NY Times uses Deep State leaks of Soleimani intel briefs to question Trump’s call on strike

Screengrab Trump

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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)

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.”

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.

Sources that “clearly” have an agenda against President Trump:

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton also weighed in on social media to denounce the “seditious” Deep State leaks.

Tom Tillison

Comments

Latest Articles