U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic

National Security
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
By Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey and Ellen Nakashima
March 20, 2020 at 8:10 p.m. EDT
Article Link https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html
Link To https://www.washingtonpost.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. intelligence reports from January and February warned about a likely pandemic
Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima Friday,3/20/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/ar-BB11udi8?ocid=spartanntp

U.S. intelligence agencies were issuing ominous, classified warnings in January and February about the global danger posed by the coronavirus while President Trump and lawmakers played down the threat and failed to take action that might have slowed the spread of the pathogen, according to U.S. officials familiar with spy agency reporting.
The intelligence reports didn’t predict when the virus might land on U.S. shores or recommend particular steps that public health officials should take, issues outside the purview of the intelligence agencies. But they did track the spread of the virus in China, and later in other countries, and warned that Chinese officials appeared to be minimizing the severity of the outbreak.
Taken together, the reports and warnings painted an early picture of a virus that showed the characteristics of a globe-encircling pandemic that could require governments to take swift actions to contain it. But despite that constant flow of reporting, Trump continued publicly and privately to play down the threat the virus posed to Americans. Lawmakers, too, did not grapple with the virus in earnest until this month, as officials scrambled to keep citizens in their homes and hospitals braced for a surge in patients suffering from covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Intelligence agencies “have been warning on this since January,” said a U.S. official who had access to intelligence reporting that was disseminated to members of Congress and their staffs as well as to officials in the Trump administration, and who, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive information.
“Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it,” this official said. “The system was blinking red.”
Spokespeople for the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and a White House spokesman rebutted criticism of Trump’s response.
“President Trump has taken historic, aggressive measures to protect the health, wealth and safety of the American people — and did so, while the media and Democrats chose to only focus on the stupid politics of a sham illegitimate impeachment,” Hogan Gidley said in a statement. “It’s more than disgusting, despicable and disgraceful for cowardly unnamed sources to attempt to rewrite history — it’s a clear threat to this great country.”
Public health experts have criticized China for being slow to respond to the coronavirus outbreak, which originated in Wuhan, and have said precious time was lost in the effort to slow the spread. At a White House briefing Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said officials had been alerted to the initial reports of the virus by discussions that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had with Chinese colleagues on Jan. 3.
The warnings from U.S. intelligence agencies increased in volume toward the end of January and into early February, said officials familiar with the reports. By then, a majority of the intelligence reporting included in daily briefing papers and digests from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA was about covid-19, said officials who have read the reports.
The surge in warnings coincided with a move by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to sell dozens of stocks worth between $628,033 and $1.72 million. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Burr was privy to virtually all of the highly classified reporting on the coronavirus. Burr issued a statement Friday defending his sell-off, saying he did so based entirely on publicly available information, and he called for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate.
A key task for analysts during disease outbreaks is to determine whether foreign officials are trying to minimize the effects of an outbreak or take steps to hide a public health crisis, according to current and former officials familiar with the process.
At the State Department, personnel had been nervously tracking early reports about the virus. One official noted that it was discussed at a meeting in the third week of January, around the time that cable traffic showed that U.S. diplomats in Wuhan were being brought home on chartered planes — a sign that the public health risk was significant. A colleague at the White House mentioned how concerned he was about the transmissibility of the virus.
“In January, there was obviously a lot of chatter,” the official said.
Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president.
Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said.
On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus, according to people briefed on the meeting. Joe Grogan, the head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, argued that the administration needed to take the virus seriously or it could cost the president his reelection, and that dealing with the virus was likely to dominate life in the United States for many months.
Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States.
By early February, Grogan and others worried that there weren’t enough tests to determine the rate of infection, according to people who spoke directly to Grogan. Other officials, including Matthew Pottinger, the president’s deputy national security adviser, began calling for a more forceful response, according to people briefed on White House meetings.
But Trump resisted and continued to assure Americans that the coronavirus would never run rampant as it had in other countries.
“I think it’s going to work out fine,” Trump said on Feb. 19. “I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus.”
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump tweeted five days later. “Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
But earlier that month, a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services delivered a starkly different message to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a classified briefing that four U.S. officials said covered the coronavirus and its global health implications.
Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response — who was joined by intelligence officials, including from the CIA — told committee members that the virus posed a “serious” threat, one of those officials said.
Kadlec didn’t provide specific recommendations, but he said that to get ahead of the virus and blunt its effects, Americans would need to take actions that could disrupt their daily lives, the official said. “It was very alarming.”
Trump’s insistence on the contrary seemed to rest in his relationship with China’s President Xi Jingping, whom Trump believed was providing him with reliable information about how the virus was spreading in China, despite reports from intelligence agencies that Chinese officials were not being candid about the true scale of the crisis.
Some of Trump’s advisers told him that Beijing was not providing accurate numbers of people who were infected or who had died, according to administration officials. Rather than press China to be more forthcoming, Trump publicly praised its response.
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
Some of Trump’s advisers encouraged him to be tougher on China over its decision not to allow teams from the CDC into the country, administration officials said.
In one February meeting, the president said that if he struck a tougher tone against Xi, the Chinese would be less willing to give the Americans information about how they were tackling the outbreak.
Trump on Feb. 3 banned foreigners who had been in China in the previous 14 days from entering the United States, a step he often credits for helping to protect Americans against the virus. He has also said publicly that the Chinese weren’t honest about the effects of the virus. But that travel ban wasn’t accompanied by additional significant steps to prepare for when the virus eventually infected people in the United States in great numbers.
As the disease spread beyond China, U.S. spy agencies tracked outbreaks in Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy and elsewhere in Europe, the officials familiar with those reports said. The majority of the information came from public sources, including news reports and official statements, but a significant portion also came from classified intelligence sources. As new cases popped up, the volume of reporting spiked.
As the first cases of infection were confirmed in the United States, Trump continued to insist that the risk to Americans was small.
“I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine,” he said on Feb. 10.
“We have a very small number of people in the country, right now, with it,” he said four days later. “It’s like around 12. Many of them are getting better. Some are fully recovered already. So we’re in very good shape.”
On Feb. 25, Nancy Messonnier, a senior CDC official, sounded perhaps the most significant public alarm to that point, when she told reporters that the coronavirus was likely to spread within communities in the United States and that disruptions to daily life could be “severe.” Trump called Azar on his way back from a trip to India and complained that Messonnier was scaring the stock markets, according to two senior administration officials.
Trump eventually changed his tone after being shown statistical models about the spread of the virus from other countries and hearing directly from Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, as well as from chief executives last week rattled by a plunge in the stock market, said people familiar with Trump’s conversations.
But by then, the signs pointing to a major outbreak in the United States were everywhere.
shane.harris@washpost.com
greg.miller@washpost.com
josh.dawsey@washpost.com
ellen.nakashima@washpost.com
Yasmeen Abutaleb contributed to this report.

What we know about the Americans who died from coronavirus

Note: This is not the entire article. For all of the details read the entire article.

What we know about the Americans who died from coronavirus
Saturday,3/14/2020

Article Link

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-we-know-about-the-americans-who-died-from-coronavirus/ar-BB11aUrL?li=BBnb7Kz

Quoted Excerpts:
So far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not released a summary of basic demographic information about the people who have died, but according to information collected by ABC News' Medical Unit, the majority of deaths have been among people in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
In the U.S., of the cases for which there is data, only one person who died was in their 40s, while two people died in their 50s. Seven people were in their 60s, nine people in their 70s, 13 people in their 80s and 10 people were in their 90s.
This means the vast majority of deaths so far are among people older than 70, which matches roughly with data emerging from Italy, China and other countries hard-hit by COVID-19.
The CDC has said repeatedly that people with underlying medical conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes and immune system disorders, are more likely to die of COVID-19.

Inside Trump Administration, Debate Raged Over What to Tell Public

My Comment: To get a complete idea of what went on within Trump's Administration read the entire article.

Inside Trump Administration, Debate Raged Over What to Tell Public
Michael D. Shear, Sheri Fink and Noah Weiland  Sunday,3/8/2020
Article Link  
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-trump-administration-debate-raged-over-what-to-tell-public/ar-BB10SKCK?ocid=spartanntp

Quoted Excerpts:
From the beginning, the Trump administration’s attempts to forestall an outbreak of a virus now spreading rapidly across the globe was marked by a raging internal debate about how far to go in telling Americans the truth. Even as the government’s scientists and leading health experts raised the alarm early and pushed for aggressive action, they faced resistance and doubt at the White House — especially from the president — about spooking financial markets and inciting panic.
But from Mr. Trump’s first comments on the virus in January to rambling remarks at the C.D.C. on Friday, health experts say the administration has struggled to strike an effective balance between encouraging calm, providing key information and leading an assertive response. The confused signals from the Trump administration, they say, left Americans unprepared for a public health crisis and delayed their understanding of a virus that has reached at least 28 states, infected more than 300 people and killed at least 17.
The Trump administration had eliminated the global health unit that had been part of the National Security Council, but within days, a team was meeting daily in the basement of the West Wing, pleading with Chinese officials to allow doctors from the C.D.C. into their country.
On Saturday, Jan. 18, a day after the C.D.C. dispatched 100 people to three American airports to screen travelers coming from Wuhan, China, Mr. Azar made his first call to Mr. Trump about the virus, dialing him directly at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate. The president insisted on talking about e-cigarettes first, but Mr. Azar steered him to the virus.
Last week, Vice President Mike Pence was given control of the public messaging, and although Mr. Pence has had some mixed messages of his own — he promised more tests before they were available — the White House has since displayed more discipline. Mr. Pence holds twice daily conference calls with officials from across the country, and a virus task force he leads issues daily talking points, with comment from the health professionals, to make sure the message is consistent.

How Trump's three years of job gains compares with Obama's

My Comments: When reading the facts stated in this news article, you will see that all of the credit does not go entirely to Trump.

How Trump's three years of job gains compares with Obama's 
By Chris Isidore, CNN Business 
Friday,2/7/2020
Article Link https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-trumps-three-years-of-job-gains-compares-with-obamas/ar-BBZJapN?ocid=spartanntp

President Donald Trump says he is particularly pleased with the jobs created during his three years in office.
"We're producing jobs like you have never seen before in this country," he said during a recent speech in Michigan. But you don't have to go back far to find three years of better job growth. Just to back to the previous three years under Barack Obama.
During Trump's first 36 months in office, the US economy has gained 6.6 million jobs. But during a comparable 36-month period at the end of Obama's tenure, employers added 8.1 million jobs, or 23% more than what has been added since Trump took office.
The average monthly gain so far under Trump is 182,000 jobs. During the last 36 months under Obama, employers were adding an average of 224,000 jobs a month. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that employers added a fairly robust 225,000 jobs in January. But it also made some revisions to past data, which lowered many previous job growth estimates. While some of the revisions go all the way back to the last century, most of the changes to data took place during 2018 and 2019. So the revisions reduced the gains during Obama's final three years by 47,000 jobs, but it reduced the gains during Trump's tenure by a total of 354,000 jobs. The job record under Trump is far better than the job record during Obama's first 35 months in office, when the economy lost 805,000 jobs. But Obama took office in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In the final job reading before Obama took office, the economy lost 784,000 jobs in that month alone. And it continued to lose jobs throughout the rest of 2009 as Obama's economic policies went into effect. By comparison, Trump took office with the labor market in relatively good shape, with unemployment at 4.7%, and a string of 76 straight months of job gains. The labor market has clearly continued to improve. Unemployment of 3.6% in January is nearly at a 50-year low now. But it is a continuation of an improving job market, not the turnaround that occurred in the early years of the Obama administration. And Trump's job record is not unique. A gain of more than 6.6 million jobs during a 35-month period has been common during the 80 years that the Labor Department has counted jobs. There are hundreds of overlapping 36-month periods of better growth on record. At this point in his first and only term, Jimmy Carter had enjoyed a gain of about 10.1 million jobs. Employers added 8.5 million jobs during the first 36 months of Bill Clinton's term and 7.8 million jobs during the first 36 months of Lyndon Johnson's tenure, even though the labor force at that time was less than half the size of what it is today.
 -- This story was updated from its original version to reflect the data from the January 2020 jobs report

Second Blog Post Of Quick Chatting

Blog Post Of  Quick Chatting
Day to day chit chat and small talk. Light hearted or serious.
Chatting about what you do when you have the free time or the spare time. Chatting about your day, your evening, your weekend or your week.
Salutations: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and other small talk.

I had some time before my appointment, so I decided to purchase a donut and a beverage.

The donut shop was not busy.
I stood behind a customer; that was having a conversation with the employee behind the cash register.
I quietly and politely waited to be serviced.
When I saw that I was not going to be acknowledged I just quietly left.
For the record I was not mad.

I have been reading Babbitt.
I recently purchased You Can't Go Home Again.
Babbitt (novel)
Author
Sinclair Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(novel)

You Can't Go Home Again
Author
Thomas Wolfe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Go_Home_Again



First Blog Post Of Quick Chatting
Link https://notmuch1.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post-of-quick-chatting.html

FactCheck Posts:Pelosi Did Not ‘Defend’ Soleimani

Link To https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/pelosi-did-not-defend-soleimani/
Link To https://www.factcheck.org/

FactCheck Posts
Pelosi Did Not ‘Defend’ Soleimani
By Robert Farley
Posted on  Friday,January10,2020
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as “provocative and disproportionate.” But, contrary to the president’s contention, she did not “defend” Soleimani.
In fact, we were not able to find any examples of Democrats who have defended or “mourned” the death of Iran’s top military commander, despite such claims from several other Republicans.
On Jan. 2, the Pentagon announced that, at Trump’s direction, American troops used a drone and killed Soleimani, Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, at Baghdad International Airport. The Pentagon statement said Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”
The statement further noted that “Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”
In a press release put out that day, Pelosi warned that the strike “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.” Pelosi also noted that the military action was taken without Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran and “without the consultation of the Congress.”
But nowhere in the release did she “defend” Soleimani, as Trump claimed in remarks to the press on Jan. 9.
Trump, Jan. 9: You know what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran, who has killed so many people, who has so badly — I mean, so many people are walking around now without legs and without arms. Because he was the big roadside bomb guy. He was the one who would send them to Afghanistan. He would send him to Iraq. He was big. That was his favorite thing. He thought it was wonderful. He doesn’t think it’s wonderful anymore. When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to defend him, I think that’s a very bad thing for this country. I think that’s a big losing argument, politically, too.
Those comments echo similar statements made by other prominent Republicans.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News on Jan. 6, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said, “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates.” And in an interview with Fox News’ Lou Dobbs on Jan. 8, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said, Pelosi and the Democrats are “in love with terrorists” and “mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.” (Two days later, Collins apologized for his remarks.)
Again, we are not aware that Pelosi or any other Democratic leaders or presidential candidates publicly “mourned” the death of Soleimani or defended him. Our colleagues at PolitiFact looked into Haley’s comment and found that while most of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed concern about Trump’s move escalating tensions with Iran, they prefaced their comments by saying that Soleimani had the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and should not be mourned.
We asked the White House when Pelosi defended Soleimani, but it did not respond.
Several times in the past week, Pelosi has made comments critical of Trump’s actions. But she never defended Soleimani.
Pelosi, in a Jan. 4 press release calling on the administration to brief Congress: “The Trump Administration’s provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger.”
Pelosi, in a Jan. 5 “Dear Colleague” letter: “As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. For this reason, we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”
Pelosi, in a Jan. 8 press release, after the administration’s briefing: “Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward.  Our concerns were not addressed by the President’s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the Administration’s briefing today.”
The speaker elaborated on her position during a press conference on Jan. 9. She again said Trump “conducted a provocative, disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans and did so without consulting Congress.” But she said she was aware of “just how bad Soleimani was.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: And so what happened in the view of many of us is not a promotion of peace, but an escalation. Not that we have any confidence in the goodness – or the good intentions of Iran, and we certainly do not respect, and I from my intelligence background, know just how bad Soleimani was. It’s not because we expect good things from them, but we expect great things from us.
Later in the press conference, Pelosi described Soleimani as “a terrible person” who “did bad things.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: As I say, we have no illusions about Iran, no illusions about Soleimani, who was a terrible person. Did bad things. But it’s not about how bad they are, it’s about how good we are, protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing, again and again, generations of veterans who are suffering.
Trump’s comments occurred about the same time that Pelosi spoke, and we don’t know if Trump heard her remarks when he made his. But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded directly to Pelosi’s remarks and parroted Trump’s claim that she was “defending” Soleimani.
McCarthy, Jan. 9: I never thought there would be a moment in time that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would actually be defending Soleimani. … Did you listen to what the Speaker just said? “Soleimani was a bad person, but…” There is no “but.” He’s a bad person because he killed American soldiers. … He’s a bad person because he was planning more against Americans. The president was right in his actions, and we are safer today for it.
Later that afternoon on the House floor, Pelosi again argued that Trump’s actions “endangered our servicemen and women, our diplomats and others,” but added that Soleimani “was somebody that we do not mourn the loss of.”
Pelosi, Jan. 9: But with the President’s actions last week, he endangered our servicemen and women, our diplomats and others by taking a serious risk of escalation with tensions with Iran. This does not come with any respect for Iran. We know what bad actors they are in the world. We know that Soleimani, I from my Intelligence background, know that Soleimani was somebody that we do not mourn the loss of, a bad – he did very evil things in the world. But, we also know that when we take an action, we have to understand the ramifications of it.
We take no position on whether the president’s actions to take out Soleimani will ultimately make Americans more or less safe. But there is a distinction between criticizing the president’s decision to kill Soleimani and “defending” him, and there is no evidence that Pelosi defended Soleimani or “mourned” his death. In fact, she has made statements directly contradicting that claim.

Categories
FactCheck Posts
Location
International
Issue
Iran
terrorism
People
Donald Trump
doug collins
KevinMcCarthy
Nancy Pelosi
Qassem Soleimani

---

Previous Story Trump Takes Undue Credit for Cancer Progress
Next StoryA Misleading Take on Alabama’s Abortion Law

House passes measure seeking to limit Trump's military actions against Iran

My Comment: I say thank you to the House for passing this bill.

Iran Tensions
House passes measure seeking to limit Trump's military actions against Iran
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the resolution would send a clear message that the president shouldn't take further military action against Iran without Congress' approval.
Article Linkhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006#anchor-Bindingornot

Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020, 12:25 PM EST / Updated Thursday,Jan. 9, 2020, 6:19 PM EST
By Rebecca Shabad
WASHINGTON — The House adopted a war powers resolution Thursday with the aim of limiting President Donald Trump's military actions against Iran.
The adoption of the measure on a largely party-line vote of 224-194 came amid heightened tension between the two countries after the United States killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iran retaliated with a ballistic missile attack against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. forces.
Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, voted for the measure, while eight Democrats voted against it: Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Ben McAdams of Utah, Stephanie Murphy of Florida and Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose, both of New York.
Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the U.S. drone attack on Soleimani, saying the resolution would send a clear statement that Trump shouldn't take further military action against Iran without approval from Congress.
"Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans, and did so without consulting Congress," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
Asked whether the Trump administration misled the public in justifying the airstrike, Pelosi said that while she can't share the classified information that she has been briefed on, "I do not believe in terms of what is in the public domain that they have made the country safer by what they did."
Pelosi said that when Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed her on the airstrike over the weekend, they were "disdainful in terms of not consulting Congress" and "dismissive."
The president, asked Thursday whether congressional authorization was needed for further military action against Iran, said, "You don't have to," pointing to a need to "make split-second decisions."
Still, he said, "in certain cases, I wouldn't even mind doing it."
The five-page resolution, sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, emphasizes that if the president wants to take the United States to war, he or she must get authorization from Congress.
Specifically, it directs the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities against Iran unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization or unless military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack.
The legislation also says that Iran's government is a lead state sponsor of terrorism and that Soleimani was the "lead architect" of destabilizing activities around the world. It further says the United States has an "inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks" and "maintains the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad."
The White House denounced the resolution later Thursday as "misguided."
"The President has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism. That's what he continues to do, and the world is safer for it," spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement. "This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the President's authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats."
Binding or not?
Although Pelosi said the measure has "real teeth" because it is a concurrent resolution, it wouldn't have to go to the president's desk for his signature, leading GOP lawmakers to assert that it would be legally nonbinding.
"This is a statement of the Congress of the United States. I will not have that statement diminished by having the president veto it or not," Pelosi said.
A senior Democratic aide noted that the War Powers Act sets out a clear process for the House legislation. The law says "forces shall be removed by the president if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., countered the notion Thursday, saying, "This resolution has as much force of law as a New Year's resolution."
At his weekly news conference earlier Thursday, McCarthy said, "This is a meaningless vote that only sends the wrong message that the House Democrats would rather stand with the socialist base than stand against Iran."
Because the resolution is privileged, the Senate could be forced to vote on it or a similar resolution that has been introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
Trump urged GOP members Thursday morning to oppose the measure. "Hope that all House Republicans will vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi's War Powers Resolution ... " he tweeted.
The Defense Department said that the strike on Soleimani was "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans" and that he had been actively developing plans to attack U.S. diplomatic and service members in Iraq and in other parts of the region.
Democrats have demanded that the administration share the intelligence backing that assertion. Many of them left classified briefings by top administration officials on Capitol Hill on Wednesday saying they were dissatisfied with the information presented that Soleimani posed an immediate threat or that the administration had the proper legal justification to target him.
After the strike, Democrats said they were worried that it would spark a war with Iran, which they said could be declared only by Congress. Top officials have said they based the strike on the 2002 authorization for the use of military force that Congress passed to authorize the war against Iraq when it was led by Saddam Hussein.
Iran retaliated Tuesday when it launched a dozen ballistic missiles from Iran targeting Iraq air bases housing U.S. forces. Trump announced Wednesday morning that Iran appeared to be "standing down."
Two GOP senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah — left the Senate briefing Wednesday echoing Democrats' frustration with the explanation for targeting Soleimani. Lee said, "It was probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate."
Trump said Thursday that Lee and Paul had "wanted information that is very hard to get" because the military needed to protect sources. "I get along great with Mike Lee, I've never seen him like that," he said, adding that "other people have called and said it was the greatest presentation."
Pelosi said the House would soon consider another proposal from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., which would repeal the 2002 use of force authorization.
"It needs to be addressed, it needs to be rewritten ... specific to the danger that we are facing," she said.
Rebecca Shabad
Rebecca Shabad is a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.
Adam Edelman and Alex Moe contributed.

Contractor whose death Trump cited was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq

Contractor whose death Trump cited was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq
Aaron Davis  Tuesday,1/7/2020
Article Link
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/contractor-whose-death-trump-cited-was-a-naturalized-us-citizen-born-in-iraq/ar-BBYIWiO?li=BBnb7Kz
Here is the gist of the article:
Quoted Excerpt:
An American defense contractor whose death late last month was cited by President Trump amid escalating violence with Iran was identified Tuesday as an interpreter who was born in Iraq and lived in Sacramento.
Nawres Hamid, 33, became a naturalized citizen in 2017, according to his widow. He was the father of two boys, ages 2 and 8, she said.
Hamid was killed on Dec. 27 when U.S. authorities say an Iranian-backed militia fired rockets at a military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
The attack, which injured several coalition troops, prompted Trump to order missile strikes against Iraqi militias. That in turn led to a New Year’s Eve assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and a retaliatory strike by the United States that killed Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander.
Hamid’s death has been a rallying cry for Trump. In a tweet on Dec. 31, Trump wrote: “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”
Hamid’s body was returned to the United States and buried Saturday in Sacramento, his widow, Noor Alkhalili, said in a text-message exchange with The Washington Post on Tuesday.

Congress demands answers from Trump about Soleimani killing

Monday, January 6, 2020
Congress demands answers from Trump about Soleimani killing
Quoted Excerpts:
Pompeo defended the targeted killing of Soleimani, saying the administration would have been “culpably negligent” in its duty to protect the United States if it had not killed him.
He did not provide evidence for his previous claims that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans. Instead of arguing that an attack had been imminent, Pompeo said it was inevitable.
Trump made clear Sunday that he saw little reason to give Congress advanced warning if he orders the military to carry out further actions against Iran.

Link To Article 

https://whdh.com/news/politics/congress-demands-answers-from-trump-about-soleimani-killing/

Link To https://whdh.com/

My Comment:
Channel seven news reported that the general had been carrying a letter to deescalate tensions between Iran and the USA.

Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast

My Comments and my opinions:

According to what I heard on the Sunday,1/5/2020 news's there was/is no evidence that general was planning anything against the USA.

In my opinion the Mideast on the whole will continue to be violent.

Iran Abandons Nuclear Deal as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast
Ben Hubbard, Alissa J. Rubin, Farnaz Fassihi and Steven Erlanger  Sunday, 1/5/2020
Quoted Excerpts:
American allies have largely kept quiet so as not top put themselves in the line of fire.
At the same time, no European government praised the killing of General Suleimani, emphasizing instead the increased risks to their citizens, troops and interests.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain was reported to be angry with Mr. Trump for not informing him or other allies with troops in Iraq about the decision to kill General Suleimani. While carried out by the Americans, the killing is seen as having put all European citizens and troops in Iraq and the wider region at heightened risk.
Mr. Johnson, who was said to be returning early from a vacation in the Caribbean, is expected to discuss the issues with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Mr. Trump in the next few days, a Downing Street spokeswoman said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo complained that the response by European allies had not been “helpful.” He told Fox News in an interview: “Frankly, the Europeans haven’t been as helpful as I wish that they could be. The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well.”

Article Link  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-abandons-nuclear-deal-as-killing-of-iranian-general-upends-mideast/ar-BBYDdpd?li=BBnb7Kz