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.
Yep. You get down to the issue at the end of your post. It’s as if Tucker is just trying really hard to be “in the middle” on this.
As such, I'd say the whole purpose of citing "U.S. intelligence information about an imminent attack on U.S. interests by Iran" is to provide public justification for something that President Trump wanted to do anyway. Maybe it was a good idea, and maybe it wasn't ... but it sure as hell wasn't done because of any "imminent attack" on anything.
Never trust your government.
