monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You might had hear of him as he went on to be a US President.

Nonsense we was acting together with one repeat one overall military chain of command for both the UK and the US.

Repeat once more one chain of command with an american by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower in over all military command.

Embarrassing: ‘NBC Nightly News’ Turns Itself into Infomercial for Iranian Regime

Friday’s NBC Nightly News capped an ugly 24 hours for the liberal media after U.S. airstrikes killed Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani by doubling down on its bias, flashing outrageous chyrons, and fluffing pillows for the Iranians over the course of nearly 12 minutes of coverage.

With help from anchor Lester Holt’s August visit to Tehran, this kowtow came at the expense of the President and supporters of the strike as that side only fetched about two minutes of either direct soundbites or attributions.

The rest? Democrats, hyping security fears, recapping the timeline and touting the Iranians.

Ain't it obvious?
If Obama did the same, the MSM would be praising his cunning and skill.
Their ongoing silence on his war crimes in Syria and Libya are the telling point.

Killing Kadaffy was a good thing.

What an impressive group of MENSA masters.

ProPublica
@propublica
Trump has been president almost three years.

He's already appointed four times more lobbyists to government jobs than Obama had six years into office.

It's one lobbyist for every 14 political appointees. An ethics watchdog called it "staggering."

Sean Hannity calls for Trump to discard rules of engagement with Iran and “bomb the living hell out of them”

Jason Campbell
@JasonSCampbell
Lou Dobbs says Trump has already set a standard "for presidents that most mortals won't be able to meet," saying he "out-works them, he out-thinks, he is remarkably resourceful, he's bright, his judgment is second to none"

Rukmini Callimachi
@rcallimachi
1. I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin”.

2. In fact the evidence pointing to that came as three discrete facts: a) A pattern of travel showing Suleimani was in Syria, Lebanon & Iraq to meet with Shia proxies known to have an offensive position to the US. (As one source said that’s just “business as usual” for Suleimani)

3. More intriguing was b) information indicating Suleimani sought the Supreme Leader’s approval for an operation. He was told to come to Tehran for consultation and further guidance, suggesting the operation was a big deal - but again this could be anything.

4. And finally, a) and b) were read in the context of c) Iran’s increasingly bellicose position towards American interests in Iraq, including the attack that killed a U.S. contractor and the recent protest outside the American embassy.

5. But as one source put it a) + b) + c) is hardly evidence of an imminent attack on American interests that could kill hundreds, as the White House has since claimed. The official describes the reading of the intelligence as an illogical leap.

6. One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the “far out option”

7. Trump chose a more moderate option which involved the Dec. 29 strikes on the positions of an Iranian-backed militia. Then came the protest at the gates of the US embassy in Baghdad:

8. It was after the embassy protests that the president, according to one US official, chose the Suleimani option, but the problem at that point in time is that American intelligence did not know his precise whereabouts. They scrambled to locate him, says the official.

emptywheel
@emptywheel

1. I had worried that comparisons with Benghazi would lead Trump to do something rash and this thread sure seems to suggest that was part of it.

2. Here's the thing: The entire

B
E
N
G
H
A
Z
Industrial complex

arose out of GOP politicians cynically suggesting that ANY slight on America must be retaliated against in grand fashion, or it's a sign of weakness.

3. Trump, of course, adopted that attack bc there was never a cynical attack on Barack Obama he didn't love.

So that raised the cost, for him, of not risking any Benghazi-type attack himself. He trained his cult to view anything less than a military response as a sign of weakness.

4. But that's all IN ADDITION to Trump's epic narcissism, which leads him, personally, to respond to any slight, regardless of how minor, with aggressive attacks.

This response is basically a natural extension of Trump's narcissism, applied to US foreign policy.

5. The killing of Soleimani is not, as some denialists want to claim, a result of Neocons getting the best of Trump.

It's the result of there being no more adults (including Neocon adults) around to check Trump's narcissism.