It worked for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. They suffered zero consequences for lying their way into a permanent war, and they profit from it every single day, regardless of our being “scandalized.” So, why wouldn’t Trump & Co. run that play again?
This, from the imminently imbecilic president of the deplorables.
Keep up the anti-war rhetoric, Bernie. Trump’s Pompeo-fueled bullshit is a winning issue for you.
I guess I should amend this a little. Instead of “zero consequences,” I have to acknowledge the consequence of not wanting to travel abroad much for fear of winding up in The Hague (something the likes of Ellen DeGeneres are happy to overlook).
The high court of King Don continues its legacy of lies and bullshit as they endanger the world in their demented try to rule the world. The jesters in this court like Pompano, Esper, former member, Bolton, and appointed other fools are destroying everything in trying to rule the world. It’s time to raise awareness of this demented approach and get back to saving the ecology of Earth herself. Stop warring already.
Great alliteration, but it’s “Eminently!” (Imminent = very soon and the Orange menace already is; eminent = to a great degree; immanent = inherent. Isn’t English a fun language?)
And isn’t Professor Cole posing a rhetorical question? What else could it be?!
I think that Americans should be impressed with General Soleimani. He was respected by the soldiers and many in the nation, and he remained a general instead of going off and working for companies who produce war materials—and didn’t sell his soul to corporate war machine makers.
Imagine what it would be like if America’s generals actually stayed and actually fought to win—win something, anything to justify taking all that money. Apparently, they have instead all learned that all they have to do is to say that they are winning—although, it would seem like some in the media would have noticed a plethora of generals and no wins. If you can’t win a war, and you do this consistently—why get rewarded?
It must be wonderful for many in Iran who had a leader that cared about the troops and was able to work with so many other nations—and not seem infested with arrogance. It seems to be a sign of a soulless military and soulless press.
Even George Washington said “beware of entangling alliances…” but that’s what America does, entangle, entangle, entangle—with nothing to show except a lot of body bags. I think that the best way to support our troops is to care about the soldiers by NOT sending them into stupid and useless wars.
Good post. It’s disheartening to see that gang that includes Natl Security Advisor C. Rice and Sec. of State C. Powell reaping rewards for “lying their way into a permanent war.”
The wars go on, and they are pleased and rewarded. And emulated by Trump & Co.
What needs to be stressed over and over is that even if they had real intel that this Iranian General was planning something bad the US or any other nation has no right to assasinate him on foreign soil. This was a war crime forbidden by US & International law.
You have to ask?
I find it a sad comment that Juan Cole is actually wondering whether or not he was lied to by professional liars.
I read mainstream media with a presumption of mendacity. I presume it is all misinformation and propaganda unless and until there is some reason to believe otherwise.
He’s wondering if Trump and Pompeo and the MSM are lying to him? C’mon Juan.
“It appears that Soleimani was actually coming to Iraq on a mission of negotiating less conflict with Saudi Arabia.” This is the most important sentence in the piece.
This was stated by the Iraqi prime minister the day after the killing… Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.” The Saudis allegedly sought a way to lessen the conflict with Iran and asked Iraq to be the go-between, and, (in addition to Muhandis), one of the Iraqis who was there to meet him and died in the attack was chief of protocol and public relations Muhammed Reza al-Jaberi…"
Travels in the open on a commercial jet – goes through customs – is met by the chief of protocol – scheduled to meet with the prime minister that morning….sounds a lot like a negotiation to me.
There is no reason yet to believe this isn’t true – if true – Suleimani was killed during a peace negotiation. If the Saudis were the source of the intel for his whereabouts at that point in time, and the Trump white house knew why Suleimani was in Iraq, both countries and the individuals involved are guilty of one of the worst international war crimes. You don’t lure people out and then kill them while they are carrying white flags.
I believe that Juan Cole was a cheerleader for taking down Gadaffi and now that country has descended into darkness.
The Saudis seem to have come to the conclusion that an outright war with Iran was one where they could not prevail.
Yemen is still resisting the Saudis attempt to take them over and this has lead to the disintegration of the alliances they had with other Gulf states.
The US Patriot anti-missile systems proved to be a failure as they were unable to protect Saudi Oil Refineries . The Saudis started discussions with Russia about purchasing their systems.
The Saudis funded the war against Asaad in Syria and failed in their goal to remove him with their allies in the field crushed.
The Saudis recognized that if a hot war happened with Iran , the USA would escape most of the fallout due to geography and Saudi Arabia would become the sacrificial lamb gaining little while seeing their infrastructure and economy shattered.
They decided to approach Iraq and send out peace feelers to Iran . The USA did not want this to happen. The USA used the information they gathered on Soleimanis travel plans on that mission of peace to assassinate him.
There parallels here with what happened in Japan in WW2. The Japanese made multiple attempts to negotiate a peace all of which the USA rebuffed as any peace had to be on US terms only. The USA is not and has never been a nation that wants peace. War is far too profitable and this why they spend 1 trillion a year on their Military.
Maybe the Saudi’s were working with the US to get Soleimani into a position where he could be easily targeted. Seems fishy to me… especially how ‘we’ seem to be so enamored with the house of Saud.
Jared calls up MBS and says “Hey, we need a favor, and we think you’ll like this one…”
I am not sure a peace deal was even real, just a pretext to get a clean shot.
That possible as well as the House of Saud have always been duplicitous bastards.
On founding when the rest of the Arab alliance was attacking the Turks during WW1 so as to gain independence (with British prompting of course), the House of Saud was attacking those same allies so as to expand their territory.
And combined with ‘our’ duplicitous bastards… we have a full house. Pun intended… sorry.