligence” to justify their violent actions. Perhaps no one knows this better than Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2002 to 2005. He witnessed, and participated in, the effort by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others to promote lies to justify the disastrous, illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. ...

... Among the similarities that Wilkerson sees between the lies that led to war in 2003 and today are Trump surrogates appearing on TV or, now, Twitter, lying to the public. Vice President Mike Pence tweeted after the assassination that Soleimani “assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.”

“Pence’s words are laughable,” Wilkerson said on “Democracy Now!” “Soleimani and his entourage were actually helping us in Afghanistan in 2001, early 2002, to fight the Taliban. We got indispensable help from Iran in that regard.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been one of the most vocal and omnipresent defenders of Trump’s assassination of Soleimani. “We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump, [Defense Secretary] Esper, Lindsey Graham [and] Tom Cotton [are] doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now … to continue this war complex.” Wilkerson said. “That’s the truth of it. And that’s the agony of it.”

Col. Wilkerson is not the only Republican critical of Trump’s actions. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee spoke to the press Wednesday, reacting to what he said was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue.” He called the briefing “absolutely insane,” and described how the briefers discouraged a debate on Iran in Congress: “I don’t care whether they’re with the CIA, with the Department of Defense or otherwise to come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional and it’s wrong.”

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who has witnessed the war-makers behind closed doors, firsthand, is not optimistic about the prospects for peace: “Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a few days ago, is alive and well,” he concluded on “Democracy Now!” “America exists today to make war.”
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/9/co...SN0mNEzSqeVZFwE