Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons

C

Cypress

Well-known member

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons​


Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to say on Sunday whether the United States actually had intelligence that Iran was building a weapon of mass destruction before bombing the Gulf country’s nuclear sites ― dismissing any such assessment as “irrelevant” to the Saturday night attack that will very likely lead to wider conflict.

Rubio was one of several Trump administration officials to oversee the attack titled “Operation Midnight Hammer,” in which the U.S. bombed three key nuclear sites in Iran as part of Israel’s war on the longtime foe. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said that the attack caused “extremely severe damage and destruction” to the sites before acknowledging that a complete assessment determining the extent of the damage will take more time.

Appearing Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the secretary of state described Iran as having “weaponization ambitions” ― leading host Margaret Brennan to press whether U.S. intelligence had specifically shown that Iran’s supreme leader already ordered nuclear weaponization.

“That’s irrelevant,” Rubio said.

www.huffpost.com

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons

"Forget about intelligence," the secretary of state said about major U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites that will likely lead to wider regional conflict.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
Last edited:
"We do what ever the fuck we want, for what ever reason we want.....we are a thug empire".

"Do as you are told or else we will destroy you".
 
Cypress said:

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons​


Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to say on Sunday whether the United States actually had intelligence that Iran was building a weapon of mass destruction before bombing the Gulf country’s nuclear sites ― dismissing any such assessment as “irrelevant” to the Saturday night attack that will very likely lead to wider conflict.

Rubio was one of several Trump administration officials to oversee the attack titled “Operation Midnight Hammer,” in which the U.S. bombed three key nuclear sites in Iran as part of Israel’s war on the longtime foe. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said that the attack caused “extremely severe damage and destruction” to the sites before acknowledging that a complete assessment determining the extent of the damage will take more time.

Appearing Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the secretary of state described Iran as having “weaponization ambitions” ― leading host Margaret Brennan to press whether U.S. intelligence had specifically shown that Iran’s supreme leader already ordered nuclear weaponization.

“That’s irrelevant,” Rubio said.

www.huffpost.com

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons

"Forget about intelligence," the secretary of state said about major U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites that will likely lead to wider regional conflict.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
Click to expand...
Marco is just sucking up to the Orange Jesus. He knows that Daddy was going to do whatever Daddy wants to do. Why fight it?
 
Cypress said:
This waffling by Rubio tells me they didn't have any Intel that Iran was building nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
That fact they had a super-secret lab buried under a mountain and were assessed to have refined uranium to 60%+ says they were looking at weaponizing nukes.

The interesting thing to me is that Trump has proved he's abandoned the Isolationist Ideology of MAGA to prove he's a globalist.

Fredo will be disappointed. LOL
 
Dutch Uncle said:
That fact they had a super-secret lab buried under a mountain and were assessed to have refined uranium to 60%+ says they were looking at weaponizing nukes.

The interesting thing to me is that Trump has proved he's abandoned the Isolationist Ideology of MAGA to prove he's a globalist.

Fredo will be disappointed. LOL
Click to expand...
MAGA = Neocon

I was also told in 2003 that Iraq was building nukes.

Yes, when Trump pulled us out of the Obama treaty Iran may have had contingency plans to build a nuke in the future, if they felt they needed to. And that included keeping a stockpile of enriched uranium.

We probably have contingency plans to fire up a biological warfare program if we need to.

Do they have a ballistic missle weapons system that can hit the United's States, and is that something they would even contemplate?

The fact is, there is no evidence they were building nuclear weapons, or even on the verge of doing so.


We should have stuck with the treaty Obama, the Europeans, and Russia had with Iran.
 
Cypress said:
MAGA = Neocon

I was also told in 2003 that Iraq was building nukes.

Yes, when Trump pulled us out of the Obama treaty Iran may have had contingency plans to build a nuke in the future, if they felt they needed to. And that included keeping a stockpile of enriched uranium.

We probably have contingency plans to fire a a biological warfare program if we need to.

Do they have a ballistic missle weapons system that can hit the United's States, and is that something they would even contemplate?

The fact is, there is no evidence they were building nuclear weapons, or even one the verge of doing so.


We should have stuck with the treaty Obama, the Europeans, and Russia had with Iran.
Click to expand...
Trump wants to disprove all those laughing about TACO.
 
Margot said:
Trump probably supports Israel ,hoping they add The Gospel of Trump to the
Old Testament!
Click to expand...
So after Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Bicentennial thieving Ike old glorys and Israel Old Testaments arsonists celebration of Fourth Reich July Trumpanzees can continue Trumpanazis Trumpamengele two-faced treatment of Israel……
 
Cypress said:

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons​


Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to say on Sunday whether the United States actually had intelligence that Iran was building a weapon of mass destruction before bombing the Gulf country’s nuclear sites ― dismissing any such assessment as “irrelevant” to the Saturday night attack that will very likely lead to wider conflict.

Rubio was one of several Trump administration officials to oversee the attack titled “Operation Midnight Hammer,” in which the U.S. bombed three key nuclear sites in Iran as part of Israel’s war on the longtime foe. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said that the attack caused “extremely severe damage and destruction” to the sites before acknowledging that a complete assessment determining the extent of the damage will take more time.

Appearing Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the secretary of state described Iran as having “weaponization ambitions” ― leading host Margaret Brennan to press whether U.S. intelligence had specifically shown that Iran’s supreme leader already ordered nuclear weaponization.

“That’s irrelevant,” Rubio said.

www.huffpost.com

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons

"Forget about intelligence," the secretary of state said about major U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites that will likely lead to wider regional conflict.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
Click to expand...
See the local left cheerleading our enemies...again.
 
Margot said:
Trump probably supports Israel ,hoping they add The Gospel of Trump to the
Old Testament!
Click to expand...
President Obama took several military actions without explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the extent of presidential war powers.
Notable examples include:
  • Libya Intervention (2011): Obama ordered military strikes in Libya without seeking congressional approval, arguing that the involvement did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. Forces were engaged for about eight months.
  • Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: The Obama administration significantly increased the use of drone strikes in covert counterterrorism operations in these countries. This expansion of targeted killings raised questions about legality and accountability.
  • Initial Airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (2014): Obama cited his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to justify initial airstrikes targeting ISIS.
Arguments and Criticisms:
  • Supporters: The administration argued that its actions, such as the Libya intervention, were limited and did not constitute "war" in the constitutional sense, thus not requiring congressional approval. They also pointed to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 as justification for counterterrorism actions.
  • Critics: Many critics, including members of Congress from both parties, argued that Obama's actions violated the War Powers Resolution and represented an overreach of executive authority. They believed that any use of force, particularly sustained military engagement, requires congressional authorization.
 
Cypress said:

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons​


Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to say on Sunday whether the United States actually had intelligence that Iran was building a weapon of mass destruction before bombing the Gulf country’s nuclear sites ― dismissing any such assessment as “irrelevant” to the Saturday night attack that will very likely lead to wider conflict.

Rubio was one of several Trump administration officials to oversee the attack titled “Operation Midnight Hammer,” in which the U.S. bombed three key nuclear sites in Iran as part of Israel’s war on the longtime foe. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said that the attack caused “extremely severe damage and destruction” to the sites before acknowledging that a complete assessment determining the extent of the damage will take more time.

Appearing Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the secretary of state described Iran as having “weaponization ambitions” ― leading host Margaret Brennan to press whether U.S. intelligence had specifically shown that Iran’s supreme leader already ordered nuclear weaponization.

“That’s irrelevant,” Rubio said.

www.huffpost.com

Marco Rubio Says It's 'Irrelevant' Whether U.S. Intel Showed Iran Building Nuclear Weapons

"Forget about intelligence," the secretary of state said about major U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites that will likely lead to wider regional conflict.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
Click to expand...
President Obama took several military actions without explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the extent of presidential war powers.
Notable examples include:
  • Libya Intervention (2011): Obama ordered military strikes in Libya without seeking congressional approval, arguing that the involvement did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. Forces were engaged for about eight months.
  • Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: The Obama administration significantly increased the use of drone strikes in covert counterterrorism operations in these countries. This expansion of targeted killings raised questions about legality and accountability.
  • Initial Airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (2014): Obama cited his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to justify initial airstrikes targeting ISIS.
Arguments and Criticisms:
  • Supporters: The administration argued that its actions, such as the Libya intervention, were limited and did not constitute "war" in the constitutional sense, thus not requiring congressional approval. They also pointed to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 as justification for counterterrorism actions.
  • Critics: Many critics, including members of Congress from both parties, argued that Obama's actions violated the War Powers Resolution and represented an overreach of executive authority. They believed that any use of force, particularly sustained military engagement, requires congressional authorization.
 
Margot said:
Trump probably supports Israel ,hoping they add The Gospel of Trump to the
Old Testament!
Click to expand...
So now it’s back to sit around hurry up and wait for retaliatory strikes from Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July national religion of thieving Ike old glorys and Israel Old Testaments arsonists on the USA……
 
Grokmaster said:
President Obama took several military actions without explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the extent of presidential war powers.
Notable examples include:
  • Libya Intervention (2011): Obama ordered military strikes in Libya without seeking congressional approval, arguing that the involvement did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. Forces were engaged for about eight months.
  • Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: The Obama administration significantly increased the use of drone strikes in covert counterterrorism operations in these countries. This expansion of targeted killings raised questions about legality and accountability.
  • Initial Airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (2014): Obama cited his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to justify initial airstrikes targeting ISIS.
Arguments and Criticisms:
  • Supporters: The administration argued that its actions, such as the Libya intervention, were limited and did not constitute "war" in the constitutional sense, thus not requiring congressional approval. They also pointed to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 as justification for counterterrorism actions.
  • Critics: Many critics, including members of Congress from both parties, argued that Obama's actions violated the War Powers Resolution and represented an overreach of executive authority. They believed that any use of force, particularly sustained military engagement, requires congressional authorization.
Click to expand...
Grokmaster said:
President Obama took several military actions without explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the extent of presidential war powers.
Notable examples include:
  • Libya Intervention (2011): Obama ordered military strikes in Libya without seeking congressional approval, arguing that the involvement did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. Forces were engaged for about eight months.
  • Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: The Obama administration significantly increased the use of drone strikes in covert counterterrorism operations in these countries. This expansion of targeted killings raised questions about legality and accountability.
  • Initial Airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (2014): Obama cited his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to justify initial airstrikes targeting ISIS.
Arguments and Criticisms:
  • Supporters: The administration argued that its actions, such as the Libya intervention, were limited and did not constitute "war" in the constitutional sense, thus not requiring congressional approval. They also pointed to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 as justification for counterterrorism actions.
  • Critics: Many critics, including members of Congress from both parties, argued that Obama's actions violated the War Powers Resolution and represented an overreach of executive authority. They believed that any use of force, particularly sustained military engagement, requires congressional authorization.
Click to expand...
^^^
So upset he repeated same post twice.

Thanks for admitting that what Obama did was okay with you since you are now saying what Trump did was no better and no worse than what Obama did. LOL
 
Grokmaster said:
President Obama took several military actions without explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the extent of presidential war powers.
Notable examples include:
  • Libya Intervention (2011): Obama ordered military strikes in Libya without seeking congressional approval, arguing that the involvement did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. Forces were engaged for about eight months.
Click to expand...
In coordination and consultation with NATO. Did Trump do that?
Grokmaster said:
  • Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: The Obama administration significantly increased the use of drone strikes in covert counterterrorism operations in these countries. This expansion of targeted killings raised questions about legality and accountability.
  • Initial Airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (2014): Obama cited his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to justify initial airstrikes targeting ISIS.
Click to expand...
I've never complained about air strikes against terrorist groups who target Americans, whether the president was George Bush, Obama, Biden, or Trump. We have a right to self defense against terrorist cells targeting Americans.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
That fact they had a super-secret lab buried under a mountain and were assessed to have refined uranium to 60%+ says they were looking at weaponizing nukes.

The interesting thing to me is that Trump has proved he's abandoned the Isolationist Ideology of MAGA to prove he's a globalist.

Fredo will be disappointed. LOL
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
MAGA = Neocon

I was also told in 2003 that Iraq was building nukes.

Yes, when Trump pulled us out of the Obama treaty Iran may have had contingency plans to build a nuke in the future, if they felt they needed to. And that included keeping a stockpile of enriched uranium.

We probably have contingency plans to fire up a biological warfare program if we need to.

Do they have a ballistic missle weapons system that can hit the United's States, and is that something they would even contemplate?

The fact is, there is no evidence they were building nuclear weapons, or even on the verge of doing so.


We should have stuck with the treaty Obama, the Europeans, and Russia had with Iran.
Click to expand...

My guess is that they wanted to have the capability to build nukes in the possible event they ever felt they needed them someday, but without any concrete plans or intention to build one in the near future.

Keeping their options open, IOW.
 
Nomad said:
My guess is that they wanted to have the capability to build nukes in the possible event they ever felt they needed them someday, but without any concrete plans or intention to build one in the near future.

Keeping their options open, IOW.
Click to expand...
A plausible idea.

Without knowing what was going on behind the scenes or where Iran, the US and other nations were on negotiations, it's impossible to determine if this was a proper response or needless warmongering on Trump's part.

It'll take some time to determine all the facts. Congress is calling for classified briefings on what brought us to this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top