The Iraqi Prime Minister claims Soleimani wasn’t going to launch the “Big Attack,” but instead was on a peace mission. Having followed Soleimani’s reign of terror for the past ten years, we don’t see that as believable — at all.
The far-left NY Times leaked selected portions of the intelligence briefings about the Soleimani termination. The leaks side with Iran. It will embolden the extremists in the terror nation and is nothing more than Iranian propaganda.
According to the ANONYMOUS sources:
Two alleged sources — who claim to have had intel briefings about the strike that killed Terror-General Soleimani — leaked selected portions of the briefings to the extreme left New York Times. The information comes via an MSNBC/NBC correspondent, Rukmini Callimahi, who claims the evidence for the strike was “razor-thin.”
Keep in mind that they just arranged an attack on our embassy and Soleimani was brazenly strolling around the Baghdad airport.
We should add that these sources could be the people in charge of shredding documents. What are they officials of???
Rukmini writes on Twitter:
The evidence, the sources claim, comes from three facts. The first is a pattern of travel showing Soleimani was in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to meet with Shia proxies known to take the offensive against the U.S. The source claims it was merely “business as usual.”
To interject here, business, as usual, is doing things like planting IEDs, funding proxies to kill U.S. military, and firebombing our embassy, killing an American contractor and wounding soldiers.
Rukmini continues with the second:
The second was” information indicating Soleimani sought the Supreme Leader’s approval for an operation. He was told to come to Tehran for consultation and further guidance, suggesting the operation was a big deal.” The Times correspondent says, “that could be anything.”
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
What the Times report leaves out is the information about the “Big Attack.” These sources are definitely holding key information back.
And the third:
The third was Iran’s “increasingly bellicose position towards American interests in Iraq, including the attack that killed a U.S. contractor and the recent protest outside the American embassy.”
Iran has been escalating, and they are working on their nuclear and plutonium programs.
One source said:
According to Rukmini — “it is hardly evidence of an imminent attack on American interests that could kill hundreds, as the White House has since claimed. The official describes the reading of the intelligence as an illogical leap.”
The correspondent continued:
One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the “far out option.”
They are partisans, probably Obama holdovers, who would say it was “chaotic” no matter what. As far as ‘far-out,’ this operation was flawless and was obviously well-thought-out.
According to Callimachi, the President chose a more moderate approach until the embassy attack. She added, “According to the official, the strike on Suleimani was pulled together so quickly that initially, the US was not sure PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was in the convoy. He was also killed and is also viewed as an Iranian proxy.”
The administration was afraid Soleimani’s forces would kidnap. and execute American citizens or attack American diplomatic and military outposts not just in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, and as far afield as UAE and Bahrain. The source is concerned for American troops stationed in Iraq, some of whom are co-located with Shia militias.
The source is concerned for our troops now, but not because Soleimani’s forces set our embassy on fire???
THE HACK SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT KILLED SOLEIMANI AS A DISTRACTION
In conclusion, the NY Times’ hack suggested that Trump targeted Soleimani to distract from impeachment. That is disgusting and absurd. It’s the line anti-American Ilhan Omar keeps repeating. Callimachi wrote, “Before I go back to the pool, let me just say the obvious: No one’s trying to downplay Soleimani’s crimes [but she is]. The question is, why now? His whereabouts have been known before. His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret. Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga.”
So she admits he’s a criminal and he always wants to kill-by-proxy. Okay, then.
RICK GRENELL RESPONDS
Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, tweeted that the report is filled with assumptions, which it is. In fact, if you read the Twitter thread, it sounds like the sources do not have first-hand knowledge and might have after-the-fact information.
Iran is also saying now that they won’t follow any of the terms of the 2015 nuke deal, but they weren’t anyway. Ben Rhodes is spreading Iran’s propaganda. He also implies the cash they received from Obama was used for good when even John Kerry admitted some of it would be used for terrorism.
The only thing the nuke deal did was allow Iran to get the bomb but to do it a bit more gradually.
This thread is filled with massive (and erroneous) assumptions. This reporter has a clear agenda. She should be labeled an opinion columnist. It’s important to know who/what you are reading….. https://t.co/GvC9reSQPz
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 4, 2020
And to imply that Iran was acting normally after your cash deal also defies the facts. Soleimani led attacks in Iraq, Syria and the region. We are safer without him. Diplomats are alive because POTUS acted.
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 5, 2020
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the Sunday morning shows and Sunday Morning Futures. One thing he did say is “endless wars are the direct result of weakness.” Judging from all the wars Barack Obama was involved in, that could be true.
Here are his comments to Maria Bartiromo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxMR25pE0y4
wpDiscuz
