Trump has floated assassination of Soleimani since 2017, according to reports that deal a blow to his claims otherwise

The Trump administration’s argument that it killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani to stop an “imminent” attack on Americans was just dealt another blow.

A pair of news reports claim that a) President Donald Trump was thinking about killing Soleimani as far back as spring 2017, and b) he went as far as authorizing a strike on Soleimani last June.

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that Trump had “floated the possibility” of killing Soleimani in spring 2017, after Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen fired a missile at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital, just hours before Trump arrived in the country. Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, however, reportedly advised against it, and no action was taken. (Mattis declined a request for comment.)

And on Monday, NBC News reported that Trump had authorized a strike on Soleimani in June 2019, but with conditions. Iran had just shot down a US military drone, and top aides like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton pushed the president to take out the Iranian general in response. Trump authorized the hit with one important caveat: that action would come only if Iran killed an American.

That red line was crossed in late December, when an Iranian-backed militia killed a US contractor in Iraq. Trump officially signed off on the Soleimani operation after current Defense Secretary Mark Esper detailed his options — with the Pentagon chief making clear that he favored killing the general.

If true, these reports cast serious doubt on the administration’s claim that Soleimani was planning an “imminent” attack and killing him was the only way to stop it from happening.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Trump administration’s argument that it killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani to stop an “imminent” attack on Americans was just dealt another blow.

A pair of news reports claim that a) President Donald Trump was thinking about killing Soleimani as far back as spring 2017, and b) he went as far as authorizing a strike on Soleimani last June.

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that Trump had “floated the possibility” of killing Soleimani in spring 2017, after Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen fired a missile at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital, just hours before Trump arrived in the country. Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, however, reportedly advised against it, and no action was taken. (Mattis declined a request for comment.)

And on Monday, NBC News reported that Trump had authorized a strike on Soleimani in June 2019, but with conditions. Iran had just shot down a US military drone, and top aides like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton pushed the president to take out the Iranian general in response. Trump authorized the hit with one important caveat: that action would come only if Iran killed an American.

That red line was crossed in late December, when an Iranian-backed militia killed a US contractor in Iraq. Trump officially signed off on the Soleimani operation after current Defense Secretary Mark Esper detailed his options — with the Pentagon chief making clear that he favored killing the general.

If true, these reports cast serious doubt on the administration’s claim that Soleimani was planning an “imminent” attack and killing him was the only way to stop it from happening.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/13/21063527/trump-iran-soleimani-kill-wapo-nbc-news

So similar to finding out that Bush really wanted to invade Iraq since at least 1999 -- it's a bit creepy.

Maddog wrote:The guy's job was to kill Americans and it's allies.

Ben Reilly wrote:Keeping someone on your radar is a bit different from nuking them from orbit...

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Keeping someone on your radar is a bit different from nuking them from orbit...

He was targeted in a foreign country after he organized the killing of an American and an attack on our embassy.

nicko wrote: "no attack on American Embassies" ?

nicko wrote: "no attack on American Embassies" ?

50 USC 1541, et seq., as amended. wrote:(a)  Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b)  Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c)  Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief;  limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Thorin wrote:So Trump did something new and now Iranians are demanding the fall of the Theocratic regime. No Third world war has started and Iran even worse took down a jet liner. The cracks are opening up

Again Trump had balls to act off a number of warnings. The Iranians refused to take heed and rightfully paid the consequence

Democrats Politicians would have instead dropped their trousers and offered their arsehole to be fist fucked again by the Iranian regime

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/11/protesters-call-supreme-leader-resign-iran-finally-admits-downing-airliner-12042404/

Maddog wrote:

Thorin wrote:So Trump did something new and now Iranians are demanding the fall of the Theocratic regime. No Third world war has started and Iran even worse took down a jet liner. The cracks are opening up

Again Trump had balls to act off a number of warnings. The Iranians refused to take heed and rightfully paid the consequence

Democrats Politicians would have instead dropped their trousers and offered their arsehole to be fist fucked again by the Iranian regime

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/11/protesters-call-supreme-leader-resign-iran-finally-admits-downing-airliner-12042404/

Trump really didn't do anything new. He killed an Iraqi General who was actively engaged in trying to or succeeding in  killing Americans and American allies. It's not like he bombed this general in his own country. American forces are there to keep the peace in Iraq. While I think they should be gone, if they are there, anyone starting shit in Iraq, is fair game in that country. Especially foreign generals.

phil wrote:Iran is suffering under sanction. From what I understand the Iranians have placed a leash on their militia groups. As they want take the heat off to get sanctions lifted.