• 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!

Flake says if FBI investigation finds Kavanaugh lied, nomination is over

poweRob said:
It was a huffpo link of a story citing a tweet. Apparently you don't even read your own stuff. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well.. You know along with copies of the letters (signed under threat of perjury) by the individuals backing up Kavanaugh's description of the terms. Again, not that it will matter.
 
This thread is still in this section? To the moderators: This needs moved to the Conspiracy Theory section. Thank you!
 
Vern said:
Well it worked with "Iraq has WMDs" when we know Bush knowingly lied so it'll work even better here.
Click to expand...

why would Bush claim there were WMDs and then send 20,000 people to find something he "knew" didn't exist?
 
TurtleDude said:
why would Bush claim there were WMDs and then send 20,000 people to find something he "knew" didn't exist?
Click to expand...

wow. I still cant believe you claim to be a lawyer. Bush claimed there were WMDs so he could invade Iraq. We learned from his Treasury sec that he wanted to invade Iraq day 1. we learned that they were mapping out the Iraqi oilfields soon after. I cant believe you think "golly, why would he lie" is debate. I'll tell you why he would lie. he knows he and republicans can tell any lie because conservatives will never hold them accountable. Hey, remember when you obediently believed republicans wanted to cut the deficit. Yea, more Americans suffered and suffered longer because of your blind obedience. You just keep asking questions. Your masters appreciate your obedience.
 
Vern said:
Well it worked with "Iraq has WMDs" when we know Bush knowingly lied so it'll work even better here.
Click to expand...

The Senate Select Committee investigation headed by Senator Rockefeller said otherwise.
 
Vern said:
really? please back that up.
Click to expand...

*While the report highlights many of the problems with the intelligence and criticizes the Bush Administration for its handling of the lead up to the war and its reasons for doing so, the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were "generally substantiated by the intelligence".*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

And a link to the Phase II report (pdf) the title of which is; "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"

https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
 
hanger4 said:
*While the report highlights many of the problems with the intelligence and criticizes the Bush Administration for its handling of the lead up to the war and its reasons for doing so, the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were "generally substantiated by the intelligence".*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

And a link to the Phase II report (pdf) the title of which is; "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"

https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Click to expand...

Just so you know, you didn't back up your point. I get it though, you really really really wanted to believe what you posted. But I can read this at Wikipedia. Why can you read it?

They disagreed, though, on the impact that statements on Iraq by senior members of the Bush administration had on the intelligence process.

Just so you know, that's not Rockefeller saying Bush didn't lie. If you cant even read Wikipedia, I guess getting you to read the report is asking too much.

In one instance, in response to a CIA headquarters inquiry about using CURVE BALL's information in an upcoming speech before the UN General Assembly (what became the Powell UN speech), the relevant CIA station specifically cautioned CIA headquarters about using CURVE BALL's information in a public speech. A January 27, 2003 station cable said: [The foreign liaison service handling CURVE BALL] has not been able to verify his reporting. [This foreign service] has discussed CURVE BALL with US [and others], but no one has been able to verify this information. . . . The source himself is problematical. Defer to headquarters but to use information from another liaison service's source whose information cannot be verified on such an important, key topic should take the most serious c~nsideration.~~

I realize that's a lot of words for you but it says "don't use Curveball". But guess what, they did use Curveball.

Despite these concerns, and the fact that debates occurred between officers in the CIA'S Directorate of Operations and Directorate of Intelligence about CURVE BALL's credibility, CURVE BALL's reporting was included, without caveat, in Secretary of State Powell's address to the United Nations on February 5,2003.

Again,that was a lot of words but it says they knew Curveball was a liar but used his lies "without caveat". In case you're curious, they used curveball because it wasn't the only thing not disputed by the UN report.
 
Vern said:
Just so you know, you didn't back up your point. I get it though, you really really really wanted to believe what you posted. But I can read this at Wikipedia. Why can you read it?

They disagreed, though, on the impact that statements on Iraq by senior members of the Bush administration had on the intelligence process.

Just so you know, that's not Rockefeller saying Bush didn't lie. If you cant even read Wikipedia, I guess getting you to read the report is asking too much.

In one instance, in response to a CIA headquarters inquiry about using CURVE BALL's information in an upcoming speech before the UN General Assembly (what became the Powell UN speech), the relevant CIA station specifically cautioned CIA headquarters about using CURVE BALL's information in a public speech. A January 27, 2003 station cable said: [The foreign liaison service handling CURVE BALL] has not been able to verify his reporting. [This foreign service] has discussed CURVE BALL with US [and others], but no one has been able to verify this information. . . . The source himself is problematical. Defer to headquarters but to use information from another liaison service's source whose information cannot be verified on such an important, key topic should take the most serious c~nsideration.~~

I realize that's a lot of words for you but it says "don't use Curveball". But guess what, they did use Curveball.

Despite these concerns, and the fact that debates occurred between officers in the CIA'S Directorate of Operations and Directorate of Intelligence about CURVE BALL's credibility, CURVE BALL's reporting was included, without caveat, in Secretary of State Powell's address to the United Nations on February 5,2003.

Again,that was a lot of words but it says they knew Curveball was a liar but used his lies "without caveat". In case you're curious, they used curveball because it wasn't the only thing not disputed by the UN report.
Click to expand...

So you totally ignore "the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were "generally substantiated by the intelligence".

I didn't say Rockefeller said, I said "The Senate Select Committee investigation headed by Senator Rockefeller said otherwise.
 
Vern said:
wow. I still cant believe you claim to be a lawyer. Bush claimed there were WMDs so he could invade Iraq. We learned from his Treasury sec that he wanted to invade Iraq day 1. we learned that they were mapping out the Iraqi oilfields soon after. I cant believe you think "golly, why would he lie" is debate. I'll tell you why he would lie. he knows he and republicans can tell any lie because conservatives will never hold them accountable. Hey, remember when you obediently believed republicans wanted to cut the deficit. Yea, more Americans suffered and suffered longer because of your blind obedience. You just keep asking questions. Your masters appreciate your obedience.
Click to expand...

Partisan hack nonsense. there is no credible evidence Bush was lying. He might have been mistaken but he didn't lie. and under the cease fire agreement-Saddam had the duty to prove he didn't have WMD-not the other way around. Burdens of proof seem to be issues lefties have a hard time understanding-back then or say the last few weeks
 
TurtleDude said:
Partisan hack nonsense. there is no credible evidence Bush was lying. He might have been mistaken but he didn't lie. and under the cease fire agreement-Saddam had the duty to prove he didn't have WMD-not the other way around. Burdens of proof seem to be issues lefties have a hard time understanding-back then or say the last few weeks
Click to expand...

Read this slowly TD. Saddam was cooperating with the UN. the UN could find no evidence of WMDs. He doesn't have to prove bush is lying. and all you can say is "he might have been mistaken". Maybe if Bush didn't make invading Iraq his day 1 agenda, mapping out Iraq'a oilfields and letting 911 happen, maybe then you could cling to "it was all just an innocent mistake". But you cant. We lied to the UN with cartoons of mobile BW factories. Do you know why we so gleefully used curveball when we knew he was a liar? We used him because mobile BW factories couldn't be directly disputed by the UN reports. oh, you've probably already forgotten that Iraq was cooperating with the UN. Anyhoo, I'll let Powell explain it to you.

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record

Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record - The New York Times

And TD, you cant even say "bush was wrong". you have to post the wishy washy "he might have been mistaken". That's what "partisan" looks like. You cant even admit the simple facts.
 
hanger4 said:
So you totally ignore "the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were "generally substantiated by the intelligence".

I didn't say Rockefeller said, I said "The Senate Select Committee investigation headed by Senator Rockefeller said otherwise.
Click to expand...

Er uh Hanger, " generally substantiated by the intelligence" is a Wikipedia quote. Show me in the report that Iraq had WMDs and the capability to produce them. I realize you're going to cling to "bush didn't lie" but we didn't find WMDs in Iraq. And since you missed the fact that we didn't find WMDs in Iraq, you probably missed the fact that Powell admitted he was set up with false intel when he lied to the UN.

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record

Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record - The New York Times
 
Vern said:
Er uh Hanger, " generally substantiated by the intelligence" is a Wikipedia quote. Show me in the report that Iraq had WMDs and the capability to produce them. I realize you're going to cling to "bush didn't lie" but we didn't find WMDs in Iraq. And since you missed the fact that we didn't find WMDs in Iraq, you probably missed the fact that Powell admitted he was set up with false intel when he lied to the UN.

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record

Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record - The New York Times
Click to expand...

*Er uh Hanger, " generally substantiated by the intelligence" is a Wikipedia quote.*

That phrase was used in "conclusion" after "conclusion" im tje Phase 2 report, which you didn't read.
 
hanger4 said:
*Er uh Hanger, " generally substantiated by the intelligence" is a Wikipedia quote.*

That phrase was used in "conclusion" after "conclusion" im tje Phase 2 report, which you didn't read.
Click to expand...

er uh Hanger, I didn't ask you to assure me the quote was in the report I asked you to show me in the report that Iraq had WMDs and the capability to produce them. And somehow you were able to ignore the quotes actually from the report that showed Bush lied (which was my point and I proved it with your report). Now in case you missed it, here is the quote about curveball (from your report) that proves bush lied

Despite these concerns, and the fact that debates occurred between officers in the CIA'S Directorate of Operations and Directorate of Intelligence about CURVE BALL's credibility, CURVE BALL's reporting was included, without caveat, in Secretary of State Powell's address to the United Nations on February 5,2003.

Now since I'm sure you missed it, I didn't ask you to "assure" me again. I asked you to prove your point. Of course the actual quote from your link proves bush lied so we both know you cant paste anything from the report to prove your point.
 
Vern said:
er uh Hanger, I didn't ask you to assure me the quote was in the report I asked you to show me in the report that Iraq had WMDs and the capability to produce them. And somehow you were able to ignore the quotes actually from the report that showed Bush lied (which was my point and I proved it with your report). Now in case you missed it, here is the quote about curveball (from your report) that proves bush lied

Despite these concerns, and the fact that debates occurred between officers in the CIA'S Directorate of Operations and Directorate of Intelligence about CURVE BALL's credibility, CURVE BALL's reporting was included, without caveat, in Secretary of State Powell's address to the United Nations on February 5,2003.

Now since I'm sure you missed it, I didn't ask you to "assure" me again. I asked you to prove your point. Of course the actual quote from your link proves bush lied so we both know you cant paste anything from the report to prove your point.
Click to expand...

I did prove it, you've read, or at least claimed to have, the report. Your lack of reading comprehension skill is not my problem.
 
hanger4 said:
I did prove it, you've read, or at least claimed to have, the report. Your lack of reading comprehension skill is not my problem.
Click to expand...

hanger, read this very slowly, I specifically asked you to prove your point not repeat your narrative. The reason you continue to repeat your narrative is because the quote you got from Wikipedia is not in the report. I've even posted a blurb from the report to prove Bush lied. Notice how I didn't post "nuh uh, its in there", I simply cut and pasted a blurb to prove my point.

And hanger, this is the point where you transcend ignorant and become dishonest. When it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives always chose narrative.
 
Vern said:
hanger, read this very slowly, I specifically asked you to prove your point not repeat your narrative. The reason you continue to repeat your narrative is because the quote you got from Wikipedia is not in the report. I've even posted a blurb from the report to prove Bush lied. Notice how I didn't post "nuh uh, its in there", I simply cut and pasted a blurb to prove my point.

And hanger, this is the point where you transcend ignorant and become dishonest. When it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives always chose narrative.
Click to expand...

I did prove the point, it's all in Rockefeller's report.
 
hanger4 said:
I've already posted a link to the pdf file.
Click to expand...

And you already know where in the 500 odd pages what you are referring to is located - don't you?

Of course you do.

And because you are a polite, considerate, literate, and educated person whose only interest is in a thoughtful discussion based on factual data you are going to provide the information as to where in the 500 odd pages whatever it is you are referring to is located - aren't you?

Of course you are.

And you are going to do that because you know that only a boorish dolt who really doesn't have an original thought in their head and bases their position on nothing but slogans and cant that someone else has told them they have to believe would refer other people to a 500 odd page document that they haven't read themselves and say something like "It's in the __[fill in the blank]__. Go find it for yourself." - right?

PS - Did you know that "child abuse" is approved of in "The Bible"? Of course it is. Now I'm not going to tell you exactly what the term "child abuse" means nor where in the 1,200 odd pages of "The Bible" you can find the specific reference that I am thinking of. But it's there and, of course, if you don't find it for yourself that just proves that I am right - doesn't it?

PS - Not that I doubt your word for a moment, but you do realize that the only place that the word "Rockefeller" appears in this thread is in Posts 155 (yours), 156 (a response to yours), 158 (a response to yours), 159 (yours), 162 (a response to yours), 167 (yours), 168 (mine), and 170 (to which this is a response).

Strangely enough, the only "link to the PDF" in those posts is the one in Post 168 and I don't think that that one was one of yours.

So, as far as whether you "posted a link to the pdf file" in THIS thread, that claim is a bunch of well aged male bovine excrement.

However, I don't doubt that you actually believe that at some time, in some discussion, on some website, you actually did post a link to the PDF file.

Therefore, since you actually do believe that you have done so, I won't say that you were lying when you said that you had "posted a link to the pdf file" - I'll just ask you to find the post IN THIS THREAD where you did so and let me know which one it was (alternatively, you could let me know where and when - on some other website you actually "posted a link to the pdf file".

I have absolutely no doubt that you will be able to provide that information is very short order - even if you have to make it up out of whole cloth.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And you already know where in the 500 odd pages what you are referring to is located - don't you?

Of course you do.

And because you are a polite, considerate, literate, and educated person whose only interest is in a thoughtful discussion based on factual data you are going to provide the information as to where in the 500 odd pages whatever it is you are referring to is located - aren't you?

Of course you are.

And you are going to do that because you know that only a boorish dolt who really doesn't have an original thought in their head and bases their position on nothing but slogans and cant that someone else has told them they have to believe would refer other people to a 500 odd page document that they haven't read themselves and say something like "It's in the __[fill in the blank]__. Go find it for yourself." - right?

PS - Did you know that "child abuse" is approved of in "The Bible"? Of course it is. Now I'm not going to tell you exactly what the term "child abuse" means nor where in the 1,200 odd pages of "The Bible" you can find the specific reference that I am thinking of. But it's there and, of course, if you don't find it for yourself that just proves that I am right - doesn't it?

PS - Not that I doubt your word for a moment, but you do realize that the only place that the word "Rockefeller" appears in this thread is in Posts 155 (yours), 156 (a response to yours), 158 (a response to yours), 159 (yours), 162 (a response to yours), 167 (yours), 168 (mine), and 170 (to which this is a response).

Strangely enough, the only "link to the PDF" in those posts is the one in Post 168 and I don't think that that one was one of yours.

So, as far as whether you "posted a link to the pdf file" in THIS thread, that claim is a bunch of well aged male bovine excrement.

However, I don't doubt that you actually believe that at some time, in some discussion, on some website, you actually did post a link to the PDF file.

Therefore, since you actually do believe that you have done so, I won't say that you were lying when you said that you had "posted a link to the pdf file" - I'll just ask you to find the post IN THIS THREAD where you did so and let me know which one it was (alternatively, you could let me know where and when - on some other website you actually "posted a link to the pdf file".

I have absolutely no doubt that you will be able to provide that information is very short order - even if you have to make it up out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

It's under the bolded word conclusion, it's real simple, not hard to find.

The rest of your post is partisan tripe and ad hom personal attacks, therefore dismissed.
 
hanger4 said:
It's under the bolded word conclusion, it's real simple, not hard to find.

The rest of your post is partisan tripe and ad hom personal attacks, therefore dismissed.
Click to expand...

I found it. Of course you were right Hanger. I'm sorry I ever doubted you. From page 5

In its July 2004 report, the Committee concluded that:
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence


There's more just for you hanger, page 21,22

However, the language in the NIE that Iraq began "vigorously trying to pursue uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

page 28

In its July 2004 report, the Committee concluded that the judgment in the NIE that "Baghdad has biological weapons" overstated what was known about Iraq's biological weapons holdings, did not explain the uncertainties underlying the statement, and did not explain that the conclusion that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program was largely based on the reporting from a single source.

page 40
The Committee concluded in its July 2004 report that two of the judgments in the NIE - that "Baghdad has chemical weapons and that Baghdad has covertly procured chemicals and equipment sufficient for limited CW production" - overstated the available intelligence.'"

page 47
Regarding the UAV assessments, the Committee concluded that the assessment that Iraq's UAVs were probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents overstated the intelligence reporting.

Hanger, again you prove my point, when it comes time for a conservative to choose narrative or integrity, they always choose narrative. thanks.
 
poweRob said:
Now... if the FBI is only allowed to look at the testimony. If they are allowed to take Kavanaugh's testimony the other day into consideration, the lying won't be very hard to find.

Flake says if FBI investigation finds Kavanaugh lied, nomination is over

Sens. Jeff Flake and Chris Coons said in an interview that aired Sunday that if the FBI investigation into sexual assault and misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh finds that the judge lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his testimony on Thursday, his nomination likely would not move forward.

"If Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the committee, nomination's over?" Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes" asked Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Coons, a Delaware Democrat, who are friends. "Oh yes," Flake said, nodding. Coons added, "I would think so."​
Click to expand...

And how would this be proven?
 
Vern said:
I found it. Of course you were right Hanger. I'm sorry I ever doubted you. From page 5

In its July 2004 report, the Committee concluded that:
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence


There's more just for you hanger, page 21,22

However, the language in the NIE that Iraq began "vigorously trying to pursue uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

page 28

In its July 2004 report, the Committee concluded that the judgment in the NIE that "Baghdad has biological weapons" overstated what was known about Iraq's biological weapons holdings, did not explain the uncertainties underlying the statement, and did not explain that the conclusion that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program was largely based on the reporting from a single source.

page 40
The Committee concluded in its July 2004 report that two of the judgments in the NIE - that "Baghdad has chemical weapons and that Baghdad has covertly procured chemicals and equipment sufficient for limited CW production" - overstated the available intelligence.'"

page 47
Regarding the UAV assessments, the Committee concluded that the assessment that Iraq's UAVs were probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents overstated the intelligence reporting.

Hanger, again you prove my point, when it comes time for a conservative to choose narrative or integrity, they always choose narrative. thanks.
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect, the Phase 2 of the report wasn't released Sept. 8, 2006;

*Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
 
hanger4 said:
You would be incorrect, the Phase 2 of the report wasn't released Sept. 8, 2006;

*Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
Click to expand...

Hanger, in your obedient determination to "dispute" what I've posted you have resorted to incomprehensible babble. I don't know what your point is (because its incomprehensible babble) but I am posting quotes from the link you posted. Here's your link. the quotes that prove my point and disprove yours are above.

hanger4 said:
And a link to the Phase II report (pdf) the title of which is; "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"

https://web.archive.org/web/20060921074629/http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom