The idea that Trump "did" this is insane.
Broken.
Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
-
Deleted User 89
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
did what?
spoke out of his ass before having all the facts?
spoke out of his ass before having all the facts?
-
Deleted User 295
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Nobody (other than our military officials) has ALL the facts about the severity of the injuries to the soldiers...each side spinning to fit their narrative.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:05 pm did what?
spoke out of his ass before having all the facts?
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
And that's who told Trump that there were no casualties.
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
-
Deleted User 289
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
How do you guys know for sure / for a "fact" what the "military officials" told Trump?
You don't.
Bottom line is you are (blindly?) defending a chronic liar.
The "fact" that Donald Trump is minimizing the injuries (to save his ass?) is shameful.
As is/are most things Trump does - and doesn't do.
Carry on....
You don't.
Bottom line is you are (blindly?) defending a chronic liar.
The "fact" that Donald Trump is minimizing the injuries (to save his ass?) is shameful.
As is/are most things Trump does - and doesn't do.
Carry on....
-
Deleted User 295
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics ... index.htmlGrandma wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:38 pm How do you guys know for sure / for a "fact" what the "military officials" told Trump?
You don't.
Bottom line is you are (blindly?) defending a chronic liar.
The "fact" that Donald Trump is minimizing the injuries (to save his ass?) is shameful.
As is/are most things Trump does - and doesn't do.
Carry on....
(CNN)Several US service members wereinjured during last week's Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad airbase in Iraq despite the Pentagon initially saying that no casualties were suffered.
"While no U.S. service members were killed in the Jan. 8 Iranian attack on Al Asad Air base, several were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed," the US-led military coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria said in a statement Thursday.
"Out of an abundance of caution, service members were transported from Al Asad Air Base, Iraq to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany for follow-on screening. When deemed fit for duty, the service members are expected to return to Iraq following screening," the statement added.
A US military official told CNN that 11 service members had been injured in the attack, which was first reported by Defense One. Following the attack, the Pentagon had initially said that no casualties had resulted from the 16 missiles fired by Iran. The US military defines a casualty as either an injury or fatality involving personnel.
Asked about the apparent discrepancy, a Defense official told CNN, "That was the commander's assessment at the time. Symptoms emerged days after the fact, and they were treated out of an abundance of caution."
After this story published, Capt. Bill Urban -- the spokesperson for US Central Command, which oversees troops in the Middle East -- said the military had learned after the attack that 11 individuals were injured -- eight were transported to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany and three were sent to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait for "follow-on screening."
"As a standard procedure, all personnel in the vicinity of a blast are screened for traumatic brain injury, and if deemed appropriate are transported to a higher level of care," Urban said in a statement. "All soldiers in the immediate blast area were screened and assessed per standard procedure, according to the Defense Department. ... When deemed fit for duty, the service members are expected to return to Iraq following screening."
-
Deleted User 289
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Hearsay?
Like most of the people who have posted on this thread, I have also heard and read "the Pentagon" told Trump there were no injuries. It's probably true - but it's also possible it's false.
Perhaps they told Trump were no injuries - and there were known injuries?
Perhaps they told Trump there were injuries - but to state there were no injuries?
I don't know for sure, neither do any of us.
After speaking to and working with multiple people who have had prominent roles in the White House and our federal government, I have concluded that it would be wise for me NOT to completely trust anyone or anything involving our federal government.
Like most of the people who have posted on this thread, I have also heard and read "the Pentagon" told Trump there were no injuries. It's probably true - but it's also possible it's false.
Perhaps they told Trump were no injuries - and there were known injuries?
Perhaps they told Trump there were injuries - but to state there were no injuries?
I don't know for sure, neither do any of us.
After speaking to and working with multiple people who have had prominent roles in the White House and our federal government, I have concluded that it would be wise for me NOT to completely trust anyone or anything involving our federal government.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
I dont think that I have been "rushing to defend him". I do believe killing QS was the correct move.Feral wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:20 pm Like anyone in his position would, Trump wanted to cast himself in the best possible light in the aftermath of an attack on Americans by another country. So, he minimized the damage. But in this case, Trump had additional motivation to do so, because he had provoked the attack. So, after a scathing news cycle Trump did what has always worked for him, he made up an alternative reality, claimed to know something he didn't, and lied. Then, when his ruse fell apart, instead of being contrite and saying something to the effect of, "Traumatic brain injuries don't always manifest quickly but nonetheless we're going to make sure that every one of our service people get the best care possible yada, yada...", again, he did what has always worked for him, and he created yet another alternative reality by minimizing the potentially severe effects of TBI by conflating it with "headaches", and said, "No, I don't consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I've seen,". And now, the Veterans of Foreign Wars is expecting an apology.
All of that, to absolutely no one's surprise. No one's.
What is a "surprise" though, is not that Trump serially deceived us in order to make himself look good, it's that otherwise decent people like TDub and DC ignore the obvious, and rush to his defense.
#sad
I do think that by not knowing, or not admitting the injuries after the retaliation potentially prevented a rushed emotional reponse and an escalation in the conflict. This is probably the preferred result right?
Just Ledoux it
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
When Tom Cotton runs for president, as we know he will, let's all remember this when he tries to tell us he "supports veterans":
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Frank Wilhoit
Frank Wilhoit
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
If I understand board etiquette correctly, it is now necessary -- given that Cotton served in Afghanistan and Iraq -- for me to ask you where you served.
Is that the way this works?
Is that the way this works?
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Your deflection is beginning to trend.
goodjobgoodpost
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Frank Wilhoit
Frank Wilhoit
-
Deleted User 89
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
More than 100 U.S. troops diagnosed with brain injuries from Iran attack
The U.S. military is preparing to report a more than 50% jump in cases of traumatic brain injury stemming from Iran’s missile attack on a base in Iraq last month, U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of an announcement, said there were over 100 cases of TBI, up from the 64 previously reported last month.
[...]
The U.S. military is preparing to report a more than 50% jump in cases of traumatic brain injury stemming from Iran’s missile attack on a base in Iraq last month, U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of an announcement, said there were over 100 cases of TBI, up from the 64 previously reported last month.
[...]
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Frank Wilhoit
Frank Wilhoit
-
Deleted User 295
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Hopefully they all make full recoveries. We all agree on wanting our troops to be safe.
A few quotes from your article for those who won't read past the headline or your quotes:
Pentagon officials have repeatedly said there has been no effort to minimize or delay information on concussive injuries.
Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that the service members suffering from traumatic brain injuries had been diagnosed with mild cases.
Since 2000, about 408,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, according to Pentagon data.
A few quotes from your article for those who won't read past the headline or your quotes:
Pentagon officials have repeatedly said there has been no effort to minimize or delay information on concussive injuries.
Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that the service members suffering from traumatic brain injuries had been diagnosed with mild cases.
Since 2000, about 408,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, according to Pentagon data.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
'Imminent threat' explanation noticeably absent in White House report justifying Soleimani strike
The Trump administration has repeatedly insisted that its decision to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was justified because he posed an "imminent threat" to American lives, but that phrase was notably absent in an official White House report sent to Congress that outlines the legal and policy rationale for conducting last month's strike.
A copy of the report -- released by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel Friday -- is an unclassified version of what is called a 1264 notification, which the White House is required to send to Congress if it changes its view on the legal framework for using military force.
...The administration's claims prompted a sharp rebuke from Engel who called their legal theory "absurd," their explanation "spurious" and said he looks forward to questioning Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the matter during his expected testimony on February 28.
"This official report directly contradicts the President's false assertion that he attacked Iran to prevent an imminent attack against the United States," said Engel, a New York Democrat. "This spurious, after-the-fact explanation won't do."
In the weeks since the strike, top administration officials have backed away from the imminent threat argument after being pressed to provide details backing up that assertion amid rampant skepticism from Democrats.
The report released Friday makes no mention of an imminent threat while discussing the facts surrounding the strike or the legal justification for carrying it out, raising concerns about the President's expanding authority to take the country to war with Iran without consulting Congress.
"The administration has dropped any reference to the idea that Soleimani posed an imminent threat. That spells danger for the future. It means that one person alone in the Oval Office can take the nation to war with Iran even if time would easily allow going to Congress beforehand," said Goodman, who served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense during the Obama administration.
Additionally, Engel slammed the administration's claim that Trump had the authority to carry out the strike on Soleimani under the 2002 AUMF.
"To avoid having to justify its actions to Congress, the administration falsely claims Congress had already authorized the strike under the 2002 Iraq war resolution. This legal theory is absurd," Engel said in his statement Friday.
[...]
The Trump administration has repeatedly insisted that its decision to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was justified because he posed an "imminent threat" to American lives, but that phrase was notably absent in an official White House report sent to Congress that outlines the legal and policy rationale for conducting last month's strike.
A copy of the report -- released by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel Friday -- is an unclassified version of what is called a 1264 notification, which the White House is required to send to Congress if it changes its view on the legal framework for using military force.
...The administration's claims prompted a sharp rebuke from Engel who called their legal theory "absurd," their explanation "spurious" and said he looks forward to questioning Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the matter during his expected testimony on February 28.
"This official report directly contradicts the President's false assertion that he attacked Iran to prevent an imminent attack against the United States," said Engel, a New York Democrat. "This spurious, after-the-fact explanation won't do."
In the weeks since the strike, top administration officials have backed away from the imminent threat argument after being pressed to provide details backing up that assertion amid rampant skepticism from Democrats.
The report released Friday makes no mention of an imminent threat while discussing the facts surrounding the strike or the legal justification for carrying it out, raising concerns about the President's expanding authority to take the country to war with Iran without consulting Congress.
"The administration has dropped any reference to the idea that Soleimani posed an imminent threat. That spells danger for the future. It means that one person alone in the Oval Office can take the nation to war with Iran even if time would easily allow going to Congress beforehand," said Goodman, who served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense during the Obama administration.
Additionally, Engel slammed the administration's claim that Trump had the authority to carry out the strike on Soleimani under the 2002 AUMF.
"To avoid having to justify its actions to Congress, the administration falsely claims Congress had already authorized the strike under the 2002 Iraq war resolution. This legal theory is absurd," Engel said in his statement Friday.
[...]
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Frank Wilhoit
Frank Wilhoit
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Covered by the so what defense and 51 Republican Senators.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.