Senators demand Trump say whether Saudi prince ordered Khashoggi killing
- Thread starter Denizen
- Start date
Denizen
Gold Member
- Oct 23, 2018
- 4,837
- 1,071
- 190
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #22
"Insulated". The CIA made the judgment evidently with evidence they are not going to make public.
The UK security services were aware of the planning of the murder and urged the Saudis not to do it. If the UK had foreknowledge, then the CIA would also have had that foreknowledge, which probably means that Kushner and Trump knew and are complicit.
So, its still SA. Our country is an ally of SA. Our President has nothing to do with any of it and neither does the US. Oh and no one but idiots like you give a shit.
You sure are stupid.
- Banned
- #24
JoeB131
Diamond Member
We don't have to. Just cut off the supply of weapons until they have removed the perpetrators from any position of power.
- Banned
- #26
Perhaps you can go soak your head.
No one, No one gives a shit except for lefty loons like you.
You sure are a lefty loon idiot.
Aldo Raine
Gold Member
Toronado3800
Gold Member
- Nov 15, 2009
- 7,608
- 560
- 140
Boeing would not be happy. Is this worth that?
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,420
- 2,180
Wrong, moron. The CIA said Iraq had WMDs.The CIA says the Prince ordered it...
...of course the CIA also briefed Congress that the Russian-authored Dossier was 'legitimate Intel' and claimed, at 1st, they never spied on Americans, US Senators....
They swore Iraq was filled to the brim with chemical weapons and didn't know the Berlin wall was coming down until they saw it on CNN.
No. The CIA didn't say Iraq had WMD. Bush did that. They said Sadam once had WMDs but they had no idea if that program had been restarted, and any evidence they had about a link between Sadam and AlQaeda was unreliable. Bush ignored the parts he didn't like, and Trump later made the same claim you just did. Trump was lying. I don't know if you are lying, or just ignorant of the facts.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,420
- 2,180
Putin's a murderer. Chavez was a murderer. Maduro is a murderer. The Castros are murderers. The rulers in Iran are murderers.
Obama dealt with all of them.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,420
- 2,180
If there is one thing that pisses off foreign politicians, it's the fact that Trump doesn't do what they want him to do, like sign the Paris climate accord, and the rest of their non-stop foolishness.
TheMoreYouKnow
Silver Member
- Dec 14, 2017
- 1,246
- 182
- 110
- Banned
- #36
Years ago Dictator Don swore he saw Saudi Nationals cheering 9/11 killings, now hes jumping around celebrating American journalism deaths with these terrorists.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,420
- 2,180
Did you join this forum just so you can occasionally spew one of your idiocies?
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,780
- 2,250
Wrong, moron. The CIA said Iraq had WMDs.The CIA says the Prince ordered it...
...of course the CIA also briefed Congress that the Russian-authored Dossier was 'legitimate Intel' and claimed, at 1st, they never spied on Americans, US Senators....
They swore Iraq was filled to the brim with chemical weapons and didn't know the Berlin wall was coming down until they saw it on CNN.
No. The CIA didn't say Iraq had WMD. Bush did that. They said Sadam once had WMDs but they had no idea if that program had been restarted, and any evidence they had about a link between Sadam and AlQaeda was unreliable. Bush ignored the parts he didn't like, and Trump later made the same claim you just did. Trump was lying. I don't know if you are lying, or just ignorant of the facts.
No, really, George W. Bush lied about WMDs
- In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
- In December 2002, Bush declared, "We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon." That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.
- On CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the claim that they’re "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
- On numerous occasions, Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
- More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he’s dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
- In August 2002, Dick Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney’s speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,568
- 2,645
Wrong, moron. The CIA said Iraq had WMDs.The CIA says the Prince ordered it...
...of course the CIA also briefed Congress that the Russian-authored Dossier was 'legitimate Intel' and claimed, at 1st, they never spied on Americans, US Senators....
They swore Iraq was filled to the brim with chemical weapons and didn't know the Berlin wall was coming down until they saw it on CNN.
No. The CIA didn't say Iraq had WMD. Bush did that. They said Sadam once had WMDs but they had no idea if that program had been restarted, and any evidence they had about a link between Sadam and AlQaeda was unreliable. Bush ignored the parts he didn't like, and Trump later made the same claim you just did. Trump was lying. I don't know if you are lying, or just ignorant of the facts.
No, really, George W. Bush lied about WMDs
- In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
- In December 2002, Bush declared, "We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon." That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.
- On CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the claim that they’re "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
- On numerous occasions, Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
- More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he’s dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
- In August 2002, Dick Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney’s speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
Actually......whoever wrote the Intel Community Report (ICR) declaring Iraq had WMD was supposedly wrong.
TECHNICALLY Bush and the report was CORRECT. Mortar warheads filled with Chemical weapons - munitions that had been reported to the UN as having already been destroyed - were found.
Was that enough to invade? No....but what idiot is going to believe that Hussein only lied about a few mortar rounds, that we could let that little lie go and believe the Butcher of Baghdad when he said he destroyed all of the rest? Still - not enough.
In my professional opinion as a military vet of 30 years, I believe Hussein kept publicly declaring he had WMD and posturing to keep making Iran think he had them - a military bluff, one he carried out too far, one that was used as an excuse to invade.
Liberals LOVE to completely skip over their own politicians' and leaders' part in the invasion, though. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and on and on stepped up to give speeches about how the US HAD TO INVADE, REGIME CHANGE WAS MANDATORY, blah, blah, blah.... Snowflakes quickly rush to say they were DUPED, conned by lies / bad Intel....yeah, and Hillary was too stupid to know she was breaking the law when she used Bleach Bit on her server to try to erase thousands of official subpoenaed documents....
Perhaps Democrats should not rush to war so quickly in the future, even when one of their own leads them into war.Snowflakes also rush to claim that their overwhelming votes to give Bush the power / authority to take the country to war was not what they MEANT to happen when they voted to do so. Bwuhahaha.... What the hell did they think was going to happen when they gave speech after speech about how Hussein needed to be disarmed and we needed to invade to affect a regime change then voted to give Bush the authority to do so?!
Moral Argument:
JFK declared the US would stand with anyone, bear any burden, pay any price to stand with those who want and are willing to fight for freedom....You can't deny that was the people of Iraq. The US went to war over 'WMD', but the people of Iraq were oppressed and wanted freedom. Morally, you could easily apply JFK's words to Iraq....but was it the right thing to do?
IMO, going into Iraq was a mistake - should never have happened for several reasons.
Like it or not, though, Bush joined the long list of Presidents who stuck the US' long nose into other nations' business - a list that includes Barak Obama - overthrowing dictators and interfering in other nations' elections and governance.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 95,004
- 71,031
- 3,645
Are you suggesting that the Saudi royal family be removed from power to satisfy leftists?
It's not going to happen.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Feds charge former Bay Area resident with $90 million in health care fraud- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 3
-
Who does the jihado Islamic Republic target? (Hint: Not 'military")
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
-
AI music created for AI listeners(yep, you read it right)
- Started by ozro
- Replies: 0
-
