Luscombe writes: "Seeking to explain Donald Trump�s claim that Iran was planning attacks on four American embassies before the US killed Iranian Gen Qassem Suleimani in a drone strike, defense secretary Mike Esper found himself in the dangerous position of contradicting the president."
Defense secretary Mark Esper, right, departs after a briefing on developments with Iran at the Capitol on 8 January. (photo: Alexander Drago/Reuters)
Secretary of Defense Contradicts Trump Claim Iran Planned Attacks on Four US Embassies
12 January 20
Defense secretary first attempted to water down president�s assessment, then later appeared to row back assertions
eeking to explain Donald Trump�s claim that Iran was planning attacks on four American embassies before the US killed Iranian Gen Qassem Suleimani in a drone strike, defense secretary Mike Esper found himself in the dangerous position of contradicting the president.
Asked on CBS�s Face the Nation if there had been a specific or tangible threat, Esper said: �I didn�t see one with regard to four embassies.�
Trump�s claim on Fox News on Friday prompted fierce criticism from members of Congress who were not briefed before the strike and who say such a threat was not mentioned in a classified briefing on Wednesday.
On Sunday, Esper added: �What I�m saying is I share the president�s view that, probably, my expectation was that they were going to go after our embassies.
�We had information that there was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale, in other words more than one country, and that it would be bigger than previous attacks, likely going to take us into open hostilities with Iran.
�We had every expectation to believe this would happen. That threat has been disrupted.�
Suleimani was killed by a drone strike at Baghdad airport on 2 January. Iran responded with missile strikes on US bases in Iraq. It has also admitted accidentally shooting down a Ukrainian airliner over Tehran, killing 176 people.
Esper later appeared to row back, telling CNN�s State of the Union �what the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well�.
�There was intelligence that there was an intent to target the US embassy in Baghdad,� he said.
However, Esper�s insistence that such �exquisite intelligence� was shared with the bipartisan Gang of Eight congressional leaders in a briefing was immediately dismissed by Adam Schiff, Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee.
�He�s just plain wrong,� Schiff told CBS. �There was no discussion that, �These are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these or those are specific targets.�
�[And] I don�t recall there being a specific discussion about bombing the US embassy in Baghdad. The briefing was more along the lines of what Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo admitted the other day, that, �We don�t know precisely where and we don�t know precisely when.�
�That�s not an intelligence conclusion. That�s Pompeo�s personal opinion.�
Schiff also had harsh words for Trump.
�When you hear the president out there on Fox,� he said, �he�s fudging the intelligence.�
Trump has also mentioned the threat to the Baghdad embassy as a motivation for the strike on Suleimani, but congressional criticism of his attempts to justify precipitating a crisis with Iran remains.
After the classified briefing on Wednesday, Senator Mike Lee of Utah voiced rare Republican criticism of the president.
�I didn�t hear anything about [the four embassies claim],� Lee told CNN on Sunday, appearing to back up Schiff�s assertion. �And several of my colleagues have said the same so that was news to me. It certainly wasn�t something I recall being mentioned at the classified briefing.�
Pompeo has claimed Congress was briefed fully on the rationale for the strike on Suleimani, �the most perilous chapter so far in Trump�s three years in office�, according to a detailed chronology of the crisis published by the New York Times on Saturday.
�I�m sure there was a mention of at least one embassy in that briefing,� Lee said, �because there had been an attack on one of our embassies [in Baghdad, by pro-Iranian militia] leading up to the strike on Suleimani.�
Asked if he agreed with the former Republican now independent congressman Justin Amash, that Trump was guilty of an abuse of his power in ordering the strike without informing Congress, Lee said he did not �doubt there was an imminent attack but it�s frustrating not to get the details of the intelligence behind it�.
The Kentucky senator Rand Paul was more blunt than his fellow Republican on NBC�s Meet the Press, claiming Pompeo had given �contradictory information�.
�We�ve heard from the secretary of state that they don�t know where or when, but it was imminent,� Paul said. �He thinks he can square the circle but to me it seems pretty inconsistent.�
Robert O�Brien, Trump�s national security adviser, parroted the �exquisite intelligence� talking point.
�We had exquisite intelligence to show they were looking at US facilities throughout the region and they wanted to inflict casualties on American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, as well as diplomats,� he told NBC.
�The threat was imminent, I saw the evidence,� O�Brien added, declining to elaborate because he said the information was classified. Pressed on his definition of imminent, he said: �Soon, quickly.�
On ABC�s This Week, Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi accepted Iran had malignant intentions towards the US but questioned the president�s handling of the crisis.
�A lot of bad actors are doing bad things and threatening bad things to us, we know that,� she said, �Iran being one of them and its proxies doing bad things to our interests and the world.
�But how do we deal with that in a way that calms rather than escalates?�
Trump, meanwhile, continued to seek to capitalise on protests in Iran which broke out after the regime admitted shooting down the airliner.
�To the leaders of Iran,� the president tweeted, �DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS. Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching. Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people!�
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
If the effect of iron fertilization was to create dead zones, you wouldn't have Orcas and other life rushing to the area. An increase in iron stimulates the growth of phytoplankton, which is at the base of the ocean food chain, and they remove CO2 from the atmosphere too. The phytoplankton population has decreased about 40% since 1950, so stimulating it could help the entire ocean ecosystem and remove huge amounts of CO2.
The ocean is naturally fertilized with iron by dust storms, so it might be a relatively safe way to remove some of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. But too much iron fertilization might lead to a dead zone or other bad side effects, so we have to be careful.
I'm totally against private companies doing things like this. But I'm for scientists doing experiments to determine how safe it is and what the side effects are. If they determine it is safe enough, we could do carefully controlled larger scale tests, always carefully monitoring the effects. We may or may not discover that it is safe enough to deploy longer term, but we will never know if we don't do the right tests.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to it.
Klein needs to do a lot more reading, say "the cooling" by Lowell Ponte which documents weather modification projects from decades ago.
This is nothing new and doesn't even speak to the unspeakable situation in the nuclear Pacific.
By far the worst are the operations that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They have grown to the point that we will probably need to begin new geoengineering operations to counter them. Yes, this is insanity. But don't be in denial. This is our reality.
Don't be against potentially good geoengineering on principle. Yes, there are risks. So let's do experiments to reduce the risks as much as we can.
Continuing the bad geoengineering operations is way worse than risky. It is guaranteed destruction. If we can't manage to stop them (our current reality), then let's be realistic about our options.
Not to worry. This will not go on indefinitely.
Scientists tell us, based upon the number of species already lost to date, that we are well into the Sixth Major Extinction. "Major Extinction" being defined as those times when Mother Nature wipes out 90% or more of all living species on the planet, which she has done five times that we know of.
There have also been many lesser extinctions in which, say 45% or 60% of all species are removed.
The Extinction that wiped out the Dinosaurs was a lesser Extinction.
So, to all those bone-heads who were unable to process the bumper stickers in the '70s that reminded us of the fact that "Mother Nature Bats Last", bon voyage.
We keep screwing with cycles and systems we don't even vaguely understand, and we will get exactly what we deserve.
Let us not be so childish and naive as to think we need to "save the planet". The Planet, as she has proven many times over, is *more* than capable of taking care of herself. She will shuck us off like an old scab if need be.
We either find a way to enter into harmony with her cycles and systems or we eventually "get spanked". It's just not that complicated.
Thinking that one man on a boat with big pocketbook is going to successfully "manipulate" nature's major cycles is pretty close to proof that this species is ready for our "Natural Selection" moment !
We're drowning in a daily torrent of optically engineered public relations bullshit, offered up as reasonable fact, complete with background guitar music, that not even Naomi Klein can put a dent in, although I wish her luck.
Hope that all you Libertarians and "who needs regulations" types are watching.
Thanks for that info'.
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of the seventh generation...ev en if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
And then we showed up. In our seven generations in North America we have decimated human and animal populations, poisoned the water, contaminated the land and air, and now fight over everything that is left. Our skin is as thin as the layer of breathable air on this one fragile planet which is all we have. We point at other governments that rape their own lands as if that justifies our carelessness with our own. A leader like Jimmy Carter who encourages conservation and common sense is reviled.
We're a short-term race, we humans. Greedy for short-term profits and immediate gratification, short-sighted in our goals. Greed and hubris our defining characteristics . Sorry, my lovely granddaughter.. .we're screwed.
There is an absolutely wonderful book called 1491, about the American continent, before the settlers came. There is a lot of very good information in it. Like how Indians captured and living with Whites never quit trying to escape, but Whites captured and living with the Indians never wanted to go back to White culture. Native American homes were warmer and more watertight and environmentally sound, their diets also have more varied, with more nutrition and calories than Europeans.
It just seems like everything we've been told is wrong - but White culture has the guns and bombs. I sure hope we are learning, but I wonder.
At first glance I wanted to shout "Hallelujah", someone in mainstream news has FINALLY addressed geoengineering! Then (did you hear me?) I screamed " 'TESTING THE WATERS', MY ASS! GEOENGINEERING HAS BEEN GOING ON WORLD WIDE FOR AT LEAST TWO DECADES!"
Where is Ms. Klein's head? Maybe it is in some dark place where she cannot see the planes spraying, hear their engines, or breathe their aerosols of nanoparticles of aluminum, barium, strontium, self-replicatin g biological elements and other unknown substances. Maybe Ms. Klein should have her blood tested, as I and others have done, revealing extremely high levels of heavy metals like the ones, you know, THEY ARE SPRAYING ON US!
Listen to Rosalind Peterson, a former certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency crop-loss-adjus tor who tells how our crops and plant life are being devastated by geoengineering.
Educate yourself with the film "What In The World Are They Spraying" with G. Edward Griffin.
Learn of the in-depth and comprehensive research of Cliff Carnicom at the Carnicom Institute by clicking on "Geo-Engineerin g - Aerosol Research".
Do those three things, then revisit Ms. Klein's article. Do I hear "gatekeeper"?
I would watch one plane skimming over the ridges of the city of Clearlake to my east. At that point, the plane would be between 4400 and 4800 feet in elevation. Then the plane would rise to a height of 15,000 feet or more, then again it would drop down to go to the shoulder of Mt Konocti, some nine miles from where I first saw it. I would note how the plane barely was making it over the edge of that cliff. The elevation there? Around 4400 to 4800 feet. So would FAA allow a commercial plane to do this, to go from slightly above 4000 feet to above 15,000 feet and then back down again within nine miles? No, they would not. Nor would the military allow this. So what in the world was this about? And it was routine - happening every day, all afternoon long! And of course, the chem trails flared out behind each plane, to bloom in that strange way that the chem trails do, and not leave the skies but expand and expand!
Of course I am against private companies doing large scale geoengineering experiments. But it's past time for scientists to do carefully controlled and monitored small scale geoengineering experiments. We need to know what the effects and side effects actually ARE as opposed to what people think they might be.
I'm pretty sure we have delayed too long for prevention alone, or prevention plus adaptation, to be enough, and that is even IF we make serious changes to our energy system soon. If we add mitigation (geoengineering ), a 3-prong approach might still save us, and save the world from a mass extinction. If we don't do the tests now, we won't know which techniques are safest if and when we need to deploy them.
The Saudi Oil Minister, no less, made the remark that the Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones. He was referring to the peak oil concept. However, the stone industry, in that era, was not backed by huge legally santcioned formations of capital, with rights that actually far exceed those of any citizen, like Exxon and Chevron.
The way to combat global warming is to stop putting the gases into the atmosphere that cause global warming, even if that is harmful to the business model of these formations of capital.
Tommy Rimes
See what happens when you put megalomaniacs in charge.
Geoengineering has already been deployed for at least 16 years, and we are being bombarded with aluminum, barium, strontium, and other chemicals on an almost daily basis. Look up, everyone--and wake up!
This is the biggest threat facing us all that we can actually DO something about. It's right in front of us, and the evidence is powerful and overwhelming, everyday--even on days when we are Not sprayed, because that proves that regular 'contrails' must not exist every day either...
Only thing to update from Joanedra's post is that a new, better documentary just came out 2 months ago: "Why in the World Are They Spraying?" -- an in-depth follow-up to "What...?" -- and it's available in full at youtube. Do yourself and your loved ones a favor and watch this Now--and then spread the word about it.
"Why" indeed. How's your weather been lately, especially the last year or so? Ours is unheard of.
A historical analysis of how we got ourselves into this mess will show it is the result of a very lengthy string of technical fixes. Perhaps it's time we just accept the fact that adding additional beautiful humans to this planet isn't likely to increase its beauty for for us, or for the millions of other creatures that depend on a stable environment.
geoengineering, government and industry are out of our control now. but we are in control of ourselves, and must change much of our common behavior in order to save ourselves, as well as our descendants.
I've taken to asking people on the street whether they've heard of geoengineering or, more directly, whether they've noticed the aerosols streams in the sky. Mostly incredulous, but many are becoming awakened. Only way I can see to combat this is to make the obvious obvious, to a percentage of people that reaches the tipping point.
Engineers are for themselves to make a name in order to make money. Engineers think of today not future. The yesteryear had morals and ethics but since the USA and world does not...neither does this generation .... Like Drug Manufacturers it is about money. We need more Iron in the soil, silt, ocean as we do in our bodies as that is where it will end up causing childhood diseases, body malformations but hey we are the Guinea Pigs...
We allow it... I have fought so long, where has the masses been? Disease we invent and reinvent... this is another pollution and diseases to all life.
If nukes are so safe, why ---
oh hell, never mind. No one here can hear ---I'm convinced of it.
is 100% correct in her post. Chemtrails have been going for over 20 years now, where has Ms klien been during that time ? Moreover, as it has been going on for so long, how come the World is still alledgedly warming up despite the best efforts ?
Unfortunately what used to be a lovely Clear Lake with an occassional algae bloom has now become a chronic problem. One of our algi is a blue/green mycrosistic TOXIC algae. We know the problem - nutrient loading. But that conflicts with our burgeoning vineyards and wineries. Therefore the powers that be put the monitoring stations above the vineyards, not between them and the Lake. Now the County wants a half cent sales tax to 'deal with the Lake's conditions'. Sorry, voted against it - if you were more interested in the Lake (where the vast majority of us get our potable water) those monitoring stations would be in the proper place (not the politically expedient areas).
Considering the huge detritis gyres in the worlds oceans I'll need to see more before I can get too flipped out about algae being dumped.
If world population survives for a few more decades, the wealthy will certainly escape. If not, they will be holed up underground or in bunkers the size of the U.S. Baghdad embassy.
First, if you think about the reality for life in space it's pretty awful. Every system man creates breaks and is full of holes. Who want to eat and drink re-cycled chemicals and atmosphere? Who wants to live on a planet or in space we did not evolved for?
Believe me, I used to love space and science fiction, but having become and engineer and learning the real science as well as the biology of humans the last place I would want to live ... at least for 1000 years or so until things can develop is in a tin can in space.
Talk about radiation, the Earth's atmosphere protects us from lots of radiation. The reality of space colonization is not going to be very romantic at all. It's mostly dead out there - human beings and life on Earth wants to be around and needs other life.
Number two: When the earth is totally polluted and ruined, folks will see bubble cities on a random planet attractive, but also on earth, if they are lucky enough to be included.
Number three: Your attitude about the advent of space living and travel and disaster has nothing to do with it. Future generations, should they survive, would not be cognizant of our sensibilities. Romantic attitudes have nothing to do with it either.
Number four: Earth's atmosphere is being destroyed as I write, therefore, those space colonies could easily burgeon on this planet.
I am not one to advocate domed cities or space colonies, but it isn't that far fetched. Also, I do not want to live underground as a result of atmospheric decline or nuclear war or any other man made nonsense. That does not mean it isn't happening.
The idea that humans can build communities on other planets is a perfect example of the science community's exquisitely seductive brain rot that infects and destroys basic common sense and valuation of the Earth's natural processes.
Look into screens all day long, become divorced from three-dimension al reality. And if everyone's doing it, no one will be the wiser.
Good intentions, road to hell.
EMFs, EMR, Stuxnet, Fukushima, HAARP, a culture and economy based on unsustainable rape of Earth's resources. Myself included, we are all part of the machine that removes us from our immediate present, our immediate communities.
The main thing our "communications " "grid" has accomplished, that I can see, is that it gives people an excuse not to speak to each other every single day, all day. Go home, sit on couch, look into machine screen. Leave home, climb into machine. Go to work, go into another building (cave), look at another screen. I see it EVERY DAY. Every single person does this. Animals despair--they'r e wiser than we are, but we lord our power over them because the Bible said God gave Man Dominion.
All attention on screen. Attention is disconnected from touch, taste, smell, the immediate physical presence of other humans.
We worship Man's ability to create ever more machines, and not the living processes that actually give us life.
There is plenty to worry about (as Naomi's article suggests), but conspiracy theorists have been muddying the waters (or skies) for nearly two decades now with the notion that there's a massive on-going campaign on the part of the "New World Order" (substitute the conspiratorial synonym of your choice) to poison us all by dumping chemicals into our atmosphere. Some of them think it's geoengineering to reverse global warming, others are certain that it's an effort to dumb us all down and make more compliant "sheeple" of us. (They're trying to pollute our precious bodily fluids!)
But I'm an old phart, and I remember seeing contrails back in the 1950s that look exactly like the supposed "chemtrail" photos I see posted virtually every week on the Web. Every contrail contains the byproducts of jet fuel combustion and always has. No turbojet of which I'm aware is 100% efficient, and so there's always some amount of unburned hydrocarbons and soot mixed in with the water vapor CO2 and CO in jet exhaust. When the exhaust stream is laid-down in the stratosphere and lit a certain way (e.g., by sunlight from above) it tends to be brilliant white against a cobalt blue sky, but when it is back-lit you can see the filth that's in it -- the same old pollution that has ALWAYS been in it from the first launch of the first turbojet many decades ago.
So please, let's not confuse this very real and important issue with this "chemtrail" nonsense, okay?
If the atomic bomb could be devised, detonated, killing thousands, without anyone's permission, why not other forms of deadly technology?
I was reading "The Fifties" by David Halberstam (great book) and it talks about the Manhattan Project setting off the Trinity test bomb. Apparently the scientists did not know whether the bomb might ignite all the oxygen in Earth's universe. They thought that it could do that.
They set it off anyway.
Searching for rationality and reason as motives is a waste of time when it comes to science like this.
Then sometimes they resume leaving the fat trails.
Perhaps you have not watched the sky long enough to observe this. You might be surprised.