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/arch...inent-attacks/

[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_c...&v=zKBgREfspKI

[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_c...&v=zKBgREfspKI

Yeah but he always lies.

[juleswin]

[KEEF]

The laughs and clapping are sickening from the audience.

[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.

[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]

[nikcers]

It's the new, improved liars club.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[pcosmar]

the protocols exist to protect national security.

WOW

You can not actually believe that,,,

if anything ever needed a /sarc tag,,,

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?