President Trump continues to take heat from Democrats for not notifying Congress before taking military action, be it the strike that killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani or the raid that resulted in the death of Islamic State leader Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi.
At the same time, leaks are rampant in Washington, with deep state operatives set on destroying the president all around… and it would appear that most have a direct line to the New York Times.
Democrats and their media allies responded to the drone strike that killed Soleimani by either attacking Trump over the decision or by engaging in fear-mongering to stir the American public.
In a move that questions the president’s motives, New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi cited two sources who had intelligence briefings after the strike to say the president based his decision on “razor-thin” evidence that an attack on Americans was imminent.
2. In fact the evidence pointing to that came as three discrete facts: a) A pattern of travel showing Suleimani was in Syria, Lebanon & Iraq to meet with Shia proxies known to have an offensive position to the US. (As one source said that’s just “business as usual” for Suleimani)
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
The Pentagon said in a statement that Soleimani had the American blood on his hands and that the strike was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more,” the statement said.
While suggesting that some type of operation against U.S. interests may have been in the works, Callimachi downplays it by saying Soleimani had yet to get approval from Tehran and that the operation “could be anything.”
4. And finally, a) and b) were read in the context of c) Iran’s increasingly bellicose position towards American interests in Iraq, including the attack that killed a U.S. contractor and the recent protest outside the American embassy.
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
Given the information, including the death of the U.S. contractor at an Iraqi military base, the sources leaking to Callimachi described the White House’s interpretation of the intelligence as “an illogical leap.”
There was also the prerequisite reports of a “chaotic” process at play under Trump.
6. One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the “far out option”
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and Soleimani was a principle player — seen as a little more than a terrorist, the commander was considered to be more dangerous than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or Osama bin Laden.
Of the various options presented to the president, Callimachi reported he chose the strike on Soleimani after last week’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad by Iraqi supporters of Iran-backed militias.
Painting the call as a rash decision, the reporter said U.S. intelligence “scrambled” to locate their target in an operation “pulled together so quickly.”
8. It was after the embassy protests that the president, according to one US official, chose the Suleimani option, but the problem at that point in time is that American intelligence did not know his precise whereabouts. They scrambled to locate him, says the official.
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
10. Since the strike, Iran has convened its national security chiefs. Chatter intercepted by American intelligence indicates they’re considering a range of options. Cyberattacks, attacks on oil facilities and American personnel and diplomatic outposts have all been cited so far.
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
In focusing on possible Iranian counteractions, the Times reporter stressed that the “menu options” include the “kidnapping and execution of American citizens.”
(See fear-mongering)
12. Another is attacks on American diplomatic and military outposts not just in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, but as far afield as UAE and Bahrain. The official I spoke to was particularly concerned for American troops stationed in Iraq, some of whom are co-located with Shia militias
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
After several tweets about “setbacks” that have “weakened the US’ posture in Iraq,” Callimachi concluded by questioning the timing of the strike on Soleimani, tying the whole affair back to impeachment.
“Before I go back to the pool let me just say the obvious: No one’s trying to downplay Suleimani’s crimes,” she tweeted. “The question is why now? His whereabouts have been known before. His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret. Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga.”
17. Before I go back to the pool let me just say the obvious: No one’s trying to downplay Suleimani’s crimes. The question is why now? His whereabouts have been known before. His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret. Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga.
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020
The conclusion stands in stark contrast to a photo circulating online of a friendly New York Times headline after former President Bill Clinton ordered an airstrike on Iraq during his impeachment.
Richard Grenell, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, quickly disputed the reporting by Callimachi, questioning whether her sources actually exist, before adding “they don’t know.”
“If they exist, you should never listen to your anonymous sources again. They don’t know,” he tweeted.
If they exist, you should never listen to your anonymous sources again. They don’t know. https://t.co/GvC9reSQPz
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 4, 2020
Sources that “clearly” have an agenda against President Trump:
Your “sources” leak like a sieve, and clearly have an agenda against this President.
— Dean Cain (@RealDeanCain) January 4, 2020
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton also weighed in on social media to denounce the “seditious” Deep State leaks.
Seditious leaks by Deep State continue. https://t.co/ncAx2JAo8b
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) January 5, 2020
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
