Posted on 01/07/2020 8:44:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Is Tucker saying that the person who was killed was NOT Soleimani?
Is he saying that all those attacks against America including the one against our embassy were not masterminded by Soleimani?
We were told all of these by our intelligence agencies.
We don’t need to trust the Derp State.
The mullah’s terrorist general was plotting right inside Iraq directly after the attack on the US Embassy.
He wasn’t paying a visit to aid rebuilding its damage. The rumor is they were going to plan a number of attacks. One was going to be an effort to actually overrun and take the entire US Embassy as they did in Tehran back in 1979.
So frankly, I don’t know what Tulsi Carlson is doing here other than making some noise. It’s grandstanding of the worst kind.
Apparently ignoring the embassy was attacked so it really doesn’t matter that Suleiman had other imminent plans.
I watched Tucker last night. Not sure what he’s saying. He had a nasty hateful guest on. Not much but emotional opinion.
Yes the 3 letter agencies were packed with deep state, but I believe military intelligence has been on team Trump from day one!
IMHO Tucker is being rightly skeptical. For good reason. “They” have a bad track record. Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, “Remember the Maine”. We could go on and on. The only thing that makes me wonder is the Brown Shirt Media is having candle light vigils for the guy so Trump must have it about right.
“whether aggression towards Iran is a good or bad thing.”?
Much more accurately: “Whether opposing Iranian aggression is a good or bad thing.”
Tucker makes the mistake of equating the military use of the tactical intelligence our systems provide the warfighter with the political weaponizing of our intelligence capabilities by a relatively few and high up appointed deep staters.
I dont appreciate that Tucker on more than one occasion blurs that distinction.
Its like blurring the distinction between good cops and bad cops.
Well, the guy was 63. Maybe ready to retire?
Could be driving a cab for soda money now in Boston now, just like Bin Laden.
RE: The mullah’s terrorist general was plotting right inside Iraq directly after the attack on the US Embassy.
That was Tucker’s point. The above information was fed to us by our intelligence, which, according to Tucker, we cannot trust because it is part of the Deep State.
He seems to be telling us that Soleimani was NOT plotting any additional attacks on our embassy. Does he tell us why we should believe this? Nope. Just trust what he says and distrust what our intelligence tells is.
That’s what I get from his tirade.
I think tucker is saying there is a glitch in the matrix.
“We were told all of these by our intelligence agencies.”
Plus Trump advisers he has confidence in.
We do have Americans being killed over there. Someone is in charge, and since Soleimani has been parading himself off as the one in charge all these years, we have to take his word for it.
Problem is, President Trump said, "Paint this!", and just walked all over that fresh paint.
Interesting theory.
Pieczenik, for example, has said that Epstein wasn’t killed because the CIA takes care of its assets, and instead he was probably living comfortably somewhere abroad.
There are claims that this guy was an American Deep State intel asset as well.
RE: I think tucker is saying there is a glitch in the matrix.
There were glitches in the past.
Remember the CIA’s “Slam Dunk” intelligence telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s?
The challenge is which intelligence to believe.
In this particular case the intelligence data that pinpoints where Soleimani AND Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi of ISIS fame were, were ACCURATE.
Why then should we disbelieve military intelligence when they tell us that Soleimani was plotting MORE attacks on our embassy?
Tucker seems to confuse ALL and SOME.
His reasoning is -— SOME intelligence were FUBAR in the past, therefore, ALL intelligence is useless.
With this type of reasoning, we might as well dismantle all intelligence. But even he does not advocate this.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...”
Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Except the media’s orders are to condemn everything Trump does, so that’s not much of a guide here.
As they say a stopped clock is right twice a day.
None of us really know what the risks DJT was weighing. But what I do respect is DJT’s judgment in these matters and how all the Chicken Little’s have been proven wrong again and again.
Tucker has an overpriced web paysite to sell and that makes him suspect.
Tucker, it isn’t so much about what he was going to do but about what he did. In violation of international law he attacked a foreign embassy. Iran has a habit of doing this, ours in Iran, ours in Iraq, ours in Benghazi (Iran rumored behind it) not to mention his directing missiles at American bases. Even if he had zero plans, he signed his death warrant
with those attacks. Trump broke the mullahs’ Pavlovian chain of thought that you attack an embassy and you get a cash treat.
RE: Tucker is questioning the validity of an “imminent” attack because it came from someone within the Deep State.
In other words, Tucker wants us to believe that the attacks that just occurred on our embassy was simply a one time thing and will not be repeated, and that Soleimani was on his way home never to repeat this again?
And we should NOT be skeptical of Tucker Carlson’s view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.