[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
After insisting for almost two weeks that he ordered the assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani<\/a> to thwart an imminent Iranian-inspired operation, or operations, that could have killed hundreds of Americans, Donald Trump<\/a> changed tack on Monday. In a series of statements, he claimed that Suleimani\u2019s history of orchestrating attacks on American soldiers and installations was sufficient to justify his killing, and he also suggested that Democrats who questioned his judgment were giving succor to terrorists.<\/p>\n In one of a barrage of Twitter posts on Monday morning, Trump said, \u201cThe Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was \u2018imminent\u2019 or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn\u2019t really matter because of his horrible past!\u201d Later in the day, Trump told<\/a> reporters, \u201cWe killed Soleimani, the No. 1 terrorist in the world by every account. Bad person. Killed a lot of Americans, killed a lot of people. We killed him. And when the Democrats try and defend him, it\u2019s a disgrace to our country.\u201d<\/p>\n The Democrats haven\u2019t been trying to defend Suleimani, of course. \u201cNo American will mourn Qassem Solemaini\u2019s passing,\u201d the Presidential candidate Joe Biden<\/a> said<\/a> in one of the first Democratic responses to the January 3rd drone strike. \u201cHe deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region.\u201d Other Democrats made similar statements. But Democrats have also pointed out that the Administration has failed to provide any convincing evidence to back up Trump\u2019s claim that the Iranian was plotting imminent attacks against Americans. Some of them, including Nancy Pelosi<\/a>, the Speaker of the House, have made the argument<\/a> that killing Suleimani was a dangerous escalation that has created greater danger for Americans, especially American service members in the Middle East.<\/p>\n When Trump feels challenged, he doesn\u2019t let the truth or common decency or respect for his office impair his demagogic response. Last Thursday, he told<\/a> reporters, \u201cYou know what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran who has killed so many people.\u201d Pelosi didn\u2019t defend Suleimani. \u201cIn fact, we were not able to find any examples of Democrats who have defended or \u2018mourned\u2019 the death of Iran\u2019s top military commander,\u201d FactCheck.org reported<\/a> last Friday. But, of course, this admonition didn\u2019t halt Trump\u2019s efforts to demonize the Democrats. On Monday morning, he retweeted<\/a> a Photoshopped image of Pelosi and Chuck Schumer<\/a>, the Senate Minority Leader, wearing traditional Islamic headwear, with an Iranian flag behind them. The caption on the tweet was: \u201cThe corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah\u2019s rescue. #NancyPelosiFakeNews.\u201d<\/p>\n Appearing on Fox News, Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, didn\u2019t just defend Trump\u2019s inflammatory retweet. She sought to expand upon it, saying<\/a>, \u201cI think the President is making clear that the Democrats have been parroting Iranian talking points and almost taking the side of terrorists and those who are out to kill Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s explicit adoption of McCarthyite smears, combined with the shift in rationales for the assassination of Suleimani, appeared to reflect alarm that he is losing the Iran messaging battle. This past weekend, an ABC News\/Ipsos poll showed<\/a> that a majority of Americans agree with the Democrats: fifty-two per cent of the respondents to the poll said that killing Suleimani made America less safe. And, on the same day that the poll was released, Trump\u2019s own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, stated publicly that he hadn\u2019t seen a single piece of intelligence that backs up Trump\u2019s claim that Suleimani was plotting to blow up four American Embassies. \u201cI didn\u2019t see one with regard to four embassies,\u201d Esper said<\/a> on CBS\u2019s \u201cFace the Nation.\u201d (He hastily added, \u201cI share the President\u2019s view that probably\u2014my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies.\u201d)<\/p>\n Esper\u2019s admission was only one of many developments that have undermined Trump\u2019s initial explanations. On Monday, there was another one. NBC News reported that Trump gave provisional authorization for the killing of Suleimani seven months ago \u201cif Iran\u2019s increased aggression resulted in the death of an American.\u201d Citing five current and former Administration officials as sources, the NBC News story<\/a> went on to say that the June Presidential order \u201ccame with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump hasn\u2019t disavowed his claim about an attack on four embassies being imminent, and he surely won\u2019t. However, his Administration is clearly looking to make a case for the strike on Suleimani that doesn\u2019t hinge on the danger of an imminent attack. In a speech on Monday, Mike Pompeo<\/a>, the Secretary of State, argued<\/a> that Suleimani\u2019s elimination was part of a broader U.S. strategy to \u201cre\u00ebstablishing deterrence\u2014real deterrence\u2014against the Islamic Republic of Iran.\u201d During a press conference at the Justice Department, William Barr<\/a>, the Attorney General, also weighed in, describing the question of whether there was an imminent threat as \u201ca red herring.\u201d Barr said<\/a>, \u201cI think when you\u2019re dealing with a situation where you already have attacks under way, you know there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, I don\u2019t think there is a requirement, frankly, of knowing the exact time and place of the next attack. That certainly was the position of the Obama Administration when it droned leaders of terrorist organizations.\u201d<\/p>\n The Obama Administration didn\u2019t drone a sovereign state\u2019s top general. Nor did it needlessly create a war scare with Iran that could have easily escalated into a full-scale conflict. Just how easily became clear on Monday when reporters visited the Ain al-Asad airbase<\/a> in Iraq\u2019s Anbar Province, which Iran hit with a barrage of missiles last week. Contrary to initial reports, the Iranian weapons caused extensive damage, which included the destruction of a dormitory that housed U.S. service members. \u201cA lot of people would have died if we hadn\u2019t moved,\u201d U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Dan Kvasager told<\/a> Richard Engel, of NBC News.<\/p>\n If the Iranian missile strike had resulted in multiple American deaths, we\u2019d probably be on the way to war with Iran now\u2014and Trump would be busy lying about how it came about.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n