• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Zero question' MBS directed Khashoggi murder, US senators say

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,535
Reaction score
24,016
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Two US Republican senators have emerged from a meeting with CIA Director Gina Haspel on Tuesday saying it's clearer than ever that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi could not have happened without the knowledge of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday that bin Salman, known as MBS, is "complicit" in the killing of Khashoggi.


https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/khashoggi-killing-mbs-US-senators-1367303035


Ball is in Trump’s court.....


Corker said in court MbS would be convicted in 30 minutes ......
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,951
Reaction score
9,788
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Two US Republican senators have emerged from a meeting with CIA Director Gina Haspel on Tuesday saying it's clearer than ever that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi could not have happened without the knowledge of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday that bin Salman, known as MBS, is "complicit" in the killing of Khashoggi.


https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/khashoggi-killing-mbs-US-senators-1367303035


Ball is in Trump’s court.....


Corker said in court MbS would be convicted in 30 minutes ......

This is absolutely devastating. We have a president that will deny reality right to americas face. He will outright lie about classified info right to our faces. This man is an abomination.
 

bearpoker

aspiring cat lady
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
17,237
Reaction score
10,044
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is absolutely devastating. We have a president that will deny reality right to americas face. He will outright lie about classified info right to our faces. This man is an abomination.

Old news. The question is, what will the Republicans do about it, aside from wringing their hands?
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
37,708
Reaction score
8,715
Old news. The question is, what will the Republicans do about it, aside from wringing their hands?
What are the Democrats going to do about it. They will control the house.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

bearpoker

aspiring cat lady
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
17,237
Reaction score
10,044
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What are the Democrats going to do about it. They will control the house.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

We're talking about the Senate here. Do try to keep up.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For me, Donald Trump's presentation of MBS' role and his view of what actions the US should take is telling. To my mind, Trump took the stance he did, not only to preserve his personal financial relationship with SA, but also because were it at all possible for him to, as handily as did MBS, neutralize his political opponents, having them covertly assassinated if need be. Quite simply, that is the depth of depravity I think isn't beneath Trump.

Now, that's what I think about Trump, largely because his words, deeds and means are those of an authoritarian despot; moreover, he's got only kind words for the world's despots and dictators, all the while castigating, compromising, confounding and chastising our allies.

Furthermore, Trump, having the information the CIA just shared with US senators, had the temerity to say, "We may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi." While that may be true, it's quite clear to the senators whom the CIA Director briefed that, even in the public sphere, we have enough facts to know damn well "what's what."




And there's no legitimacy to lines akin to "Trump didn't know 'this and that' on November 20th that we know today." There isn't because the CIA formed and shared its conclusion on or before the 17th of November. Because the available information differs not between then and now, why did Trump's Admin. "dick around" and make the GOP-controlled Senate have to sit through two briefings of his top-level officials when one was, as shown by the videos above, quite sufficient?

I don't know the answer, but I know whatever it is, if ever we learn it, it won't be a well founded one. I mean, really....Wasting people's time with silly process hijinks like that -- particularly given Pompeo's glibly smug "I was asked to be here, and here I am" remarks about the process -- is not what top level executives do or forbear.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,019
Reaction score
36,276
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What are the Democrats going to do about it. They will control the house.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

They can't do anything without Republicans getting on board.

And we all know the GOP will never do anything.
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
37,708
Reaction score
8,715
They can't do anything without Republicans getting on board.

And we all know the GOP will never do anything.
Democrats can bring any vote to the floor they want. They can vote to declare war if they wish to.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,019
Reaction score
36,276
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Democrats can bring any vote to the floor they want. They can vote to declare war if they wish to.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity, what sort of response would you personally support?
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is absolutely devastating. We have a president that will deny reality right to americas face. He will outright lie about classified info right to our faces. This man is an abomination.

Instead of blathering, why not post your unredacted copies?
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,951
Reaction score
9,788
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Instead of blathering, why not post your unredacted copies?

So what are you saying? You think the CIA is actually not sure of whether the prince ordered the killing and everyone's just making all fo this up except for the president?

I understand you like the president, but if you have to deny reality on a daily basis it's not a healthy relationship.
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
37,708
Reaction score
8,715
Out of curiosity, what sort of response would you personally support?
That's more or less what I'm asking you.

Me? I think I would leave this to the U.N. let them decide how the world community universally should condemn the incident. We can voice our agreement with them.

Your turn....

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So what are you saying? You think the CIA is actually not sure of whether the prince ordered the killing and everyone's just making all fo this up except for the president?

I understand you like the president, but if you have to deny reality on a daily basis it's not a healthy relationship.

They sure got it wrong on Iraq's WMD's, the CIA is the reason we went to war in Iraq. We damn use don't need to go to war was with the Sadies. Or is that what you're suggesting.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
82,828
Reaction score
57,498
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Two US Republican senators have emerged from a meeting with CIA Director Gina Haspel on Tuesday saying it's clearer than ever that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi could not have happened without the knowledge of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday that bin Salman, known as MBS, is "complicit" in the killing of Khashoggi.


https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/khashoggi-killing-mbs-US-senators-1367303035


Ball is in Trump’s court.....


Corker said in court MbS would be convicted in 30 minutes ......

So I guess yesterday is the day that Graham chooses to stand up to Trump? He must have been visited by the ghost of his left brain, John McCain, last night.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,951
Reaction score
9,788
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They sure got it wrong on Iraq's WMD's, the CIA is the reason we went to war in Iraq. We damn use don't need to go to war was with the Sadies. Or is that what you're suggesting.

No one's suggesting that we go to war, lol.

And are you even aware of why we went in to Iraq? Can you tell me the intelligence that was incorrect? Do you remember exactly what the CIA reports said?

The CIA got somethings wrong. But they got alot right. They had alot of intelligence that went against what the Bush Admin were screaming. But they grabbed the stuff that supported them and ignored everything that didn't. They wanted to go in to Iraq. And WMD's was just the most useful scapegoat to go in. The CIA even warned them against using some of the intelligence that the Bush admin was asking for because it wasn't certain but the Bush admin ignored them. The intelligence reports also directly contradicted the administration ideas that we would be greeted as liberators and would be in and out in a matter of weeks or months. You can just go on and on. Intelligence reports are based on the best info you have at the time, and you have to trust that who ever is reading them will read them fairly and use the information accordingly and not in a cherry picked way to push an agenda. That's exactly what happened here. For every bit of information that the Bush admin trumpeted from the roof tops like "They are buying aluminum tubes to store uranium!" that they gleaned from one bit of intelligence, there were other intelligence reports with other information that should have been considered.You are discussing this as if you care more about winning an argument than you are about being correct. I strongly encourage you to read up more on the topic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-bush-white-house/?utm_term=.073e5f184198
Moreover, the Bush administration appeared determined to attack Iraq for any number of reasons beyond suspicions of WMDs; officials simply seized on WMDs because they concluded that that represented the strongest case for an invasion. “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in 2003.

The clearest example of stretching the intelligence concerned Saddam Hussein’s links to al-Qaeda and by extension the 9/11 attacks, which were thin and nonexistent — but which the Bush administration (especially Vice President Cheney) suggested were deeply suspicious.

A 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report, adopted in a bipartisan vote, that examined whether administration officials accurately portrayed the underlying intelligence was unsparing in its criticism of this aspect of the White House’s case for war. The 170-page report said such Iraq/al-Qaeda statements were “not substantiated by the intelligence,” adding that multiple CIA reports dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating partners – and that there was no intelligence information that supported administration statements that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda.

But Pillar also said that “the Bush administration certainly did embrace intelligence that made its case and ignored (or actively disparaged) intelligence that undercut its case.” He noted that one of the few members of Congress who actually read the 2002 NIE, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, “voted against the war resolution, explaining later that his reading of the document, filled with dissents and caveats, convinced him that the case about Iraqi weapons programs was weak.”

At one point before the war, CIA Director George Tenet warned the White House not to use sketchy intelligence about Iraqi purchases of uranium in Africa – but the White House inserted it into a presidential speech anyway, much to its later embarrassment.



Before the October 2002 NIE, some intelligence agencies assessed that the Iraqi government was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, while others disagreed. The NIE reflected a majority view that it was being reconstituted but there were sharp dissents by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Department of Energy (which is the main source of nuclear weapons expertise in the U.S. government).


In particular, administration officials leaked to the New York Times that Iraq had obtained large quantities of aluminum tubes for use in the uranium enrichment project — though the Energy Department experts were convinced the tubes were poorly suited for such uses and instead were intended for artillery rockets.
.
 
Top Bottom