U.S. Embassies Weren't Warned Of Imminent Threats Despite Trump's Claims That Four Embassies Were In Danger
LEMON: New details tonight calling into question the president's claims that he ordered the strike that killed Iran's top general because of plots against four embassies.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.</s>LEMON: CNN's Kylie Atwood breaking the story that two State Department sources say officials involved in embassy security weren't told of any imminent threats to four specific U.S. embassies. And didn't issue warnings about specific danger to any U.S. embassy. One senior State Department official described being blindsided when the administration justified the strike on Soleimani by saying he was behind an imminent threat to blow up U.S. embassies. Joining me now to discuss is retired General Wesley Clark. He is the former NATO supreme ally commander. General, I appreciate you joining us. Thank you so much.</s>RET. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Thank you, Don.</s>LEMON: Does the reporting that the people in charge of embassy security weren't told of imminent threats undermine the president's justification for the Soleimani strike?</s>CLARK: I think it's surprising if there wasn't imminent threat that the embassies weren't told. And that apparently there's some confusion elsewhere about how imminent -- if you don't know where or when the attack was going to occur it's hardly an imminent threat. And in anyway, I mean, it was kind odd that if there were imminent threat that you would attack Soleimani. He wasn't carrying a weapon. He wasn't going to do the bomb himself. So, if you knew there was an imminent threat, surely you would go after the cell or the location or that was going to execute the attack. But Don, the other side of this is that they did designate the Quds forces a terrorist organization. They did -- our administration did that. And he's the leader of the Quds Force. So, if so fact though, he's a terrorist. And so we have had a war on terrorism. So, it didn't have to be justified by imminent threat. But of course that made it much more palatable when it was first announced.</s>LEMON: Yes. I want to play what the president said and how administration officials responded. Listen to this general.</s>TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies. But I think it would had been four embassies. Could have been military bases. Could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent and then all of a sudden he was gone.</s>ROBERT O'BRIEN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Look, it's always difficult even with the exquisite intelligence that we have to know exactly what the targets are.</s>MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, the president didn't say that there was a (inaudible), he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he says, he probably, he believed --</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying there wasn't one?</s>ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I share the president's view, that probably my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies.</s>LEMON: So, general, tell me what you hear in these responses?</s>CLARK: Well, they're not saying that there was an imminent threat. They're saying -- if the national security adviser doesn't know it, if the Secretary of Defense doesn't know it. It doesn't sound to me like there was imminent threat. But, you know, that's just one piece of this, Don. It's still begs the question of what's going to happen next? Are we better off that he's gone? Are we safer or are we not safer? And on that only time will tell.</s>LEMON: Members of the president's cabinet seeming to shift the justification away from imminent threat to deterrence today. Listen.</s>WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I do believe that this concept of imminent is something of a red herring. It reestablished deterrence. It responded to attacks that had been already committed.</s>MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: There's a bigger strategy to this. President Trump and those of us in his national security team are reestablishing deterrence. Real deterrence against the Islamic republic.</s>TRUMP: I think it's totally consistent. But here's what's been consistent. We killed Soleimani. The number one terrorist in the world.</s>LEMON: So, listen, no one is disputing that Soleimani is bad guy and he's probably better off that he is not around. But now it seems to be shifting from imminent threat to deterrence. Is that saying that it was imminent threat wasn't so important after all?</s>CLARK: That's what it says. And the thing about deterrence is, you know, they didn't -- they struck back once. The foreign minister still saying that the United States is going to pay for its mistakes. They are still pushing the -- militias are saying, it's their turn to strike. So, we're not certain that it did reestablished deterrence. That's the point. But it's more defensible to say that it's an attempt to reestablish deterrence than it is to say, to response to an imminent threat, because they haven't been able to establish in the minds of the public that there was an imminent threat.</s>LEMON: Here's what the Washington Post is reporting, general, tonight that the president is preparing to divert an extra $7.2 billion in Pentagon funding to build a wall along the Southern Border. Is this really the best use of a Pentagon's budget?</s>CLARK: You know, most of us who follow this have never thought that was a good use of the Pentagon's budget. I mean, we need that money for repair, training, investment in new technologies and a lot of other things. But I is the president's call. He did work it out. OMB, apparently can take that money from the Pentagon budget and use it that way. So, this is one of those policy choices and it's up to the voters ultimately to make the call on issues like this.</s>LEMON: General Clark, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.</s>CLARK: Thank you, Don.</s>LEMON: Sources say Rudy Giuliani's lobbying to join the president's impeachment legal team. But there are a whole lot of reason that's not likely to happen.