• 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!

Did Trump just confirm the existence of a covert CIA program in a tweet?

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Funny how Trumpsters don't believe the media and scream 'fake news' until they don't. Now a reported story carries the same weight as their King and master? No way!
Click to expand...

Well, to be blunt, abstract thought isn't exactly their strong suit. I hate to see them struggle so.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, not even remotely. You're simply willfully ignoring the point.

So what? That's reporting, not actual confirmation by the guy who heads up the executive branch. This is definitely taxing you.

Sorry you have to pretend that you don't understand the difference between reporting and actual confirmation.

A little advice: if you have to be so laughably intellectually dishonest, what you're trying to argue likely isn't worth the effort.

Please stop.
Click to expand...

When Obama had it put in the spending bill, did that not confirm it's existence?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
LOL.. Sure they do.

You Trumpsters are naive as hell. You proved that back in November.
Click to expand...

Okay.

All you have is, "I don't believe you."

Have a good day.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, not even remotely. You're simply willfully ignoring the point.

So what? That's reporting, not actual confirmation by the guy who heads up the executive branch. This is definitely taxing you.

Sorry you have to pretend that you don't understand the difference between reporting and actual confirmation.

A little advice: if you have to be so laughably intellectually dishonest, what you're trying to argue likely isn't worth the effort.

Please stop.
Click to expand...

Ignoring irrefutable evidence that

"The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures."

is common knowledge is fascinating.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I already did. Try and keep up w/the thread. The POTUS came out and confirmed a covert operation in public.
Click to expand...

Covert? It was announced by Obama 4 years ago. Doesn't sound covert to me.

Consider your point shredded.

Sorry, but if you think THIS ONE is going to sink Trump, you are surely being disappointed. Just another nothingburger.
 
hanger4 said:
Ignoring irrefutable evidence that

"The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures."

is common knowledge is fascinating.
Click to expand...

Huh. Odd that you seem not to have the horsepower to understand that a claim, i.e., reporting, is not actual proof and that confirmation by the POTUS is. Reporting is not 'irrefutable proof'. Pro-tip: word have meanings.

Damn. This really had you all tied up in knots.
 
Mycroft said:
Covert? It was announced by Obama 4 years ago. Doesn't sound covert to me.

Consider your point shredded.

Sorry, but if you think THIS ONE is going to sink Trump, you are surely being disappointed. Just another nothingburger.
Click to expand...

What Obama announced was IIRC 250 extra special forces to be sent to Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War.2C_2011.E2.80.932017

"Shredded"? LOL! You have a most over-active imagination.

Consider yourself dismissed.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I already did. Try and keep up w/the thread. The POTUS came out and confirmed a covert operation in public.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. The only thing covert about the supplying of weapons was how they got there. EVERYONE knew they were going.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What Obama announced was IIRC 250 extra special forces to be sent to Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War.2C_2011.E2.80.932017

"Shredded"? LOL! You have a most over-active imagination.

Consider yourself dismissed.
Click to expand...

Following Russia's intervention, top U.S. officials began emphasizing "the fight against the Islamic State [ISIL], rather than against the Assad government," but supporters of the CIA program "disagree with this rationale, saying that the Islamic State can't be eradicated until a new government emerges capable of controlling the terrorist group's territory in Raqqa and elsewhere," and that "the [Free Syrian Army] remains the only vehicle to pursue those goals." In contrast, "one senior U.S. official said that it is time for a 'ruthless' look at whether agency-supported fighters can still be considered moderate, and whether the program can accomplish anything beyond adding to the carnage in Syria," asking: "What has this program become, and how will history record this effort?"[46] After the Defense Department's overt $500 million effort to train thousands of Syrians to fight ISIL was revealed to have produced only "four or five" active combatants as of September 2015, largely because the vast majority of potential recruits considered Assad their main enemy—an admission that prompted widespread Congressional derision—the U.S. military began airdrops of lethal equipment to established rebel organizations; reports soon emerged of "CIA-armed units and Pentagon-armed ones" battling each other.[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War.2C_2011.E2.80.932017
Click to expand...

And, of interest is this dialogue from Kerry in which he talks about arming Syrian rebels instead of sending in US troops.

 
Beaudreaux said:
How, exactly, would you recommend that the GOP stop the duly elected President of the United States from doing anything, other than an action that could be defined as a ****ing coup d'état?
Click to expand...
As a technical matter, legislation specifically prohibiting an action of his.

Or legislation preempting an action. As Congress recently did with Russian sanctions.

As long as you've got the 66% for Congressional override of his veto, you've got him by the balls!
 
hanger4 said:
No he didn't. The only thing covert about the supplying of weapons was how they got there. EVERYONE knew they were going.
Click to expand...

I'm sorrry, I only recognize, accept and deal in reality. That's exactly what Trump did, no matter how much that fills you with impotent rage.

Sorry you couldn't make a rational or honest case relevant to the point I made.
 
Mycroft said:
And, of interest is this dialogue from Kerry in which he talks about arming Syrian rebels instead of sending in US troops.

Click to expand...


Ah, so you can't actually back up your claim and admit you were completely dishonest. Remember: words actually do have meanings.

Most excellent. I accept your concession.

Consider yourself dismissed again.
 
hanger4 said:
"In early September 2013, President Barack Obama told U.S. Senators that the CIA had trained the first 50-man insurgent element and that they had been inserted into Syria.[42] The deployment of this unit and the supplying of weapons may be the first tangible measure of support since the U.S. stated they would begin providing assistance to the opposition."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria

Just a little heads-up to help you catch-up.
Click to expand...

US Senators = Twitter.

Gotcha. All caught up now.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Ah, so you can't actually back up your claim and admit you were completely dishonest. Remember: words actually do have meanings.

Most excellent. I accept your concession.

Consider yourself dismissed again.
Click to expand...

There ya go...instead of addressing my post, you bloviate, deny and run.

Tschuss
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I'm sorrry, I only recognize, accept and deal in reality. That's exactly what Trump did, no matter how much that fills you with impotent rage.

Sorry you couldn't make a rational or honest case relevant to the point I made.
Click to expand...

It's been an open secret for years, your bloviating notwithstanding. It was openly discussed in congress, your bloviating notwithstanding.

TDS is strong in this one Obi Wan

House Votes to Arm Syrian Rebels Sep 17, 2014

House Votes to Arm Syrian Rebels; CR Passes (Updated) (Video)

Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels. September 18, 2014

Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels | TheHill
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
Add another reason for the intelligence community to distrust trump
Click to expand...

If he discontinued the training, it would be sad. But it would not seem that reporting it should upset anyone.
 
hanger4 said:
It's been an open secret for years, your bloviating notwithstanding. It was openly discussed in congress, your bloviating notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Which is utterly irreleavnt to what I stated. This really seems above your intellectual pay grade.
TDS is strong in this one Obi Wan
Click to expand...

Sorry you still can't make a rational or honesty pont.
House Votes to Arm Syrian Rebels Sep 17, 2014

House Votes to Arm Syrian Rebels; CR Passes (Updated) (Video)

Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels. September 18, 2014

Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels | TheHill
Click to expand...

None of which equates to Obama announcing that it was a CIA operation and confirming it, as Trump actually did That you can't see the difference is simply more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

Mmmmm.. delcious fail. Napkin? Hankie?
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
There ya go...instead of addressing my post, you bloviate, deny and run.

Tschuss
Click to expand...

I already exposed you as being unable to rationally address what I stated and hilariously dishonest.

Verreis, Arschfish.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
Which is utterly irreleavnt to what I stated. This really seems above your intellectual pay grade.

Sorry you still can't make a rational or honesty pont.

None of which equates to Obama announcing that it was a CIA operation and confirming it, as Trump actually did That you can't see the difference is simply more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

Mmmmm.. delcious fail. Napkin? Hankie?
Click to expand...

All I've posted makes this a failed thread;

"Did Trump just confirm the existence of a covert CIA program in a tweet?"

Supplying arms to Syrian rebels has been known publicly sense at least 2014. All your bloviating and snark won't change that simple fact.
 
hanger4 said:
All I've posted makes this a failed thread;

"Did Trump just confirm the existence of a covert CIA program in a tweet?"

Supplying arms to Syrian rebels has been known publicly sense at least 2014. All your bloviating and snark won't change that simple fact.
Click to expand...

Yawn. More braying about something that was never confirmed before by the WH as being a CIA covert operation until Trump. And I notice you're still running from your lie about Obama.

Keep pretending that you've made some rational point if you'd like. Whatever it takes to keep from confronting what rational adults collectively recognize as reality.
 
Absentglare said:
At some point, wouldn't they deem him unfit and impeach him?

I mean, i think we all agree that bar exists somewhere even if we disagree on where, exactly, that is.
Click to expand...

No. There has to be a crime, not just incompetence or stupid actions:
US Constitution, Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

Lately, some Democrats and TV mouthpieces have talked about using the 25th Amendment to declare Trump unable to fulfill the duties of the office of President and have him replaced by the VP, but that won't work either, because he would have to either be impeached and removed from office first, or he would have to resign, or die:
Amendment XXV

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked for someone to tell me how we could stop Trump from doing what he wanted within his powers as President without it being a coup. From my knowledge, he would have to commit a crime and be impeached, resign from office, die in office, or there would have to be a coup d'état.
 
Chomsky said:
As a technical matter, legislation specifically prohibiting an action of his.

Or legislation preempting an action. As Congress recently did with Russian sanctions.

As long as you've got the 66% for Congressional override of his veto, you've got him by the balls!
Click to expand...

Possibly. That's how they impeached Johnson, but the law Johnson was impeached over ordered the President to not replace any of the cabinet members that were appointed by Lincoln, and when Johnson did so he had directly broken that law - Johnson was not convicted by the Senate.

The Russian sanctions that Congress just passed may do the trick if he goes against it. However, if all he does is fail to enforce, the precedence has been set that that alone is not a crime and doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The law passed by Congress would have to make it a crime for the President to not enforce that law, and as far as I know that wording has never been put into any law, except for the one that Johnson was impeached over. That's why Obama didn't get impeached for the myriad of laws he failed to enforce, like immigration laws.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Possibly. That's how they impeached Johnson, but the law Johnson was impeached over ordered the President to not replace any of the cabinet members that were appointed by Lincoln, and when Johnson did so he had directly broken that law - Johnson was not convicted by the Senate.

The Russian sanctions that Congress just passed may do the trick if he goes against it. However, if all he does is fail to enforce, the precedence has been set that that alone is not a crime and doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The law passed by Congress would have to make it a crime for the President to not enforce that law, and as far as I know that wording has never been put into any law, except for the one that Johnson was impeached over. That's why Obama didn't get impeached for the myriad of laws he failed to enforce, like immigration laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I wasn't speaking in terms of impeachment, though now that you mention it - it's a great idea! :mrgreen:

But I was speaking to Congress' ability to reign a President in, legislatively. As they just did with the Russian sanctions.

The system does indeed work. I'm just wary of total party control of government. For example, this to me looks like a GOP permission slip for Trump to get to Mueller via appointing another AG:


 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. More braying about something that was never confirmed before by the WH as being a CIA covert operation until Trump. And I notice you're still running from your lie about Obama.

Keep pretending that you've made some rational point if you'd like. Whatever it takes to keep from confronting what rational adults collectively recognize as reality.
Click to expand...

1) From link #1;

Obama said ""Today’s vote is another step closer to having the authorization to train and equip vetted elements of the moderate Syrian opposition so they can defend themselves against, and ultimately push back on, ISIL forces," he said in a statement."
To bad you didn't bother to read the link/s.

2) I'll ingnore your snark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom