If you find yourself ever writing the words, ‘Schiff is correct,’ it might be time to put the Twitter down. Especially if you’re trying to slam Ted Cruz for explaining to Schiff why his tweet about Soleimani and imminent danger was stupid.
We’re not sure if this is a personality defect of #NeverTrump or if Patterico has himself a pretty nasty case of TDS.
Maybe both.
Schiff is correct. What Pompeo said publicly is not consistent with the word "imminent." I wish I could believe you heard something in the briefing that was more specific, but I don't. https://t.co/eI5Am9tlN1
— Patterico (@Patterico) January 12, 2020
*sigh*
Imagine hating Trump so much that you can’t accept or even admit that removing a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people was a good thing. We’ve seen so much of this attitude, even with the people of Iran protesting against their government in the streets … it’s still ‘orange man bad.’
So now the goal post has been moved to actually allowing someone to attack our personnel before striking? Even with warning?
That seems like a bad policy. https://t.co/Qa0ZjDf1ri
— Mickey White (@BiasedGirl) January 12, 2020
Yeah, that seems like a bad policy to us as well.
I don’t give a damn if imminent meant the next day, weeks or years. He was planning further attacks on top of those he’d already committed. He came into the crosshairs the first time he attacked America in November 1979. Kill him and then tell Congress. End of story.
— Douglas Dunklin (@DougDunklin) January 12, 2020
OK.
— Patterico (@Patterico) January 12, 2020
Ok, it seems like a personality thing.
Tomorrow, next week, next month? Are we really gonna quibble when American lives are at risk?
— Jen Stroup (@JenStroup) January 12, 2020
If it's important, call it important. That doesn't make it "imminent." If they lack evidence that it's imminent, they should not say it is. Words mean things. Credibility matters.
— Patterico (@Patterico) January 12, 2020
This was not the hill to die on, dude.
I find it odd that anyone takes anything @RepAdamSchiff says at face value
— Dr. Richard Harambe (@Richard_Harambe) January 12, 2020
Not many do.
Good thing I didn't "take it face value" but based my opinion on what Pompeo has publicly said.
— Patterico (@Patterico) January 12, 2020
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
"Schiff is correct" = all credibility lost.
— Joe Pallone (@Plonerock) January 12, 2020
Truer words have never been spoken.
Let the backpedaling begin:
PSA for people who like to make up things, or read into my tweet something I never said: I did not say the attack against Soleimani was unjustified or that it needed to be imminent to be justified.
— Patterico (@Patterico) January 12, 2020
I understand Twitter is full of people who love to read false implications into other people's tweets, but it is possible to dispute the administration's credibility on whether the attack was "imminent" without opposing the attack or believing it *needed to be* imminent.
— Patterico (@Patterico) January 12, 2020
Sure. It’s not that his tweet was stupid, it’s that the people of Twitter aren’t smart enough to read his tweets.
Alrighty.
If you think an action was overall justified, but the specificity of basis is fudged, joining those who attack that specificity to undermine the act because they oppose it- merely because you want to quibble as you dont like the actor – invites being painted as opposing the act.
— Plastic Straw Cartel Chief (@rcjparry) January 12, 2020
It’s all about the virtue-signaling, sadly.
Yup.
Related:
Editor’s note – We corrected a typo in this article. – sj
Join the conversation as a VIP Member