Ex-US intel officer: Pompeo 'lying through his teeth' on Iran

Comments

stokkebye's picture

Bush and Obama both wanted to take Salami out but they didnt becuase they feared war with Iran. Salami knew this and knew he could walk around without fear of being taken out, also if indeed he was planning attacks on the embassies how could he get others to do it if he was covert? 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Bush & Obama didn't refuse to take out Major General Qasem Soleimani because they feared war with Iran. They refused because it's strategically retarded.

 

Your question is dumb. Neither Soleimani nor his successor Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani need leave Iran to ask people to carry something out. Also, there's no precedent of them attacking an embassy. Even if you include the violent demonstration by mostly Kataib Hezbollah on the US embassy in Baghdad, no-one was harmed in that and they left on their own accord after 2 days. Bear in mind that Kataib Hezbollah are part of the Iraqi armed forces & the US had killed 35+ of their men in an unprovoked attack just days prior.

 

There are people from both sides of your partisan shithole government who are calling bullshit on the intel shown in the secure breifing that was supposed to disclose the nature of the "imminent threat". Doesn't that tell you something?

 

There's another clue that this "imminent threat" story is garbage. They tried to assassinate another IRGC commander in Yemen at the same time. [link]

I'd be interested to hear how you square this up with the "imminent threat" conspiracy theory. There's been a real attack on that embassy (not a protest like the one in Baghdad) - the US embassy in Yemen was attacked in 2008 by al Qaeda affiliates - the very people Quds Force opposes. [link]

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

The 'imminent threat' comes from lies being told to your face.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

The Quds Force strategy will be the same as during the Martyr General Soleimani [link]

 

... so the 'imminent threat' was not stopped at all, begging the question: will the US continue to target Quds Force commanders?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Excellent interview with a us ied specialist who was in Iraq https://scotthorton.org/interviews/1-10-20-matthew-hoh-on-whos-really-re...

 

He says its stupid to think the quds force had anything to do with the enhanced ieds that killed 600 Americans. The afps were made locally and had no Iranian parts or anything. They can trace that shit. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

The video interview of Scott Ritter you posted contradicts what you're saying about Quds not having anything to do with killing 600 Americans. Soleimani along with his Quds forces provided those weapons to the Shia resistance fighters.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

No it doesn't.

 

The narrative around "600 dead Americans" is a lie being told to dummies who don't bother looking at the facts. Scott Ritter hasn't endorsed this at all AFAIK.

 

Scott doesn't attribute EFPs to Quds Force, which is the backbone of the "600" lie. He has some other logic about Quds Force helping groups in Iraq during their resistance to US occupation.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

HE LITERALLY SAYS IT IN THE INTERVIEW YOU POSTED WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

"Scott Ritter has unquestionable credentials on matters of intel"

 

True, but being an "Ex-US Intel officer" means he no longer has access to matters of intel and can't be considered a reliable source regarding specific intelligence today. He can be a reliable source on who Soleimani was, during his own service, but even this guy can't go around spitting out classified intel.

 

Having also written entire books on Iran and one about Trump for stopping the Iran Nuclear Deal, means he has special interest, whether true or not, because anything related to Trump and Iran will boost his sales.

 

"if you go to Syria today and ask civilians who were liberated by Qassem Soleimani, they are deeply greatful". He puts more weight on the opinions of civilians in a different warzone, than what the intelligence today says.

 

He is lyrically placing himself in a position where he isn't exactly wrong nor right, but simultaneously downplaying intelligence that says Soleimani may have been planning attacks and be responsible for previous ones, while giving more weight to the perceived image in the region of someone who had been presented as a hero figure to the people and currently mostly is in the media.

 

Instead of saying Soleimani helped a terrorist group by giving them weapons to specifically kill American soldiers, he says:

 

"He intervened on behalf of Shia resistence fighters who were opposing an American occupation who they viewed as illegitimate and illegal." (conveniently leaves out the organization's name)

 

He contradicts himself repeatedly but not without downplaying the other side of the story.

 

"You hear this from many Americans, "he has the blood of 600 Americans on his hands"

 

"He also employed something called the improved rocket assisted mortar, which lobbed these very lethal munitions into American camps killing and wounding many Americans..."

 

"I guess we could say, yes, he has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands, but..." LOL

 

"We should be rejoicing in his death, but..."

 

"Is it possible that there was wrongdoing on part of Qassem Soleimani? Yes. but..."

 

"Some of what they say about him may be true but I look at the big picture".

 

Towards the end he makes the most asinine of statements I've heard coming from a former intelligence officer:

 

"Anytime we hear a government official say we can't tell you more because of sources and methods, it means they're lying."

 

Oh yeah, sure fuck the lives of those people in the embassy or active officers in other operations in the region, jesus christ what a dumb fuck. It's not like congress has a problem with leaks at all.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Oh yeah, sure fuck the lives of those people in the embassy or active officers in other operations in the region

Who the fuck are you talking about?

 

Lives of officers ... lives of people in the embassy?

What?

 

It's not like congress has a problem with leaks at all.

So just believe any lies coming from Pompeo etc on matters of intelligence from now on because Congress leaks? Even if it's being used to cover up an unauthorised act of war that could have had huge consequences?

 

That's some cowardly, fascist shit.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye's picture

Problem is we have a House that suffers from OrangeManBad syndrome and would rather see the country go down in a flames then work with Trump! So yeah, I dont blame him for NOT trusting the house!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

That's pretty pathetic & I know you didn't come up with that excuse yourself.

 

Q: Is there a precendent for sensitive intel relating to matters of war being leaked for partisan purposes in this current administration? Or any administration?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

It's about protecting and sources and methods.

Intelligence officers, agents, spies, employees, diplomats stationed in conflict zones have to be safe before you can start spreading information about who they are or how the information was acquired.

 

If the leaders of a country is swearing retaliation, you don't say shit until you know everyone involved are safe.

 

Sometimes you might even want to keep those methods or sources for future operations in the region.

 

When the democrats in congress and the entire left wing media leaks everything they can get their hands on, the best approach is to shut the fuck up until you've secured everyone.

 

Is that really that hard to understand?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down