(08-05-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You're right, he could have made it worse by speculating who the attack came from.
I still think it's irresponsible for POTUS to spit ball like he did
Okay... you don't like much of anything he does... I get it. I don't consider reporting the professional opinion of his military advisors to be 'spit balling'.
These people are professionals and advisors to the POTUS... My father used to work directly for Colin Powell in such a capacity. Explosives wasn't his area, but he would have been giving him his professional opinion, and it would be treated as such. They don't spit-ball. Obviously the evidence they see in the explosions supports the idea that there were other chemicals and weapons involved and not merely the reported chemicals. They can't prove what those chemicals or weapons were because they don't have ALL the evidence.
Quote:- he didn't provide rationale as to why the "generals (unclear if there were actually three as you keep mentioning) seem to feel it was an attack." This isn't a situation where an opinion matters, it's a situation where facts and then analysis should lead the way - public speculation about an intentional act so early on could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.
Wait... so now he has to explain the thinking of others to everyone? Good lord, You complain when you think he doesn't listen to professionals and now you complain when he does.
The 'three' comment was a mistake by me... conflating two lines... you just can't help but get lost in minutiae.... Whatever... You have Presidential Military Advisors (he did use the plural), a named, retired ATF explosives investigator and a named, CIA Middle East expert all suspecting the same thing.... so that's at least 4 and could be 50.... and then you have three 'unnamed, DOD officials' who could quite literally be anybody in the DOD.
Quote:The implications of an attack on Beirut's port are far different than an industrial accident. Can we agree on that? If we can agree, doesn't it behoove our Commander in Chief to wait for more information to come in to provide the public with his personal theory?
Again, you call it his 'personal' theory. Did you even read your own article?
I think we agree on the different implications... but we disagree on what those implications are. The government carelessly storing high explosives in such an area isn't an industrial accident. Again, if the US government were storing seized explosives at the Port Authority Terminal in NYC, would you call that an 'industrial accident'?
As I said, the government has already admitted that they failed for 6 years to secure the explosives. Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack. He reported that to the press.... and he even said it was their opinions, their EXPERT/PROFESSIONAL opinions.
Quote:Think about it, it's not like Trump went through the gamut of possible options - he started the presser by saying "It looks like a terrible attack."
I believe there is a time and place for everything, and providing a speculative theory about the exact cause of the explosion a few hours after happened seems to be a bit too soon.
and yet he'd already consulted with his advisors... hmmmm. You simply assume that he didn't consider the options. Maybe you don't have any idea what was considered?
Seriously, there are tell-tale signs of different types of explosions. The fact that you think that people like the ATF explosives expert and the Military don't consider the facts and instead just throw wild speculation at the President... ANY President is troubling.