PrintPresident Trump reveals that Soleimani was targeting four separate embassies
During a Friday interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, President Trump explicitly stated that, as part of the decision to strike Qassem Soleimani, intelligence had revealed that Soleimani was plotting future attacks, not just on the embassy in Baghdad, but on three other American embassies:
INGRAHAM: Don't the American people have a right to know what specifically was targeted without revealing methods and sources?
TRUMP: Well, I don't think so, but we will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad.
INGRAHAM: Did he have large scale attacks planned for other embassies? And if those were planned, why can't we reveal that to the American people? Wouldn't that help your case?
TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would've been four embassies.
It's doubtful that the president's statement, hedged as it is with cautionary language, will convince those who think Trump lacked the urgent necessity that would justify a presidential order to strike Soleimani. Presidential watchers have noted that his story went from unspecified imminent strikes to a possible second strike on the embassy in Baghdad to the claim that Soleimani had up to four embassies on his terrorism wish list.
The changing narrative will only add fuel to the speculation about whether the president was justified in executing Soleimani when he had the chance. Interestingly, no one asked this question when President Obama ordered Osama bin Laden's death, even though bin Laden had been out of the fray for years, or when President Trump ordered Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's death.
The truth is that what's got the president's critics in a dither is the fact that Soleimani wore two hats: one hat was as a member of a foreign nation's government; the other hat was as a worldwide terrorist and terrorism-fomenter. The real question, then, is whether, given Soleimani's terrorism record, the fact that he had the Iranian government's imprimatur was enough to protect him from harsh and sudden justice for his many wrongs. That question, ultimately, is political, not constitutional, and is one that the voters will answer in November.
During a Friday interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, President Trump explicitly stated that, as part of the decision to strike Qassem Soleimani, intelligence had revealed that Soleimani was plotting future attacks, not just on the embassy in Baghdad, but on three other American embassies:
INGRAHAM: Don't the American people have a right to know what specifically was targeted without revealing methods and sources?
TRUMP: Well, I don't think so, but we will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad.
INGRAHAM: Did he have large scale attacks planned for other embassies? And if those were planned, why can't we reveal that to the American people? Wouldn't that help your case?
TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would've been four embassies.
It's doubtful that the president's statement, hedged as it is with cautionary language, will convince those who think Trump lacked the urgent necessity that would justify a presidential order to strike Soleimani. Presidential watchers have noted that his story went from unspecified imminent strikes to a possible second strike on the embassy in Baghdad to the claim that Soleimani had up to four embassies on his terrorism wish list.
The changing narrative will only add fuel to the speculation about whether the president was justified in executing Soleimani when he had the chance. Interestingly, no one asked this question when President Obama ordered Osama bin Laden's death, even though bin Laden had been out of the fray for years, or when President Trump ordered Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's death.
The truth is that what's got the president's critics in a dither is the fact that Soleimani wore two hats: one hat was as a member of a foreign nation's government; the other hat was as a worldwide terrorist and terrorism-fomenter. The real question, then, is whether, given Soleimani's terrorism record, the fact that he had the Iranian government's imprimatur was enough to protect him from harsh and sudden justice for his many wrongs. That question, ultimately, is political, not constitutional, and is one that the voters will answer in November.
FOLLOW US ON
