Did Iran Present An Immediate Danger?

Hearing happening today in DC.

Director of CIA: Yes, because Iran was working on ballistic missiles. OK, but this was not an immediate danger.

Tulsi Gabbard: No. Iran did not resume work on its nuclear program after we hit them a few months ago, and is not capable of hitting the US.

I expect Trump to berate Gabbard.

As in aside, if Trump thought Iran presents a clear and immediate threat, why did he have Gabbard, his Director of Intelligence devote herself to supervising the raid on the Georgia elections offices, looking for evidence that he won the 2020 elections. Shouldn't the former be her full time job?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

VeronicaJane

Well, apparently did not listen to his military or intelligence network. I saw a news report that he said he based "Immediate Danger" on his son-in-law's feeling. Which we all know he has a wealth of diplomatic experience.

Instead, there have been several military and other leaders who have expressed that it is donald who is the "clear and present danger".

And of course, thru donald's sterling diplomacy, our allies are rushing to his aid.... 🙄 BTW - on 9/11, they did immediately came to our aid.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@VeronicaJane This is the same son in law who couldnt get a White House security clearance..😷

VeronicaJane

@whowasthatmaskedman this would seem so....

Northwest · M

@VeronicaJane

Which we all know he has a wealth of diplomatic experience.

This is a false perception. He has zero diplomatic experience. The only he knows is use his father-in-law's name to bully countries and individuals into forced real estate deals and scams.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Northwest Maybe you didnt notice Veronica waving her Irony flag when she said that...😷

VeronicaJane

I suppose my sarcasm flag was showing sufficiently, @Northwest ... ;-).