1/ One GOP Senator said this morning that those of us who question the Soleimani strike intel are effectively calling General Milley "a liar".
Strong words, so let me explain why yesterday's briefing was so worrying to many Democrats and Republicans.
Strong words, so let me explain why yesterday's briefing was so worrying to many Democrats and Republicans.
2/ First, context: we know past Administrations have distorted intel and threat assessments to justify military action. It's how we got into the disastrous Iraq War. So many of us come into these briefings with healthy skepticism.
3/ To order a strike against another country, without congressional authorization, the harm to U.S. personnel must be "imminent." There was no evidence that the threat was imminent. There was no evidence of a specific target. There was no evidence that the attack was certain.
4/ Simply "planning" an attack against the U.S. is not enough to go around Congress. It's not surprising an Iranian general was "planning" military action - we are in the middle of a escalatory cycle of provocations between the U.S. and Iran.
5/ I concede others may define "imminence" differently. There is room for disagreement. But my belief is that the Administration wanted to kill Soleimani for reasons other than an "imminent attack". And if that's the case, then they needed congressional approval.
6/ Soleimani was a bad person. I don't lament his death. But it has weakened our security. It didn't deter Iran from attacking us again, it's getting us kicked out of Iraq, and it restarted Iran's nuclear program.
That's exactly why something like this should come to Congress.
That's exactly why something like this should come to Congress.
