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?
The mistake Tucker is making is not thinking it all the way through and coming to the conclusion that you came to. Salamami is a terrorist. He plans attacks.
The Deep State may have been calling President Trump's bluff and he pulled 52 Aces out of his sleeve and went all in.
What Tucker fails to take into consideration is that if President Trump HADN'T taken Samalamadingdong out when he had the chance simply because it originated from The Deep State, the cacophony from the Left would've been unparalleled.
We should expect some difference in view between those who agree 95% of the time. I understand that Carlson is being consistent. I also worry about being sucked into a major war with Iran but also think that the president’s actions in this case were completely appropriate. It obvious that he orchestrated the attacks on the embassy, and it is easy to see that there would have been more. So President Trump was completely in his rights to order him taken out. So, while I disagree with Carlson on this instance, I think he is spot on most of the time. That is why I watch him.
Ping me once we find out the name of the defense contractor killed. I haven't seen his name released yet.
Seems like we have zero intel on the ground. Soleimani was going back and forth and had local support. The idea we must trust .gov only because our guy is in charge is a joke. Remember syria from a few months ago?