Pentagon chief says he 'didn't see' intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack four US embassies

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm looking at this a little differently here --- I see it as the pentagon IS backing the President, as far as intelligence of further destruction to American lives -- both stating that they expected that Soleimani would go after embassies.

Trump reacted according to the intelligence he had -- not quite sure why he specifically stated 4 embassies -- I heard it, read it as well as everyone else.  Was the intel that the Pentagon gave Trump incorrect -- overstated -- or did Trump overstate what he was told? 

So far for me I am inclined based on this article and quoting the interviews of O'Brien and Espers, I believe the President acted on the intelligence he had. I believe he didn't want another Benghazi and prevented that from happening.  He put Iran on notice and that's a good thing. 

According to this report from CNN:

On CBS "Face the Nation" the Pentagon chief was asked whether there was intelligence to support Trump's claim.
"I didn't see one with regard to four embassies," Esper said. "What I'm saying is, I share the President's view that probably -- my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies."

---- further:

On "Fox News Sunday" O'Brien also struggled to reconcile Trump's words with intelligence made available to members of Congress.
He said the President's comment was "consistent with the intelligence to assume that they would have hit embassies in at least four countries."
"We knew that there were threats to American facilities -- now whether they were bases, embassies, you know, it's always hard until the attack happens," O'Brien said. [/u]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/donald-trump-iran-soleimani-iraq-schiff-democrats-intelligence/index.html

Exactly.  Trump may have overstated the details, but his fundamental point about the threat posed to U.S. military and civilian personnel overseas was correct, and fully justified killing Soleimani.

[libertybele]

Exactly.  Trump may have overstated the details, but his fundamental point about the threat posed to U.S. military and civilian personnel overseas was correct, and fully justified killing Soleimani.

Perhaps -- he specifically though stated "four" embassies.  Why four?  IMHO if he was making that up -- I would think that he would have said that he received intel that they were going after embassies.  Instead he stated "four".  I believe he was told that information from somewhere.

[skeeter]

Trump reacted according to the intelligence he had -- not quite sure why he specifically stated 4 embassies -- I heard it, read it as well as everyone else.  Was the intel that the Pentagon gave Trump incorrect -- overstated -- or did Trump overstate what he was told? 

Perhaps Trump's mistake was in revealing too much information which the Pentagon saw as jeopardizing sources & methods.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Perhaps -- he specifically though stated "four" embassies.  Why four?  IMHO if he was making that up -- I would think that he would have said that he received intel that they were going after embassies.  Instead he stated "four".  I believe he was told that information from somewhere.

As I said above in my response to Victoria, it may have been that he was told which embassies  they believed were most vulnerable -- perhaps he was told the four countries in which Iranian-supported militias were the strongest, etc..  But the assessment as to which would be the most likely embassies to be attacked isn't the same as saying they had specific intelligence that those four embassies would be attacked, so that's the discrepancy.

But again, I see that as being an immaterial detail when it comes to the justification for killing Soleimani.  They know he was planning/organizing attacks on U.S. assets in the region because that's what he does.  Everything else is just detail.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm looking at this a little differently here --- I see it as the pentagon IS backing the President, as far as intelligence of further destruction to American lives -- both stating that they expected that Soleimani would go after embassies.

Trump reacted according to the intelligence he had -- not quite sure why he specifically stated 4 embassies -- I heard it, read it as well as everyone else.  Was the intel that the Pentagon gave Trump incorrect -- overstated -- or did Trump overstate what he was told? 

So far for me I am inclined based on this article and quoting the interviews of O'Brien and Espers, I believe the President acted on the intelligence he had. I believe he didn't want another Benghazi and prevented that from happening.  He put Iran on notice and that's a good thing. 

According to this report from CNN:

On CBS "Face the Nation" the Pentagon chief was asked whether there was intelligence to support Trump's claim.
"I didn't see one with regard to four embassies," Esper said. "What I'm saying is, I share the President's view that probably -- my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies."

---- further:

On "Fox News Sunday" O'Brien also struggled to reconcile Trump's words with intelligence made available to members of Congress.
He said the President's comment was "consistent with the intelligence to assume that they would have hit embassies in at least four countries."
"We knew that there were threats to American facilities -- now whether they were bases, embassies, you know, it's always hard until the attack happens," O'Brien said. [/u]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/donald-trump-iran-soleimani-iraq-schiff-democrats-intelligence/index.html

The big deal seems to be an issue of what Congress has been told. Even at this late date, giving Congress the full picture might expose intelligence assets in the region who would promptly be found hanging from an upper bunk by a bed sheet (oops, sorry, wrong guy), who would be eliminated through the 'leakage' of facts which would pinpoint sources

If Congress (and you know who I am talking about) cannot be trusted with the operational details for fear of the target being tipped off, releasing information which might identify HOW his whereabouts and activities were known would also be an egregious error.  Just as  exposing leakers in the administration can be done by telling people different things and seeing what squirts out, the nature of intel received could identify its source.

Sometimes you can't tell people how you know what you know,  or even everything you know without putting important assets at risk.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Perhaps Trump's mistake was in revealing too much information which the Pentagon saw as jeopardizing sources & methods.

That's also very possible, especially if you look at some language in his actual statement:

"We will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Ingraham airing Friday night, adding when asked for more specifics, "I can reveal that I believe it would've been four embassies."

That "I can reveal" suggests that there was some sensitivity to talking about specific threats.

[skeeter]

That's also very possible, especially if you look at some language in his actual statement:

"We will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Ingraham airing Friday night, adding when asked for more specifics, "I can reveal that I believe it would've been four embassies."

That "I can reveal" suggests that there was some sensitivity to talking about specific threats.

Yep, IMO its obvious that rather than the 'he's lying again' meme it was more a matter of the Pentagon being uncomfortable with the level of detail in his statement.

[libertybele]

Yep, IMO its obvious that rather than the 'he's lying again' meme it was more a matter of the Pentagon being uncomfortable with the level of detail in his statement.

I believe you are absolutely correct.  I watched his speech the morning after with those in the Pentagon in attendance -- one to the right (on TV) seemed very ill at ease.  I don't think he was comfortable with all the press there and I for one was very glad that the President didn't take any questions.

Soleimani was silenced and the world is a better place.  People seem to keep forgetting he killed hundreds of Americans.  Intel was that he was planning more attacks.  Bottom line = President Donald Trump saved lives.

I say stop with all the 'semantics' here and give this President some credit.

[jafo2010]

The MSM have their heads in their posterior.  The Democommies are traitors on their best day and obviously would side with the devil over our POTUS.

Soleimani should have had a kill on sight order 24/7.  Trump needed no further reason than the man's past aggressions against Americans to remove this evil murderous peaceful muslim.

Finally, the Defense Secretary is a lummox.  He could have handled himself better rather than allowing the media to manipulate him.  FIRE THE FOOL!

[Hoodat]

This is bad.  I knew it.  Something wasn't right.

What part of "Death to America" are you not getting?  The only two things that matter to me is Soleimani's involvement with the Beirut barracks bombing and the Khobar Towers bombing.  For either of those, he should have been taken out a very long time ago.  Now (thanks to Trump), we are seeing open rebellion in Tehran for the first time since 2009.  The difference now is that the US President is siding with those demonstrating against the Iranian government instead of betraying those demonstrators.

[TomSea]

    Dan Crenshaw
    @DanCrenshawTX
    But he agreed with POTUS assessment it could be embassies.

    Here’s how this works: Officials receive intel & make assessments. CIA, DNI, Joint Chiefs agreed the intel was very clear & it’d be more dangerous to not act. Keep that in mind amid Dem and media efforts to discredit it.

        The New York Times
        @nytimes
         Â· 9h
        Breaking News: Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he didn't see any specific evidence that Iran had planned to attack 4 American embassies, as President Trump had claimed was justification for the strike that sent the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war
        https://nyti.ms/35KMCpi[/size]

   

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1216459249062240257

Sorry if this was posted twice.

[libertybele]

I find it disturbing that this President received intel (semantics aside here) and acted on it, saved AMERICAN lives and is criticized.  Yet, the VP of the U.S. contacts the leaders of the House while she was at some sort of social gathering and tells him she'll call him back, yet she gets the pat on the back for trying to curb him from doing what he was fully authorized and in fact bound by the Constitution to do -- to protect!

Hello...anyone see what's wrong with this picture??

[XenaLee]

I find it disturbing that this President received intel (semantics aside here) and acted on it, saved AMERICAN lives and is criticized.  Yet, the VP of the U.S. contacts the leaders of the House while she was at some sort of social gathering and tells him she'll call him back, yet she gets the pat on the back for trying to curb him from doing what he was fully authorized and in fact bound by the Constitution to do -- to protect!

Hello...anyone see what's wrong with this picture??

The Democrats are evil.   They are doing what evil always does... turning good to into bad, and right into wrong.  They've been turning these tables for decades, but only recently (since Trump's election), have they been so glaringly obvious about it.   But anyone paying attention to politics knows that truth is always "optional" and vastly over-rated with the rats.   Agenda (leftist agenda) is all that matters... and that equates to getting and keeping POWER.

They've been lying for decades to the American public.  Remember Al Gore saying everything that's up should be down and vice versa?   It was projecting and prophecy for the end results of the DemocRats' rule.   The ONLY thing that saved America from that Venezuela-like ("Carter-like") stagnation is the fact that the GOP held power in Congress.  A blast from the past... if you can stomach it....

At around 1:06


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

The Democrats have been taking America's enemies' side for decades.   I recall posting comparisons back in the early days of the internet between what the Democrats were saying and what CPUSA was saying.   It matched.   Every time.

[Smokin Joe]

I find it disturbing that this President received intel (semantics aside here) and acted on it, saved AMERICAN lives and is criticized.  Yet, the VP of the U.S. contacts the leaders of the House while she was at some sort of social gathering and tells him she'll call him back, yet she gets the pat on the back for trying to curb him from doing what he was fully authorized and in fact bound by the Constitution to do -- to protect!

Hello...anyone see what's wrong with this picture??

Not just anything, but everything.

[jafo2010]

Maj Bill Martin...
I'd rather have someone who says the wrong things but does the right things, than someone who says the right things but does the wrong things.  10 times out of 10.

Trump is not a professional politician, and doesn't measure and craft his words the way a professional politicians does.  As a result, he often says stupid things because he so often speaks off the cuff.  In this case, it's a definitional issue of whether an attack is "imminent".  My guess is that he got briefed on Soleimani's general plan to attack embassies, asked which ones were more likely to be attacked, and was given four or so.  So he messes up and says there was specific intel that four embassies were going to be attacked.  Technically, that's not what he was told, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to the merits of the decision.  Was Soleimani a direct threat?  Yes.  Was he advocating/organizing/sponsoring likely attack on multiple U.S. embassies in the region?  Yes.  The rest is irrelevant detail in terms of the justification for the attack.

I agree 100%.  Trump is not a polished politician, nor does he believe he needs to be.  That is one of the reasons he will win overwhelmingly in November.

Judge the man by his actions, and not what comes from his pie hole.

And for those of you counting his lies....GET F(*&ing real.  The entire time Obama was POTUS, every person I knew, including many Democrats said if his lips were moving he was lying.  We tuned him out just like Trump. 

Trump took out one of the most dangerous people in the world.  It was not done to generate a war, but just the opposite.  And if that causes the Iranian people to rise up and remove their murderous leadership, one more great thing Trump has accomplished that presidents since and including Carter have been INCOMPETENT to affect.

[XenaLee]

What part of "Death to America" are you not getting?  The only two things that matter to me is Soleimani's involvement with the Beirut barracks bombing and the Khobar Towers bombing.  For either of those, he should have been taken out a very long time ago.  Now (thanks to Trump), we are seeing open rebellion in Tehran for the first time since 2009.  The difference now is that the US President is siding with those demonstrating against the Iranian government instead of betraying those demonstrators.

Well.... to be completely accurate and fair...  some of that rebellion is due to the idiots shooting down the Ukrainian plane with many Iranians on board.   But since the idiot left is blaming Trump for that (along with everything else in the universe, just like they did GWB)... yeah.  I suppose you could give Trump credit for that too.