White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'
I have an idea; let's call it an assassination! 
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-effectively-admits-iran-did-not-pose-imminent-threat-n1137711
White House effectively admits Iran did not pose an 'imminent threat'
We're dealing with a dynamic in which the president risked a war for reasons that now appear illegitimate.
Feb. 17, 2020, 11:20 AM EST
By Steve Benen
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif sat down with NBC News' Richard Engel last week and reflected on the violence between the United States and Iran last month. Zarif argued in the interview that the Trump administration brought the region very close to the brink." He added, "We were very close to a war."
There are still all kinds of questions, however, about why we were very close to a war. According to the Trump administration, the military offensive that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was necessary in order to prevent an "imminent" attack. At least, that was the line in January. As the New York Times reported, the White House has dramatically changed its posture.
snip//
After these meandering and contradictory explanations for the airstrike effectively collapsed, the president told a group of donors at Mar-a-Lago that he approved the strike that killed Soleimani because the general "was saying bad things about our country."
I know I've stressed this point a few times, but we're dealing with a dynamic in which the president risked a war for reasons that now appear illegitimate -- just as his Senate impeachment trial was poised to get underway. While his most sycophantic followers may find that satisfactory, the rest of the political world need not accept politically motivated lies about national security so casually.
= new reply since forum marked as read
