They were saying that before they even got to the crash site/debri field...before an investigation even started
It is possible it was an engine I suppose. IF they shot it down it was probably an accident and we'll go along with an engine failure so they can save face. Odd timing for sure.
Okay, I'll grant that there's a significant difference between helping with the planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks on US soil vs. the I find it totally credible that it was a mechanical failure. As in, this airplane just happened to fly in front of a mechanical Iranian missile that they had launched while failing to notify the pilot that they were doing so. Mechanical failures like that really suck. EDIT: Oops. That first part was a response I started to write to Chris's post. Got sidetracked and forgot it had been saved as a draft. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was originally about this whole issue of "imminent threat" that is supposed to underlay a president's authority to use deadly military force without congressional approval. I wasn't trying to say that bin Laden wasn't a higher priority target. Obviously, the 911 attack made him rightfully the top of the list. To me, at least, it's less certain that the case for imminent threat in the decision to take him out was any more well defined than in Trump's decision on Soleimani. Bin Laden had been in hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sure, he was likely pulling strings on some awful stuff, but I don't think it was ever stated that there was another imminent 911-type attack in the works. That's basically the case with Soleimani too; it's just that he was in a visible role in Iran's military. Obama authorized drone strikes hundreds of times during his administration. I don't recall too much complaining about his authority by the Republicans. From my viewpoint, it seems like the issue needs to be revisited between the White House and Congress to be sure that guidelines are clear and an adequate case is made prior to obliterating people from the sky. I have no doubt that the world is a much better place without bin Laden or Soleimani, but we need to be able to present ourselves as a country that operates under the rule of law. We can't have partisan battles every time a decision is made to take an action like this, and we can't have loose canon decisions by the White House.
The Nation Exhales on Iran … For Now A tense and uncertain evening Tuesday was followed by a day of relief and relative calm on Wednesday, as the leaders of Iran and the United States seemed eager to step back from the conflict that had escalated over the preceding 12 days. After a series of Iranian attacks on U.S. military bases that caused no casualties and relatively little damage, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif declared that Iran had “concluded proportionate measures” in response to the killing of Qassem Suleimani. “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression,” Zarif tweeted. President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the White House, declaring that “no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime.” “We suffered no casualties,” Trump said. “All of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.” His conclusion: “Iran appears to be standing down.” Republicans were eager to declare it a conditional victory. “If the dust settles, and all we have at the end of it is we've taken the world's top terrorist mastermind off the battlefield and they've lobbed a few missiles into the desert and beat their chest for their domestic audience,” Rep. Mike Gallagher, Marine veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee tells The Dispatch, “It's hard for me to interpret this as anything other than a massive win for the Trump administration.” (You can read Declan’s full interview with Gallagher here.) As leaders of both nations welcomed this moment of de-escalation, they also made clear the pause was temporary. “They were slapped last night, but such military actions are not enough,” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned in speech from the holy city of Qom. “The corruptive presence of the U.S. in the West Asian region must be stopped.” Trump announced the immediate imposition of new sanctions meant to further weaken Iran’s struggling economy and twice promised that Iran would not become a nuclear power on his watch. “As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump declared in his first words up stepping to the microphone, before beginning his prepared remarks. He revisited the point moments later, promising Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons will “never” threaten the civilized world. Trump’s focus on Iran’s nuclear program isn’t new. In recent months, Trump administration national security officials have discussed possible nuclear-related targets if the Islamic Republic were to quickly accelerate its uranium enrichment efforts prohibited under the Iran Nuclear Deal. And Iranian leaders responded to the killing of Suleimani by declaring they would no longer abide by the enrichment limits of that deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). A regime statement read on Iranian state television declared: “Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no restrictions .... and based on its technical needs.” Several of those Trump listens to most closely on Iran matters—including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton—have been leading voices for aggressive measures to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. (So, too, was Trump’s former National Security Adviser, John Bolton.) Sources familiar with White House discussions on Iran tell The Dispatch that potential targets include the Fordow nuclear plant, a once-secret nuclear facility that began reintroducing uranium gas intro centrifuges in November. At War Over War Powers Such possible future attacks were the focus of a tense Iran briefing on Capitol Hill Wednesday, as lawmakers grilled representatives from the Trump administration on both policy and process related to the tensions with Iran. The briefing, which lasted an hour and 15 minutes, included CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper. The discussion focused on two main issues: the intelligence used to support the decision to kill Qassem Suleimani, and the role of Congress in authorizing current and future military operations. On the former, reactions to the briefing split largely—though not entirely—along party lines. Reliable Trump supporters like Rep. Mark Meadows and Sen. Marco Rubio offered enthusiastic and unqualified backing to the president. "The information that was shared was both compelling and decisive," said Meadows. "This was a clear and present danger for American interests and American individuals." Rubio agreed, tweeting: Marco Rubio@marcorubio Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question. Anyone who walks out & says they aren’t convinced action against #Soleimani was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does. January 8th 2020 3,617 Retweets10,130 Likes Sources familiar with the discussion tell The Dispatch that Senate Democrats were frustrated when Esper refused to answer questions about when the administration would consult Congress in the event of future military operations against Iran. According to a Republican staffer familiar with the discussion: “When Esper, who was at the briefing to discuss the disruption to Iran's chain of command, appropriately deferred to Assistant AG Steven Engel, Democrats made a show of repeatedly talking over the Department of Justice answer and claiming that Esper was refusing to answer questions.” But some Republicans were frustrated, too. Speaking to reporters afterward, Utah Senator Mike Lee said it was “probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.” He expanded on that conclusion in an interview with The Dispatch. “They just filibustered,” Lee said of the briefers. “We’d ask them questions and they didn’t really engage,” he added, imitating one of the exchanges. “Tell us about the imminent threat. It was really imminent. It was only days away from happening.” And: “Where? Somewhere in the region.” Sources described the briefers as “arrogant” and “too cool for school.” They seemed to regard briefing Congress as a choice—and a nuisance, according to sources in the room. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, pressed for answers on scenarios under which the administration would be sure to come to Congress for authorization of future military operations. Coons floated a hypothetical where the Trump administration determined that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was the regime’s greatest threat with Suleimani gone. After all, Khamenei made comments that the attacks Tuesday weren’t enough and has recommitted Iran to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. If you wanted to target Khamenei, Coons asked, surely you would come to Congress, right? The administration officials wouldn’t answer. The limited time allotted for the briefing meant that fewer than a dozen lawmakers had the opportunity to ask questions, leaving others frustrated. As the session was wrapping up, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Pompeo whether members could expect to have their questions answered at additional briefings in the coming days. Pompeo responded: “No.”
and this administration lies almost as much as trump does. Can;t believe anything that comes out of Washington these days, but we all know you worship the trump and are a much involved cult member.
You don't think it was shot down (even by accident)? You think that this passenger plane randomly had mechanical failure in the middle of a launch of missles?
and I doubt anyone in Portland would complain, besides, nobody is giving you a house in Portland so we are better off for that.
And the City of Portland’s endless sense of entitlement to the income of its’ residents is why I made a conscious choice to NOT live within Portland city limits. And why I choose to spend less and less time and money there. Life in general is dysfunctional enough without adding Portland’s senseless bullshit to the mix.....look what they’ve done to my town, Ma........
