Most Americans Know Trump Has Screwed Up Iran Policy

A few days ago I was listening to Iranians being interviewed in Tehran on NPR. Invariably, they were completely accepting the regime's version of the shooting down of the Ukrainian airline and absolutely certain that the contrary evidence had been manufactured by the U.S. 'Wow,' I thought, 'they're as brainwashed as American evangelicals are! And just as stupid and bigoted!' However, when the Iranian regime finally copped to the truth over the weekend, Iranians were shocked-- and infuriated. And, unlike U.S. evangelicals, out on the streets protesting-- even calling on Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, to resign! So... not quite as brainwashed, passive and stupid as American evangelicals.





No one was out on the streets protesting as it's become clearer and clearer that Trump and Pompeo have been lying about the whole incident at least as much as the Iranian regime. Trump has tap-danced around why he had Soleimani-- his former business partner-- assassinated, lying to the media, to Congress, to anyone who would listen to his bullshit. Yesterday, in interviews with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union and with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face The Nation, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, a former crooked lobbyist for Boeing that Trump appointed, seems to have made a farce out of Trump's sorry attempts to deceive the country about his wag the dog strategy in Iran.

Brennan brought up that Señor Trumpanzee told Fox News last week that "there was an attempt to blow up the U.S. embassy in Baghdad" and four unnamed U.S. embassies (which Trump was obviously pulling out of his ass). Trumpanzee: "I think it would have been four embassy (sic), could have been military bases, could have been a lot of other things, too. But it was imminent." Brennan asked Esper, "Why couldn't you share that specific threat with senators in a classified briefing?" Esper made about some total bullshit about the Gang of 8, which was quickly called out by members of the Gang of 8 for the lie it was.

ESPER: Well, that information-- there was a reference in this-- in this exquisite intelligence to an attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad. That information was shared with the Gang of Eight. All that exceptional intelligence shared with the Gang of Eight, not the broader membership of the Congress.

BRENNAN: A specific threat against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad to blow it up...

ESPER: Well, I was...

BRENNAN: ...was shared with the Gang of Eight? 

ESPER: I was not in that meeting with the Gang of Eight. But I will tell you, I spoke to one of the briefers. What the briefer said to me coming out of that meeting was his assessment that most, if not all the members, thought that the intelligence was persuasive and that they-- and that the Gang of Eight did not think that it should be released to the broader members of Congress.

BRENNAN: But, broadly, can you clarify though, was the specific threat that the president shared with Fox News about four U.S. embassies being under threat, also shared with Congress? Why was there a difference? 

ESPER: Well, what the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view. I know other members of national security team shared that view. That's why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region.

BRENNAN: Probably and could have been. That is-- that sounds more like an assessment than a specific, tangible threat with a-- a decisive piece of intelligence.

ESPER: Well, the president didn't say there was a tangible-- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably-- he believed, could have been...

BRENNAN: Are you saying there wasn't one?

ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I share the president's view that probably-- my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country.

...BRENNAN: Do you understand the frustration and anger from members of Congress who say why the president- why can the president tell Fox News something he can't tell members of Congress or-- or members of his administration can't explicitly explain to members?

ESPER: Well, look, I understand the frustration. The fact is that evidence, that information is only available to the Gang of Eight. That's been practice and policy for decades.

BRENNAN: But you said you don't know that it was told to the Gang of Eight.

ESPER: Well I'm talking about, the intelligence stream, the exquisite intelligence. That was told-- that information of that source and method was revealed to the Gang of Eight. I understand the frustration of the broader members of Congress. They're not going to have access to that information. I would support it if we-- if we didn't jeopardize the sources and methods. And I think the president said the same.

BRENNAN: Senator Mike Lee, who will be with us on this program, also was frustrated with your briefing. And he said, you know, why did you tell members of Congress that it would essentially be a negative message to try to call into question that the authorization for military force in Iraq. Why did you...

ESPER: Well no...

BRENNAN: ... oppose that debate?

ESPER: Well, first of all, for every member that didn't like the brief, there's members that thought it was the greatest brief ever. That was never said that they should not have a debate, that they should have a discussion. I was asked a specific question about do I have concerns about a debate? And what all I said was this: is as that debate continues, don't not have a debate. But as that debate ensues, be conscious of the messaging, particularly to our troops, because they are looking for messages. Do they have the support of the American people while they are in harm's way? Why do I say that? My predecessors have said that in the past. And I had the personal experience in the 1991 Gulf War. I was on the ground preparing for our final actions to go into Iraq. And we watched very carefully the debate in Congress in mid-January of that year to find out did we have the support of the American people and our lawmakers. 

Yesterday, writing to the Washington Post, Joseph Marks, Juliet Eilperin and Drew Harwell noted that it wasn't just Esper who struggled trying to defend Trump. They reported that Robert O'Brien, Trump's new national security adviser , gave it a try on ABC’s This Week and on Fox News Sunday but "did not confirm Trump’s claim that the White House had received intelligence that Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was planning 'imminent' attacks against four U.S. embassies."

Top Democrats have pushed back on Esper’s claim that the Gang of Eight was given information on the threat to attack the embassy in Baghdad. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), a member of the Gang of Eight, contradicted Esper’s assertion on Face the Nation about the briefing to Congress, saying it lacked “specificity” about a potential embassy threat. Schiff said he and several members of the Gang of Eight were dissatisfied with the evidence laid out as a basis for the strike. Trump and Esper are “fudging” the details, Schiff added, and “overstating and exaggerating what the intelligence shows.” When it comes to information that could lead to a potential war in Iran, he said, “that’s a dangerous thing to do.”

Trump’s claim about threats against embassies was also not part of a Senate briefing earlier this week, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“That was news to me,” he said. “It certainly wasn’t something I recall being raised in the classified briefing.”

Lee also savaged the Trump administration for failing to sufficiently justify the strike. He earlier called the briefing the “worst” he’s received in nine years in the Senate.

Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), also speaking on Fox News Sunday, criticized the administration for failing to disclose more specific intelligence during the closed-door briefing.

“We got less detailed information there than President Trump shared with Laura Ingraham,” the senator said.

Killing Soleimani did eliminate “one of our worst enemies in the Middle East. … But the larger question is, did it make us safer?” Coons said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said administration officials were “dismissive of Congress,” throughout the briefing on NBC’s Meet the Press.

He also criticized the administration for relying on a George W. Bush-era authorization for military force to justify the attack.

“We need to have a full-throated debate in Congress,” he said. “I want to have that debate and bring our kids home.”

Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-CO) said on Meet the Press that Trump’s actions “strengthened the hard-line wing of the Iranian government."

“This is a moment when heightened congressional scrutiny of the president is important no matter who the president is,” said Bennett, who’s also a long-shot contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Even before Esper and the others made fools out of themselves and Trump on Sunday, ABC News had released a poll by Ipsos showing that most Americans-- a majority-- disapprove of how Trump has handled this whole Iranian mess he created. Most say the country is less safe now. No one out in the streets though.

In the aftermath of the U.S. strike, only 28% of Independents, and 25% of Americans, said they felt more safe, while just over half, 51% of Independents and 52% of U.S. adults, said they felt less safe.

When it comes to attitudes on the conflict with Iran, partisanship drives opinions. An overwhelming 87% of Republicans approved of Trump's handling of Iran, and 54% say they feel safer. Among Democrats, 90% disapproved and 82% felt less safe.

Still, when asked about concerns over the possibility of the United States getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran, Democrats are more united in expressing concern than Republicans.

A net total of 94% of Democrats, and 52% of Republicans, are either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possibility of entering into another war in the Middle East, compared with 6% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans who said they were not so concerned or not concerned at all.

UPDATE: And The Urgency Lie-- "Imminent?"

Trump's biggest excuse for unconstitutionally going around Congress' back to assassinate Soleimani, an act of war against Iran, was all about the split-second decision making on his part. This morning, NBC Nesws reported that Trump authorized the killing of Soleimani 7 months before the actual assassination. "The presidential directive in June 2019," wrote Courtney Kube and Carol Lee, "came with the condition that Trump would have final sign off on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. That decision explains why assassinating Soleimani was on the menu of options that the military presented to Trump last week for responding to an attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq that killed an American contractor and wounded four U.S. service members. The timing, however, could undermine the Trump administration’s stated justification for ordering the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3. Officials have said Soleimani, the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, was planning imminent attacks on Americans and had to be stopped."