The far-out option

Written by

January 4, 2020

Interesting. Rukmini Callimachi is a correspondent for The New York Times covering ISIS & al-Qaeda and an analyst for NBC and MSNBC.

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)
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020

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.
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020

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”
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020

So, naturally…

Trump

Comments

3 responses to “The far-out option”

zubanel

Jan 4, 2020 10:00 AM

It’s all about bringing joy to his base and fear to everyone else for the next election.
iknklast

Jan 4, 2020 10:08 AM

And his base will believe it. Many, many, many people I talked to during Bush 42 were convinced if we didn’t attack Iraq, we would have to fight the Iraqis here. They believed Iraq was the mastermind behind 9/11, in spite of no evidence (even less than for the killing of Suleimani).
Colin Day

Jan 4, 2020 11:37 PM

@iknklast

Bush 42? Not 41 or 43?

The far-out option

Comments

3 responses to “The far-out option”

More posts

The Great Seats Removal

Aging out

Worse than what did you say?

Smith sisters