There has been much debate about whether or not President Trump was justified in taking out Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Attorney General William Barr just ended the discussion, stating that his office was made aware of the attack and approved of it beforehand.
Not open for debate
There are a lot of differing takes on the briefings given to Congress concerning the strike.
Democrats were not happy, Republicans thought there was more than enough to justify the strike, and the anti-war crowd thought they needed a bit more information to make a decision one way or the other.
There has been some confusion based on the wording different administration sources used as to just how imminent the threat was, but Barr doesn’t really seem to care too much about that.
Barr stated on Monday, “The Department of Justice was consulted and frankly, I don’t think it was a close call. I believe the president clearly had the authority to act as he did on numerous different bases.”
Clearing the air
Last week, when Trump provided a bit more information to the media about the strike, he stated that there was intelligence that as many as four U.S. targets were in Soleimani’s sights.
That, however, did not mean all four of those bases or embassies were being targeted at once. It was pretty clear that Trump’s take on the intelligence was that Soleimani was going to attack at least one, more than likely the embassy in Baghdad.
The main point is that there was no doubt that at least one attack was imminent within days. The media latched onto this and started assuming that Trump meant four individual attacks were about to occur.
When Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Sunday his “expectation was they were going to go after our embassies” but that he hadn’t seen evidence that it would be four embassies specifically, everyone started to question the legitimacy of the intelligence.
Regardless, both Barr and Trump — and most of the world — believe Soleimani’s long history of terrorism justified targeting him, so the questions about the intelligence reports should be a moot point.
The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020
Soleimani was the bin Laden of the Trump administration, and now he is gone. It is just a shame Democrats cannot seem to get on board with that.