Some Kind of Imminent Threat, They Say

“There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being by plotted by Soleimani. We don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where but this was real” pic.twitter.com/zu3lZ0IxYp

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) January 10, 2020

Sure you do! It apparently now means when you don't know exactly where or when an attack will take place but soon. Soon-ish. Really.

Now, it's possible that VP Mike Pence is having a little trouble with the concept of imminent:

Pence begins Trump's rally in Toledo by giving up the game about Soleimani strike: "When 1 American life was lost at the hands of Iranian-backed militias just a few short weeks ago, POTUS launched the first airstrikes against them in 10 years." (So long "imminent threat.") pic.twitter.com/a1E2IzVpyh

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020

(Nope--retaliation would not be imminent because it's a thing that happened before. Someone needs to sit Mikey down and tell him to at least get the story half-right if he's going to start talking.)

But Trump knows very well what was going to imminently happen. Soleimani was going to blow up the embassy--but that was an "anti-Benghazi" because...just nope.

⁦@SenMarkey⁩ just said on @TheLastWord that during the briefing the Senate received about the reason for the Trump-ordered attack that killed Soleimani, there was NO MENTION of a plan to blow up our embassy. Trump’s lies are never ending. https://t.co/ynkWv0sGkX

— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) January 10, 2020

Someone must have drawn a diagram for Trump in Sharpie, because he has been consistent with that--today, anyway. (His validation for the embassy story is the embassy protest of 12/31, though, which still sounds a bit like "retaliation" to me.)

The story just isn't straight. I guess Sen. Lee is going to try and walk this back a bit, but it sounds like the Trump Administration treated briefing Congress about the Iran situation a little contemptuously? (Is contempt of Congress a thing now? Shouldn't it be? Where have we heard that before? Is it a pattern we should be concerned about?)

In the NPR interview, Lee also disclosed that at one point in the briefing, an official “discouraged us from even having a debate on the Senate floor” about whether Congress should pass new measures constraining Trump’s authority to launch future military actions without authorization.

“That might somehow embolden the Iranian regime in future attacks against the United States,” Lee said, characterizing the argument the official made.

"Embolden the enemy"? I feel like we've been to this rodeo before, folks. Another thing that emboldens the enemy is thinking it's all inevitable anyway so what have they got to lose--just go for broke. You can argue any old shit; but we're either a democracy or not, even if pinheads like Sarah Huckabee Sanders are a little fuzzy on who is supposed to authorize war per the Constitution.

The more I hear "Shut up and trust us" the more I don't trust them and don't want to shut up.