Impeach and remove

When it comes to intelligence, like with so much else, President Donald Trump likes big names. It’s this focus on celebrity, headlines, and immediate gratification — versus substance, impact, and consequences — that so often motivates him. Partly because of this, as a senior CIA counterterrorist manager, my team and I often struggled in persuading the president to recognize the most important threats. Now, with the killing of Qassem Soleimani, I worry that while Trump got a big name and lots of headlines, the long-term impact on U.S. strategic interests was not fully considered.

At CIA, I saw this play out more than once. Trump’s obsession in focusing resources against Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza is one example of the president’s preference for a “celebrity” targeted killing versus prioritizing options that could prove better for U.S. security.

[...]

The president responded in similar fashion with ISIS, as his public comments after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s death show. Although U.S. efforts to target key ISIS leaders and operatives had preempted what might have been any number of devastating terrorist attacks, the president’s lack of familiarity with their names made such efforts, and their accomplishments, less consequential to him. As the commander-in-chief, of course, the president’s preferences are tied to his own political risk versus gain calculus, and this is not always aligned with the views of the Intelligence Community. It was not lost on us working the issue that the president pressed hardest for results in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections.

That brings us to where we are today. As commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Soleimani was a big name. In the president’s mind, killing Soleimani could have seemed like an opportunity to make himself the commander-in-chief willing to do what no one else would risk. Again, it appears to have been more about Trump, and the potential for headlines, rather than the intelligence.

[...]

While I can’t rule out reporting suggesting CIA Director Gina Haspel supported the Soleimani strike, it would be rather uncharacteristic and incongruous for her to endorse an action that the press similarly reported she advised would prompt Iran to unleash its ballistic missiles against the 5,000-plus U.S. troops deployed in Iraq.

[...]

I do not debate we had intelligence regarding any number of prospective attacks Iran was facilitating through proxies in Iraq, and elsewhere. But don’t we always? The Iranians design potential operations at various degrees of lethality and provocation, some of which they will execute, others to put aside for a rainy day. It’s what they do. The reality is that the U.S. government would have been legally bound to warn the public of a threat against an American embassy.

  Douglas London @ Just Security

Well, you'd think they'd at least have to notify the embassies that were supposedly being targeted. Did they do that?

Intelligence assessments on the anticipated escalatory paths Iran would follow in response to kinetic U.S. retaliatory measures have been consistent and well briefed to every president. The surprise wasn’t that the Iranians escalated, but that they pulled their punches to minimize casualties and provide an off ramp to further escalation.

[...]

Soleimani’s death will be a great loss to Iran, and provides justice for the vast blood he has spilled over the years, but the operations he shepherded will not die with him. Iran is not done, but will return to the clandestine arena where operating asymmetrically levels the playing field with the U.S. I expect that the Intelligence Community has told the president as much, or would have, if he bothered to solicit and value its input. Instead, the president’s decision to kill Soleimani reflects his propensity to play a good hand badly and respond from ego rather than pragmatism and the country’s best interests.

There ought to be a law

Jesus fucking Christ, this guy is the fucking Secretary of Defense.

The whole administration is a bunch of toadies doing a batshit narcissist's bidding.

UPDATE 8pm:

UPDATE:

"Could have been."  Some people have no pride.

Iran takes the blame

Iran says "the plane plane was mistaken for a hostile target after it turned towards a sensitive military centre of the Revolutionary Guards."

The Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, wrote: “A sad day. Preliminary conclusions of internal investigation by armed forces: human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster. Our profound regrets, apologies and condolences to our people, to the families of all victims, and to other affected nations.”

  Guardian

This is what becomes of military bullshit.

UPDATE:

Remove this man immediately

Fucking nightmare.

And yeah, sure, great at names: North Atlantic Treaty Organization of the Middle East.  I'm going to have to guess he either 1) doesn't know that the NA in NATO stands for North Atlantic, or 2) has no fucking clue where the Middle East is, or 3) is just starstruck by the letters ME.

Christ.

New rationale for assassinating Soleimani:  He did what Obama failed to do - protect our embassy.

And nobody thanked him for it, but that's okay, right?

Obviously can't even remember the initials, much less the actual title.

It gets worse

Doesn't it always?

If President Trump made the decision to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, would he need to come to Congress to get authorization for it?

The Trump administration won’t say.

That remarkable claim is now being made by a Republican senator — Mike Lee of Utah. He offered it in a new interview with NPR, in which he shared fresh details about why he erupted in anger on Wednesday over the briefing Congress received from the administration on Iran.

[...]

Lee, echoing the complaints of many Democrats, blasted the briefing on the intelligence behind the assassination as the “worst” he’d ever seen. He also fumed that officials refused to acknowledge any “hypothetical” situations in which they would come to Congress for authorization for future military hostilities against Iran.

[...]

Lee reiterated that officials “were unable or unwilling to identify any point” at which they’d come to Congress for authorization for the use of military force.

[...]

As I recall, one of my colleagues asked a hypothetical involving the Supreme Leader of Iran: If at that point, the United States government decided that it wanted to undertake a strike against him personally, recognizing that he would be a threat to the United States, would that require authorization for the use of military force?

The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting.

[...]

“If the administration won’t concede that this is a clear example of when they would they would have to go to Congress, it’s hard to imagine what would be,” Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, added. “This underscores just how completely irrelevant they view Congress to be in the war powers conversation.”

[...]

It’s worth stressing that this is emerging as the explicit position among Trump’s loyalists and propagandists. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) is now dismissing concerns about the need for Congress to reassert its warmaking authority as “emboldening the enemy.”

Meanwhile, Trump just rage-tweeted that he wants “all House Republicans” to “vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution.”

  WaPo

Well, not exactly rage-tweeted.

Please don't make me defend Trump.

That’s a reference to a measure that the House speaker is putting to a House vote Thursday that would require Trump to cease any military hostilities against Iran 30 days after enactment, if he hasn’t received congressional authorization for it. The House will all but certainly pass this, and there are other tougher measures on tap.

[...]

But despite this, the GOP-controlled Senate is still likely to block such efforts. Last spring, a similar measure failed to get the 60 votes needed for passage, with all but four GOP senators voting against it. Virtually all GOP senators will likely vote against the new one, too.

[...]

Trump’s tweet calling on “all House Republicans” to vote against the new war powers measure now means that being loyal to Trump is synonymous with giving him unconstrained warmaking authority, despite all the madness we’ve seen.

[...]

By the way, it requires restating: Former president Barack Obama abused the war power as well, and far too many congressional Democrats went along with it. Congress has been abdicating its war-declaring authority for decades.

Indeed.

Iranian missile attack details

U.S. officials said they knew by Tuesday afternoon that the Iranians intended to strike at American targets in Iraq.

[...]

The early warning came from intelligence sources as well as from communications from Iraq that conveyed Iran’s intentions to launch the strike, officials said.

“We knew, and the Iraqis told us, that this was coming many hours in advance,” said a senior administration official.

[...]

But others downplayed claims that the Iraqis had such a consequential role. A senior defense official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the Iraqis provided warning, it certainly wasn’t hours in advance.

[...]

“It was literally like right before” the Iranians launched their missiles, one senior defense official said.

[...]

The advance warning gave military commanders time to get U.S. troops into safe, fortified positions at the bases.

  WaPo

Then it wasn't "literally like right before.”

According to military officials, troops at bases in Iraq were ordered into bunkers, donned protective gear and were told to “shelter in place.”

The troops remained in their protected positions for hours, including after the strike.

[...]

Commanders on the ground, overseen by Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, head of the U.S. Central Command, also moved some service members off small bases in the region and scattered equipment and people on installations to make them harder to hit.

[...]

Military officials were not sure, once the missiles were launched, which locations Iran had targeted. It was hard to tell at the Pentagon which bases were under attack “until actual impact on two specific bases,” a senior U.S. military official said. “The attack spread out for more than an hour."

[...]

Even with the advance notice, U.S. military officials were still scrambling after the attack to assess the damage and determine Iran’s intentions. U.S. forces in the region remained on high alert after the strikes, but no significant troop movements have been made in Syria or elsewhere, according to military officials.

[...]

The second senior defense official acknowledged that officials on Tuesday night intended to limit information released to the public until the extent of the damage and how Trump might respond became clearer.

“We all understood that if the Iranians were to respond next, we owned the shot clock after,” the official said. “So, you need to be very thoughtful, very deliberate.”

Tell that to your commander in chief.

The Pentagon and State Department sent staffers to the White House early Wednesday to write Trump’s speech.

[...]

A third senior administration official said there was a sigh of relief when Trump agreed to read from prepared remarks and not take questions. Some aides were concerned that Trump might deviate from the precise remarks and misspeak if he made extemporaneous remarks to reporters, the official said.

They're catching on.

UPDATE:

Uh-oh

And Carlson was critical.  While Sean Hannity's show still got more viewers, it doesn't bode well for His Lardship if criticizing him draws a bigger crowd for Carlson.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The arsonist at the scene of the crime

In a span of just 24 hours, Trump went from threatening to devastate Iran and bomb its cultural sites — a move widely considered a war crime and condemned by Republicans — to calmly delivering a measured address about slapping economic sanctions on the country, striking a new nuclear deal and urging an international institution — NATO — to become more involved in the Middle East.”

“The fact that we have this great military and equipment … does not mean we have to use it,” Trump said in televised remarks late Wednesday morning, surrounded by a phalanx of men in uniform who stood in a half-moon formation behind his podium.

[...]

Trump concluded his speech Wednesday signaling open arms with a far gentler style than his typical posture of us-versus-them politics. “The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it,” Trump said.

[...]

The about-face was classic Trump: ratcheting up the tough talk and then retreating with a conciliatory tone. It’s a playbook the president rolled out for China, North Korea, Iran and a long list of domestic policy concerns. And it’s dizzied some of his allies and adversaries who are still trying to make sense of a president who is wrapping up his third year in office.

  Politico

Schizoid narcissists are good at that.

Iran was just the latest example of a pattern of behavior in which the Trump administration acted boldly, ratcheted up a situation and then sought credit for extinguishing the crisis.

And he'll be wanting his Nobel Peace Prize for it.

“The president narrowly avoided a needless war today,” said Wendy Sherman, the former under secretary of State for political affairs under President Barack Obama and the lead negotiator for the Iran nuclear deal. “The president is both the arsonist and the fireman. He set the world on flames when he left the JCPOA and then when he decided to kill Qassem Soleimani. Now, he wants to be the fireman and say, ‘I put this all out. It was President Obama who caused all of the problems.’"

[...]

[A]t least one Senate Democrat was swayed by a classified briefing on Wednesday about the killing of Soleimani. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he now had a “better understanding right now of why they did what they did when they did it.

Manchin isn't a real Democrat. Just because you register as a Democrat to win a seat doesn't mean you are one. And if the Republicans wanted to completely take over the country forever, they'd start running some of them as Democrats.

Within the Republican Party, for a day at least, many allies and critics alike were too relieved to quibble on Wednesday.

“He did a very nice job with his address,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). “I’m aware that the action in killing Soleimani, who was a very bad person and deserved to die, that there’s an upside from that act. And a downside.”

Deserved to die. Who gets to decide that? Never mind, I know: whoever the president is.

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Paul of Kentucky said they will support an effort to constrain Trump’s military stance toward Iran, mostly because of how insufficient they found Wednesday’s briefing.

"One of the messages that we received from the briefers was: Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And that if you do you'll be emboldening Iran,” Lee groused. "It is not acceptable ... to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional. And it's wrong. And I hope they will show more deference to their limited power in the future.”

Don't hold your breath, Mike.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

*UPDATE 1/10:  And that very evening at a rally in Ohio...

Lindsey whoring for Trump again

[A] back-and-forth between [Republican Senators Rand] Paul and [Lindsey] Graham comes after a closed-door briefing with top administration officials on the U.S. airstrike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Paul and Lee both said after the briefing that they will support a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that would limit Trump's ability to take military action against Iran without congressional signoff.

[...]

Graham told reporters on Wednesday that he thought Paul and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) were "overreacting" by criticizing comments made during [the] briefing.

"They're libertarians," Graham said. "I think they're overreacting, quite frankly. Go debate all you want to. I'm going to debate you. Trust me, I'm going to let people know that at this moment in time to play this game with the war powers act ... whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy."

Paul, asked about the comments during an interview with CNN, argued that Graham isn't familiar with the Constitution and was invoking a "fake sort of drape of patriotism."

"I love my country as much as the next guy, but for him to insult and say that somehow we're not as patriotic as he is — he hasn't even read the history of the Constitution," Paul said.

"He insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism. I think that's a low, gutter type of response," Paul added.

[...]

Paul said after the briefing that using a 2002 authorization as the legal basis for the strike that killed Soleimani in Baghdad was "absurd" and an "insult."

"I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq," Paul told reporters.

  

But that's what they're trying to do, led by Mike Pence's ridiculous accusation that Soleimani had something to do with 9/11.

I wonder if Lindsey has thought about the wisdom of picking a fight with fellow Republicans at this particular moment in time.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Maybe Mike Lee can be brought over to the Dem side in impeachment?

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was furious on Wednesday after a Senate briefing on President Donald Trump's decision to order an airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Lee called it "probably the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, I've seen in nine years I've been here." He said he "walked into that briefing undecided" on whether to support a war-powers resolution being pushed by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. The resolution would limit the Trump administration's ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

"That briefing is what changed my mind," Lee said.

"I'm now going to support it."

[...]

"Drive-by notification or after-the-fact lame briefings like the one we just received aren't adequate," he said.

"I find it insulting; I find it demeaning" to the Senate and the Constitution, the senator added. "It's un-American, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong," he said after adding that the people who briefed senators on Trump's strike said the lawmakers could not debate the merits of the measure.

  Business Insider

Say what?

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who stood alongside Lee as they addressed reporters, said he would also support a war-powers resolution to block further action against Iran.

Don't let him see this headline

At least it looks like SOMEbody realizes this is serious enough to lose sleep.

As more details emerge of the missile strikes on military bases in Iraq, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iran aimed to miss. Iraq’s government was tipped off so Americans and Iraqis had enough time to take cover. There are still no confirmed reports of casualties.

[...]

For good measure, Iranian media were seeded with stories of dozens of US casualties.

  Guardian

Are we sure about that?

Washington has its own messianic lobby which is arguably even more influential. Both the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and Vice-President Mike Pence represent a strand of evangelical Christianity which views events in the Middle East through the prism of biblical prophecy, with Iran playing the role of evil embodied hurtling towards an apocalyptic battle with the forces of good. Both Pompeo and Pence are reported to have urged Trump to pull the trigger on Suleimani.

Bring on that rapture.

In pushing for conflict with Iran, they have allies among traditional hardline conservatives. The leader of that group, John Bolton, has left the White House, but his influence lives on. But while they can cajole Trump into military action on occasion by playing on his fear of appearing weak the president remains deeply averse to all-out war, especially in an election year.

Assumming he's halfway sane, which he isn't.

The relief and triumph with which Trump drove down the off-ramp Iran had provided was evident in his Wednesday morning speech.

[...]

In any case, it seems unlikely even this round of tit-for-tat retaliation is really over. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, said the missiles were just a “slap in the face” and insufficient remedy for the loss of Suleimani.

All that shit may be for show, including Trump killing Soleimani, and the real shit could be going on and coming on in the cyber world.

More importantly, both sides are still set on the same paths that lead straight to the brink. The fact that they managed to stop themselves falling over the edge this time is of small comfort if they are going to dust themselves off and race down the same course again.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Because he understands nothing and knows less

We didn't like where he was stopping.  They were not good stops.

For five straight days, President Trump warned, sometimes in all-caps, that he would retaliate against any Iranian attack on U.S. forces. He pledged to deploy the most “brand new beautiful” weaponry. He vowed to strike back in a “disproportionate manner.” And he said he would do so “without hesitation.”

But in the hours Tuesday after Iran fired a dozen ballistic missiles against two U.S. military bases in Iraq, Trump — at least publicly — was initially without words and the world was left to wonder what he might do next.

  WaPo

That is ALWAYS what the world is wondering.

At 9:45 p.m., Trump’s first public comment was uncharacteristically sanguine, even a tad chirpy. “All is well!” he tweeted.

[...]

At the White House, where the president assembled his relatively skeletal war Cabinet after nightfall, there was a vacuum of information. Officials were tight-lipped and bleary-eyed. The press secretary did not answer questions, only briefly ducking out of her office a bit before 9 p.m. to head home for the evening. A presidential address was considered but not delivered.

[...]

Even as damage assessments and other intelligence from the attacks came in to the Pentagon, officials sought to convey to the president that the situation was not spiraling out of control, according to two administration officials, and that he should refrain from addressing the nation Tuesday evening.

He still had Twitter.

Amid the uncertainty Tuesday evening, mixed messages emanated from official White House channels — when aides shared any information at all. Some staff told reporters that Trump might, in fact, address the nation in a prime time television address, but later, the White House press team officially confirmed that Trump would not speak Tuesday night.

[...]

[White House press secretary Stephanie] Grisham, meanwhile, sent out a tweet chastising CNN for reporting that preparations were underway for a presidential address Tuesday night — even though that’s what some of her own colleagues had been telling journalists.

[...]

On the president’s public schedule Wednesday, he had just one event listed: an Oval Office intelligence briefing at 2:15 p.m.

Escalation

Iran has fired more than a dozen rockets at two Iraqi military bases hosting US troops, the Pentagon confirmed.

The rockets fired at the Ain al-Asad base in Anbar province and a base in Erbil early on Wednesday came amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran following the US killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq last week.

[...]

No casualties have been officially confirmed so far.

In a speech in Tehran after the attack, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: "The corrupt presence of the US in the region should come to an end", calling the missile attack a "slap in the face" of the US.

Trump said "all is good" on Twitter hours after the attacks. He said would make a statement on Wednesday morning.

[...]

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi received a verbal message from Iran informing him its retaliation to the US killing of Soleimani was either imminent or under way, his spokesman said in a statement.

Tehran told Abdul Mahdi it would only target locations where US forces were present but did not specify the locations, his spokesman said.

[...]

Iran-backed Iraqi militia commander Qais al-Khazali said that Iran had made its initial response for the US killing its top general, and it was now time for Iraq to do so as well.

Iraq's response will not be lesser than that of Iran's tweeted Khazaili, who leads the Asaib Ahl al-Haq group which the US has designated a terrorist organisation.

[...]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhahu warned that his country would strike back hard against anyone who attacked it, as he reiterated his support for the US killing of Soleimani.

"Whoever tries to attack us will be dealt the strongest blow," Netanyahu said in Jerusalem.

  alJazeera

Nobody is threatening to attack Israel.*

Jesus Christ.  I mean, Jesus Christ!

A passenger plane bound for the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, has crashed a few minutes after taking off from Tehran’s main international airport, killing 176 people.

Iran’s Red Crescent said there was no chance of finding survivors, and Pir Hossein Kulivand, an Iranian emergency official, later told state TV all those onboard were killed in the crash.

Victims of the crash included 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians, 10 Swedes, four Afghans, three Germans and three Britons, according to Ukraine’s foreign minister, Vadym Prystaiko. Most of the passengers were en route to Kyiv, transiting through there to other destinations.

[...]

Iranian officials said the plane’s engine had caught fire, causing the pilot to lose control. A statement initially posted on the website of the Ukrainian embassy in Iran ruled out an act of terror and said the crash had been caused by an engine malfunction. However, this was later redacted, with the embassy stating that all information would be provided by an official commission.

[...]

The news has fuelled speculation that there was something suspicious about the downing of the plane, with one theory doing the rounds on social media that Iran could have mistaken the plane for an incoming US military aircraft.

[...]

The 737-800 belongs to the same family as, but is different to, the 737 Max 8 aircraft, which has been grounded since two fatal crashes occurred within six months in Indonesia and Ethiopia in 2018. The 737-800 operates with a different software system to the one implicated in the Max 8 crashes.

  Guardian

At this juncture in our relations with Iran, I don't mind throwing out another possibility: Boeing installs the software system. Boeing is a US government contractor. There were two recent suspicious cyber attacks on US government agency computer systems (or one attack and one malfunction if you're inclined to be the US government). Trump, who has advocated for bringing back torture - "a hell of a lot worse" than before - and for killing the families of terrorists, is constantly crowing that if we get attacked, we (meaning he) will "punch back" harder. Trump is now in a feud with both Iran and Ukraine. You see where I'm going.

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who cut short a visit to Oman following the crash, ordered an investigation and a sweeping check of “all civilian aircraft” in the country.

“Our task is to establish the cause of the crash of the Boeing and provide all necessary help to the families of the victims,” Dmytro Razumkov, the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, said in a statement on Facebook.

You want to know how crazy your president is? After tweeting that "we" had identified 52 Iranian targets, including cultural sites, in honor of the 52 American hostages decades ago, and then doubling down on that threat, adding that some attacks might be "perhaps in a disproportionate manner," he had this to say when confronted by reporters yesterday with the fact that either of those things would be a war crime:

"You know what, if that's what the law is, I like to obey the law. But think of it: They kill our people, they blow up our people and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I'm OK with it. It's OK [with] me," he said.

"I will say this: if Iran does anything that they shouldn't be doing, they're going to be suffering the consequences and very strongly," he added.

  alJazeera

"If that's what the law is." First of all, we know for a fact he doesn't "like to obey the law." He breaks it at every possible opportunity, and has been doing so all his adult life. And secondly, did no one in the "we" who identified those 52 sites know that attacking cultural sites is against the law? Or was that the "we" in his head that so often appear in his rants?

According to Ilias Bantekas, professor of law at Hamad bin Khalifa University in Doha, the tweet in which Trump threatens to act "disproportionately" is in itself a violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter which states that all members of the UN shall "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".

[...]

Kevin Jon Heller agreed, saying that while there would be "nothing inherently wrong for Trump to say - in his own unique way - that the US would defend itself against an armed attack," the fact that he threatened disproportionate force "is in violation of Article 2(4)" of the UN charter.

But Charles Blanchard, a partner at Arnold Porter law firm and a former general counsel in the US Army, disagreed.

The tweet "contains enough wiggle room which makes it hard to figure out what President Trump means."

  alJazeera

Fucking bullshit. Trump backers will defend him no matter how many laws he breaks.

Some experts point out that Trump himself said his tweets serve as notification to Congress of military actions he would take should Iran target US citizens or assets. "Since Trump himself states that his tweet is good enough to be considered a formal declaration to Congress, his tweet can be considered a formal declaration of intent," said Sarah Kay, a UK-based human rights lawyer and expert on counterterrorism.

Bantekas added that [...] "state practice had traditionally been expressed through official acts and statements, not private acts of state actors. A tweet is a private action, but when used by a president to effectively threaten armed force, it transformed into a state act."

War hawks and liars every one.

WTF?  It IS a war crime. It's prohibited by international law. Unless the war you're waging is within your own country, you don't get to decide what is or is not a war crime by yourself - and even then, expect some international blowback if you bomb your own cultural sites.

Know your history.

Well, there you go.  Exactly what he was going for by killing General Soleimani.

*Sorry.  Now they are.  As a further possibility if the US responds again with another attack.

Interview Iran Foreign Minister

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly interviewed the Iranian foreign minister today, who sounded incredibly reasonable particularly as compared to Donald Trump, and in the face of a rather beligerent sounding Kelly.  Listen here. (The transcript is also there if you'd rather read, but the tone of voice is important.)

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Jesus Christ, a clownshow during a global crisis

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

De-escalation going nicely

Yeah, that's not reassuring at all.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

JCPOA developments

The blowback continues

Americans, and particularly American servicemembers, are at risk everywhere.

And no doubt this will not be the end of it.

Making ISIS great again

On another violent day in Iraq following the U.S. drone strike on Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, two Iraqi troops were killed in an attack by Islamic State militants in Kirkuk and, on the same day, more rockets fell in Baghdad’s Green Zone, according to the official Twitter account of the Iraqi security forces.

In Kirkuk, “two fighters were killed and three wounded, after exposure to members of the ISIS terrorist gangs ... in the ‘Tal Diab village’ in Daquq district, in the section of the advance headquarters in the province of Kirkuk,” according to the ISF.

[...]

“We know that the intent of this last attack was, in fact, to kill American soldiers sailors, airmen and Marines …. 31 rockets aren’t designed as a warning shot. That’s designed to inflict damage and kill," Joint Chiefs Chairman Army Gen. Mark Milley explained to reporters describing the Kirkuk attack.

[...]

And in Baghdad, "three Katyusha rockets fell, two inside the Green Zone and the third near the Al-Shuhada Establishment in Baghdad,” according to the ISF.

[...]

A source at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad told Military Times that the recent rocket attack against the embassy compound appears to be more than the usual scare tactic, and that the volley of rocket fire appears to be increasing.

[...]

Meanwhile, the U.S.-led coalition combating ISIS in Iraq and Syria announced that U.S. troops in Iraq were pausing the training of Iraqis as threats to coalition troops housed at Iraqi bases persisted.

[...]

The Associated Press reported Saturday that the NATO Iraq training mission had also been suspended in light of the dire security situation following the U.S. strike that killed Soleimani.

  Military Times

Well done, Trump cabal.

UPDATE: