[Texas Eagle]

I see where Tucker is coming from. Tucker is questioning the validity of an "imminent" attack because it came from someone within the Deep State. I think that's a legitimate suspicion. Someone may have been trying to paint President Trump into a corner.

Problem is, President Trump said, "Paint this!", and just walked all over that fresh paint.

[SeekAndFind]

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?

[ModelBreaker]

This is a legitimate concern. Intelligence manipulates presidents and the public by feeding them information. For example, WMD in Iraq. Both Clinton and Bush believed they were going to find nukes.

If intelligence has an agenda, they can create a factual sceneriao (true, false or biased) that directs a president to their agenda. The president is really their captive and has no way to validate the info they give him.

I see this happen with staff of local government officials all the time. Staff controls the budget. Not the officials who just take what staff gives them and tweak it a little.