Pompeo: I Lied About Soleimani 'Imminent Attacks'

[Ender]

Pompeo: I Lied About Soleimani 'Imminent Attacks'
By Daniel McAdams

Ron Paul Institute

January 11, 2020

Trump’s neoconservative Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is a man unafraid to admit to being a liar. In fact he seems to revel in his ability to lie to the American people.

Remember just a week ago when Pompeo told us that the US absolutely HAD to send in a drone to assassinate Iran’s top general, Qassim Soleimani, while he was in Iraq on a peace mission because he was planning “imminent attacks” on US personnel and interests in the Middle East.

These claims were crafted to blunt any criticism of the blatantly illegal act of killing a top military officer of a country with which you are not at war in a third country (which forbade the attack on its soil) with which you are allied. Americans raising concerns about the murder of Soleimani were to be made to look unpatriotic if they objected: “you mean you WANT Americans die??”

That’s how propaganda works.

Then when the smoke clears, you laugh it all off and admit it was all a lie. As Pompeo did last night.
Speaking on the Laura Ingraham program, Mike Pompeo admitted that the neocon idea of “imminent ” and the normal idea of “imminent ” are two very different things.

“We don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where (the attacks might take place), but it was real,” he told Ingraham.

But if you don’t know when and don’t know where (and presumably don’t know how), on what basis did Pompeo and the Trump Administration sell the idea that he had to be killed immediately lest untold numbers of Americans be killed?

And how can we believe Pompeo that Soleimani was behind the initial rocket attacks on an Iraqi base housing US troops, that a US contractor was killed by Soleimani’s forces at that base, and that Soleimani was behind the “attacks” (vandalism) on the US embassy in Baghdad?

In other words, if the central justification for the murder of Soleimani is an admitted lie, who in his right mind would believe the official version of the antecedents to the murder?

While proudly lying day and night, Pompeo professes to be a great Christian – at the same time he pushed Trump to murder the architect of the anti-ISIS counterinsurgency (Soleimani) that saved hundreds of thousands of Syrian Christian lives.

Something smells sulfurous about Pompeo…

[Origanalist]

Well, surprise, surprise...(insert Gomer Pyle meme here..)

[Origanalist]

Needs a link...http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2020/january/10/pompeo-i-lied-about-soleimani-imminent-attacks/

[juleswin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac

[Brian4Liberty]

Then when the smoke clears, you laugh it all off and admit it was all a lie. As Pompeo did last night.
Speaking on the Laura Ingraham program, Mike Pompeo admitted that the neocon idea of “imminent ” and the normal idea of “imminent ” are two very different things.

Yep...


Oh, but there was an “imminent” threat, it just depends upon your definition of “imminent”. To the government neoconservatives, the word has a much different meaning than you think.

It’s probably easier to say what it does not mean. It does not mean or equate to any of the following words:

- Immediate
- Inevitable
- Conclusively

Basically, the word now means that they believe the other party is probably up to no good, and they can think of no other option except for violence.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

[nikcers]

What a weak argument.. Imminent doesn't imply immediate or any specific time table. He didn't even say that they lied about preventing attacks by taking out soleimani. Why would you even reveal specific intelligence like that if you had it anyways. That would tip them off on where the information was obtained and give them an opportunity to prevent them from obtaining intelligence using that source or method again.

[KEEF]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac
The laughs and clapping are sickening from the audience.

[AngryCanadian]

What a weak argument.. Imminent doesn't imply immediate or any specific time table. He didn't even say that they lied about preventing attacks by taking out soleimani. Why would you even reveal specific intelligence like that if you had it anyways. That would tip them off on where the information was obtained and give them an opportunity to prevent them from obtaining intelligence using that source or method again.

The same intelligence that lied about WMDs in Iraq right....

[nikcers]

The same intelligence that lied about WMDs in Iraq right....

Yep. They haven't gotten any new methods or gotten any better at obtaining intelligence in 19 years.

[Anti Globalist]

Its always funny when people in the CIA admit to lying when it comes to things like this.

[Origanalist]

Yep. They haven't gotten any new methods or gotten any better at obtaining intelligence in 19 years.

It's the new, improved liars club.

[Origanalist]

https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1062767439750836224/xlarge/

[nikcers]

It's the new, improved liars club.

They lie about everything. They even lied when they said Iran shot down that plane.

[juleswin]

They lie about everything. They even lied when they said Iran shot down that plane.

Amazing set of logic there, so are you implying that because they told the truth that one time, they are not liars? By that standard, nobody can be called a habitual liar because even the worst of the worst of liars tells the truth sometimes.

[nikcers]

Amazing set of logic there, so are you implying that because they told the truth that one time, they are not liars? By that standard, nobody can be called a habitual liar because even the worst of the worst of liars tells the truth sometimes.

That means no one tells the truth by your logic.

[juleswin]

That means no one tells the truth by your logic.

I never said that.

[nikcers]

I never said that.
You're right that's not a lie. That is how your logic works.

[jmdrake]

If you can't reveal specific intelligence to s classified Senate intelligence briefing AFTER the operation is over it's because you are lying.
What a weak argument.. Imminent doesn't imply immediate or any specific time table. He didn't even say that they lied about preventing attacks by taking out soleimani. Why would you even reveal specific intelligence like that if you had it anyways. That would tip them off on where the information was obtained and give them an opportunity to prevent them from obtaining intelligence using that source or method again.

[pcosmar]

As a Veteran of the Gulf of Tonkin Lie,, and a volunteer with a Date of Rank 1974,,, I do tend to be skeptical..


and this crap had a stench from the start.

[nikcers]

If you can't reveal specific intelligence to s classified Senate intelligence briefing AFTER the operation is over it's because you are lying.

If you can't reveal sources you are a liar? No that just means your sources and methods are still valuable.

[nikcers]

As a Veteran of the Gulf of Tonkin Lie,, and a volunteer with a Date of Rank 1974,,, I do tend to be skeptical..


and this crap had a stench from the start.

Skepticism is good but disbelief of anything without facts is lazy emotional thinking.

[pcosmar]

Skepticism is good but disbelief of anything without facts is lazy emotional thinking.

Fact. Known Liars Lie..

nothing lazy about it.

[nikcers]

Fact. Known Liars Lie..

nothing lazy about it.

So what you are saying is even if there was a planned attack they would lie and say there wasn't a planned attack? Lol

[pcosmar]

So what you are saying is even if there was a planned attack they would lie and say there wasn't a planned attack? Lol

Like Pearl Harbor.

[Zippyjuan]

Lindsay Graham on the intelligence which led to the assassination:

"The way we found this out we will never tell anybody- it was magical and we won't compromise!"

7:20 into this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=464&v=zKBgREfspKI

[Warlord]

Pompeo is a big, fat liar. He's been lying constantly for a week. Rand is going to kick ass on meet the press tomorrow.

[nikcers]

Lindsay Graham on the intelligence which led to the assassination:

"The way we found this out we will never tell anybody- it was magical and we won't compromise!"

7:20 into this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=464&v=zKBgREfspKI

Yeah but he always lies.

[nikcers]

Like Pearl Harbor.

So if they wanted war so badly they would of let it happen?

[dannno]

Pompeo isn't the one who had the intelligence..

[Zippyjuan]

Mike Lee and Rand Paul were "underwhelmed" by the information the White House presented about the "imminent threat" which necessitated the assassination.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDVVIO5OH0

[Warlord]

Mike Lee and Rand Paul were "underwhelmed" by the information the White House presented about the "imminent threat" which necessitated the assassination.


Yes we know Zip. Tomorrow Rand is on Meet the press, NBC. Are you going to watch?

[Origanalist]

That means no one tells the truth by your logic.

Logic! Science! C'mon now, that's a bit convoluted, even for the internet.

[pcosmar]

So if they wanted war so badly they would of let it happen?

Some want it,, and have been actively PUSHING for it for many years,, Others oppose it and have prevented or minimized it for years.. but the agenda has spanned several decades and Administrations..

I have not reason to believe it is over..

I and I have no interest in endorsing any party involved.. Though Iran has the Moral High Ground...at this point.

It will all lead to a war that will put Satan on the Throne... The US is wholly irrelevant.. both in existence and role in Final days.

Looking for an end of it..by Economic collapse,,or natural disaster,, or by uncivil war. It will be interesting to watch.

I have wanted to ""not be here" for as long as I remember. I am witness to this insanity. and that is service to my Master,,not my choice.

[jmdrake]

If you can't reveal sources you are a liar? No that just means your sources and methods are still valuable.

Stupid straw man argument on your part. Rand Paul and Mike Lee weren't asking for sources. They were asking for specifics. You know like what were the actual targets? When were the attacks supposed to take place? That sort of things.

[nikcers]

Stupid straw man argument on your part. Rand Paul and Mike Lee weren't asking for sources. They were asking for specifics. You know like what were the actual targets? When were the attacks supposed to take place? That sort of things.

Specific information is need to know. If it got into the wrong hands it could be reverse engineered to find out methods and sources. Its mostly protocol and you would think some info wouldn't expose methods and sources but it can, the protocols exist to protect national security.

[jmdrake]

Specific information is need to know.

Said every despot ever.

[nikcers]

Said every despot ever.

Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for about 20 years, was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver. Do you really think its wise to divulge valuable information that could compromise national security or the lives of our intelligence community to Congress?

[devil21]

Surely Donald will fire him now and place a Patriot into the position. It must be a serious violation of trust to lie to POTUS about such important matters, no?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/cd357eaf6d8093a90826d6da93483b3f/tenor.gif?itemid=11107775

[nikcers]

Surely Donald will fire him now and place a Patriot into the position. It must be a serious violation of trust to lie to POTUS about such important matters, no?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/cd357eaf6d8093a90826d6da93483b3f/tenor.gif?itemid=11107775

He didn't even say what op wrote. McAdam's made it up and op quoted McAdams.

[jmdrake]

Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for about 20 years, was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver. Do you really think its wise to divulge valuable information that could compromise national security or the lives of our intelligence community to Congress?

The action has already happened. Trump is now trying to justify (justilie) his actions after the fact, changing his story on a daily basis, not even telling Rand Paul and Mike Lee what the hell is going on, leaking intelligence himself, and telling freaking Laura Ingraham that "they were going to bomb 4 embassies." Sorry, I call bullshyt. Trump doesn't even trust the intelligence community. No. Telling congress what the actual intelligence is does not compromise national security. Having a president act without properly informing congress even after the fact compromises national security. At this point, Trump should be impeached and removed. But it won't happened because the democrats cried "wolf" over nothing.

[Ender]

He didn't even say what op wrote. McAdam's made it up and op quoted McAdams.

The OP was WRITTEN by McAdam's who is Ron's right-hand man on his YouTube channel. And now you're saying McAdam's is the liar?

[nikcers]

The OP was WRITTEN by McAdam's who is Ron's right-hand man on his YouTube channel. And now you're saying McAdam's is the liar?

Post the clip where he said this. Honestly I am a huge McAdams and Ender fan so it disappointed me when i saw this.

[jmdrake]

The OP was WRITTEN by McAdam's who is Ron's right-hand man on his YouTube channel. And now you're saying McAdam's is the liar?
nikcers mission is simple. Defend Trump at all costs. It doesn't matter who he has to attack to do it. It doesn't matter what lie he has to tell to do it. It doesn't matter what part of the constitution he has to shred to do it. Trump does the bumpfire stock ban by executive order and floats red flag law? Pfffft! MAGA had to do that to take away democratic talking points. The Trump administration contradicts itself about the so called "imminent threat" posed by Soliemani? Pffffft! The American people and even their elected representatives have no right to know the actual intelligence (there is none btw) because only MAGA can be trusted. Even when republicans like Rand Paul and Mike Lee who should be trusted at RPF far more than MAGA say MAGA is off the rails it doesn't matter cause....MAGA.

[nikcers]

The action has already happened. Trump is now trying to justify (justilie) his actions after the fact, changing his story on a daily basis, not even telling Rand Paul and Mike Lee what the hell is going on, leaking intelligence himself, and telling freaking Laura Ingraham that "they were going to bomb 4 embassies." Sorry, I call bullshyt. Trump doesn't even trust the intelligence community. No. Telling congress what the actual intelligence is does not compromise national security. Having a president act without properly informing congress even after the fact compromises national security. At this point, Trump should be impeached and removed. But it won't happened because the democrats cried "wolf" over nothing.

The War powers act gives him this authority. So does the current constitutional interpretation of article 2. Trump could technically be impeached for not commanding troops to defend America not the other way around. Iraq lies about WMD came directly from the vice president not the intelligence community. That was a Dick Cheney thing.

[nikcers]

nikcers mission is simple. Defend Trump at all costs. It doesn't matter who he has to attack to do it. It doesn't matter what lie he has to tell to do it. It doesn't matter what part of the constitution he has to shred to do it. Trump does the bumpfire stock ban by executive order and floats red flag law? Pfffft! MAGA had to do that to take away democratic talking points. The Trump administration contradicts itself about the so called "imminent threat" posed by Soliemani? Pffffft! The American people and even their elected representatives have no right to know the actual intelligence (there is none btw) because only MAGA can be trusted. Even when republicans like Rand Paul and Mike Lee who should be trusted at RPF far more than MAGA say MAGA is off the rails it doesn't matter cause....MAGA.
You don't read my posts than. I have been more critical of Trump than anyone on here.

[jmdrake]

The War powers act gives him this authority.

Quote the authority in the war powers act to attack a top general of a country we are not at war with while visiting a nation we are allied with on a mission to carry a response to a peace proposal from a third nation. Go ahead. Copy and paste it. While you're at it, quote where in the war powers act is the authority not to share the intelligence of your actual justification of said attack to closed door sessions of congress. Again, copy and paste your reference please. Otherwise I'll know you're just making that up.


So does the current constitutional interpretation of article 2.

Bwwwaaaahaaaaaa!



Trump could technically be impeached for not commanding troops to defend America not the other way around.

Not defending America from what exactly? Oh...that's right. Trump hasn't said. Also Iraq isn't a province of America. If Trump wants to defend America he can bring the troops home from Iraq yesterday and he can do that without his ridiculous demand that Iraq "pay us" for a base and airfield that they didn't ask us to build. The embassy was defended by a proper show of force. Nothing else was necessary. And if something else actually was necessary, Trump should share that intelligence! Hell, if nothing else, just bring in Mike Lee and Rand Paul and share the intelligence with them. But he's not doing that because he is lying. The OP is correct. At this point Trump and Pompeo are lying.



Iraq lies about WMD came directly from the vice president not the intelligence community. That was a Dick Cheney thing.

Deflection. I didn't even bring up Iraq, WMDs or Dick Cheney.

[jmdrake]

You don't read my posts than. I have been more critical of Trump than anyone on here.

LOL! I bet you actually believe that don't you? Not at all true, but you probably actually believe that.

[nikcers]

Quote the authority in the war powers act to attack a top general of a country we are not at war with while visiting a nation we are allied with on a mission to carry a response to a peace proposal from a third nation. Go ahead. Copy and paste it. While you're at it, quote where in the war powers act is the authority not to share the intelligence of your actual justification of said attack to closed door sessions of congress. Again, copy and paste your reference please. Otherwise I'll know you're just making that up.



Bwwwaaaahaaaaaa!




Not defending America from what exactly? Oh...that's right. Trump hasn't said. Also Iraq isn't a province of America. If Trump wants to defend America he can bring the troops home from Iraq yesterday and he can do that without his ridiculous demand that Iraq "pay us" for a base and airfield that they didn't ask us to build. The embassy was defended by a proper show of force. Nothing else was necessary. And if something else actually was necessary, Trump should share that intelligence! Hell, if nothing else, just bring in Mike Lee and Rand Paul and share the intelligence with them. But he's not doing that because he is lying. The OP is correct. At this point Trump and Pompeo are lying.



Deflection. I didn't even bring up Iraq, WMDs or Dick Cheney.

If a country plans to attack America the commander of Americas military will be given options based on military intelligence and CIC gives the order. The main job of the president is to lead the military. It doesn't matter who is planning the attack. If you want to argue those authorities don't exist than the 2001 aumf gives him authority until they repeal it.

[Brian4Liberty]

The War powers act gives him this authority. So does the current constitutional interpretation of article 2.
...

Exactly!


It is time to acknowledge the new, flexible interpretation of the Constitution.
...
This shall be interpreted as follows:


Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may execute, with sole discretion, any person who shall be judged to be bad; he may initiate and engage in lethal attacks upon any person, nation, or location at will, provided he can cite a good reason; these attacks and warfare can be continuous and ongoing, without limit; these powers supersede any limitations that may be set forth in this Constitution, or in any other domestic or international law, treaty or agreement;...

[pcosmar]

the protocols exist to protect national security.

WOW

You can not actually believe that,,,

if anything ever needed a /sarc tag,,,

[nikcers]

WOW

You can not actually believe that,,,

if anything ever needed a /sarc tag,,,
Are you tryna get me banned??

[jmdrake]

If a country plans to attack America the commander of Americas military will be given options based on military intelligence and CIC gives the order.

There is zero evidence that ^this was the case. Zero.

[nikcers]

There is zero evidence that ^this was the case. Zero.

You don't get to see the evidence. Even if you did you probably wouldn't believe it because you are just as bad as a flat earther. This type of information is need to know. If there is a chance that information could be used by Americas enemies and threaten national security we don't take that chance.

[shakey1]

Pretty bad when liars in high office are so emboldened that they would admit to it so cavalierly... even proudly as a way to achieve their objectives.

[tebowlives]

You don't get to see the evidence. Even if you did you probably wouldn't believe it because you are just as bad as a flat earther. This type of information is need to know. If there is a chance that information could be used by Americas enemies and threaten national security we don't take that chance.

Threat to nation building is more like it.
We get it, transparency bad.

[jmdrake]

You don't get to see the evidence.

I didn't ask to see it you idiot! Rand Paul and Mike Lee did. And yes they need to know.