Liar, liar, Trump's pants are on fire....again

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper says he didn't see specific evidence Iran was plotting to strike 4 US embassies

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said he "didn't see" specific evidence that Soleimani was planning attacks on four US embassies, as President Donald Trump has claimed.

Trump made the "four embassies" claim as he was experiencing increasing pressure from Democratic and Republican congressional lawmakers who have pressed for further evidence into the administration's thinking behind the attack.

Esper said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that he "didn't see" specific evidence that Soleimani was planning attacks on four US embassies, as Trump told Fox News in an interview Friday.
image The muddled message on Sunday by Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other administration officials only added to the public debate around the strike that killed Iran’s most important general.


  • It's important for the Secretary to deny--to deny anything that may have implications as to the source and methods of intelligence. Suppose he had said that he disagrees with Trump; that there are real intelligence sources; etc.

    That would give hint to Iran and its proxies to go after any and all possible sources and moles hidden in the governments, in the embassies, in other countries and within the deepest government of Iran. Who knows? That would include government spying on people and their family and associates; torturing anybody who may have any advance knowledge; etc.

    No, the best way to handle such extremely sensitive matter is to deny. In doing so, it does not give any hint about anything--one way or another. There will be appropriate time in the future to disclose such information.

    For now, it's sufficient that President Trump has said what he said--about the 4 embassies. But he should not go beyond that. His officials should not go beyond that. It's being handled right. Some people in the government don't like that because they want to leak to Iran or others.
  • you are covering up a big lie by Trump with your dream assessment, this is something that is not ture told by the president and his administration. if Trump would have been smarter, this war wouldn't have taken place and hundreds of innocent lives would have been spares..
  • Many of us remember how Republican president George W. Bush invaded Iraq on a lie about Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction." There were no WMD's.

    Now Republican president Trump is lying to justify attacking Iran.

    But this time, the American people are seeing the lie for what it is.

    Even Trump's own Secretary of Defense knows he is lying. How pathetic is that?
  • FM, George Bush relied on faulty intelligence. Trump understands the value of good intelligence. For this reason, he is being careful not to say anything that might give a hint--even the tiniest as to the possible human and other sources the US relies on. I am not an American but I would suggest that you should give President Trump the benefit of a doubt regarding his need to withhold information that might lead to expose sources and methods. Many good spies, developed over the years, have been exposed and killed because somebody leaked information that led to their demise. A great country cannot operated without a great network of super secretive and sensitive intelligence source.
  • FM, with all due respect, I haven't bothered to view the video because the discussion is between you and me; not Seth and me. You can explain, from Seth's video, what it is that you want me to know or "enjoy". But I've seen too many people with different opinion; so I won't bother viewing Seth's video.
  • Suit yourself, marc. Seth makes some astute observations that might widen your perspective...if you are open-minded enough to view the video, that is.

    My own perspective is that one Republican president used faulty intelligence to lead America into a disastrous war in Iraq. Now another one is doing the same with Iran.

    As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
  • FM, I know you're smart and an intellect but I think you are pushing a faulty logic. The two matters you are trying to compare are not the same; the only thing that is similar is the two Presidents are Republicans. You're are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    Remember that in the case of President Bush, the intelligence was determined by the US government as credible. Even Sec of State Powell went to the UN to present it. Republicans and Democrat Congressmen and women supported Bush's going to war. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all others supported it. That is why the Congress approved the President going to war in Iraq.

    In the case of Trump, the US Government officials, even way back during Obama Administration had already established a file for Soleimani; and had determined that he needed to be removed; or somehow remove him from pushing the proxy war strategies in the Middle east.

    Prior to his being droned, it was already established that he had direct links to over 600 Americans killed in Iraq; and thousands more injured by IED's because of Soleimani's strategy. He had ordered bombing of 2 oil tanks at Hermuz. He had hands in his proxy's missiles that killed an American soldier and several oil field workers. He is linked to the attack that destroyed the US Embassy in Iraq that could have been like Benghazi--if Trump did not act.

    He was arriving in Iraq with the head of the Iraqi-based terrorist group which is directly linked to Soleimani. He was so confident in himself that he openly went to Iraq--to plan for more attack and to show support to the terrorists who had damaged the US embassy a couple of days earlier.

    If Trump says that Soleimani was planning additional attacks on US Embassies in 4 different locations, that was his belief; and he ordered the military to drone him and his Iraq-based puppet. Why are you so mad about Trump and not Soleimani? Yes, it's not good to kill people but that also should apply to Soleimani.
  • We love how liberal forgot their own hypocrisy when it comes to Trump. Clear and present danger is policy US Presidents have used to pre-emptively assassinate or kill terror leaders who pose a ongoing threat to American civilians and security.

    Obama ordered 500 assassinations or drone strikes like the one Trump ordered to kill Soleimani, Not one single Democrat cried a tear. Trump killed one terror leader who was responsible for 700 Americans killed and DEMOCRATS cried for the terrorist. Hypocrites.

  • Human right watch:Obama’s covert assassination war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush

    There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

    Obama embraced the US drone programme, overseeing more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries, according to reports logged by the Bureau.

    The use of drones aligned with Obama’s ambition to keep up the war against al Qaeda while extricating the US military from intractable, costly ground wars in the Middle East and Asia. But the targeted killing programme has drawn much criticism.

    The Obama administration has insisted that drone strikes are so “exceptionally surgical and precise” that they pluck off terror suspects while not putting “innocent men, women and children in danger”. This claim has been contested by numerous human rights groups, however, and the Bureau’s figures on civilian casualties also demonstrate that this is often not the case.

    The White House released long-awaited figures last July on the number of people killed in drone strikes between January 2009 and the end of 2015, an announcement which insiders said was a direct response to pressure from the Bureau and other organisations that collect data. However the US’s estimate of the number of civilians killed – between 64 and 116 – contrasted strongly with the number recorded by the Bureau, which at 380 to 801 was six times higher.

    That figure does not include deaths in active battlefields including Afghanistan – where US air attacks have shot up since Obama withdrew the majority of his troops at the end of 2014. The country has since come under frequent US bombardment, in an unreported war that saw 1,337 weapons dropped last year alone – a 40% rise on 2015.

    Afghan civilian casualties have been high, with the United Nations (UN) reporting at least 85 deaths in 2016. The Bureau recorded 65 to 105 civilian deaths during this period. We did not start collecting data on Afghanistan until 2015.

    Pakistan was the hub of drone operations during Obama’s first term. The pace of attacks had accelerated in the second half of 2008 at the end of Bush’s term, after four years pocked by occasional strikes. However in the year after taking office, Obama ordered more drone strikes than Bush did during his entire presidency. The 54 strikes in 2009 all took place in Pakistan.
  • edited January 15
    Liberals filled Hatred and full hypocrisy have no moral compass nor any points on this subject. And from what we are getting the US intelligence agencies are refusing to provide intel to Congress because they fear leaks in Congress. They fear Democrats leaking US secret informations to our enemies.

Sign In or Register to comment.