06-04-2005, 05:40 PM | #1 | ||
High School JV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
Downing Street Memo
I know it was briefly touched on in another topic, but I felt it deserved its own. It's been out for a month now, I believe, yet has been largely ignored by the so-called liberal media. There is a petition online to get President Bush to answer questions about it, and last time I heard, they had over 100,000 signatures. It has the potential to be quite damaging, but I personally would like to withhold judgement on it until it's addressed by the administration(and I hope it is). Should the administration address it? Why do you think it has been ignored stateside?
For those that haven't read it, here it is: SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02 cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based. C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were: (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option. The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were: (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons. (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition. (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions. The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real. The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush. Conclusions: (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options. (b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation. (c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week. (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states. (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update. (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. (I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.) MATTHEW RYCROFT (Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
__________________
I hope life isn't a joke, because I don't get it |
||
06-04-2005, 07:33 PM | #2 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
Quote:
http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/ Is where the petition is if someone wanted to sign it.
__________________
Bearcat729 on XBox Live and PSN |
|
06-04-2005, 07:51 PM | #3 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Why is the liberal media not reporting this memo? |
|
06-04-2005, 07:54 PM | #4 |
High School JV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
That's a good question, one to which I have no answer. You'd think if there were such an extreme liberal bias in the media, they'd be all over it.
__________________
I hope life isn't a joke, because I don't get it |
06-04-2005, 08:36 PM | #5 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Interesting, before the Downing Street Memo, liberals have found CNN, NYT, LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, Reuters, AP, BBC very agreable. Has that opinion changed because of this? |
|
06-04-2005, 08:43 PM | #6 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
Quote:
And conservatives haven't. Has that opinion changed because of this?
__________________
I hope life isn't a joke, because I don't get it |
|
06-04-2005, 10:10 PM | #7 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
The memo is very old news. I remember reading about it around a year ago.
|
06-04-2005, 10:24 PM | #8 |
High School JV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
Um, I believe it was first published just before the parliamentary elections in Britian.
__________________
I hope life isn't a joke, because I don't get it |
06-05-2005, 12:38 AM | #9 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
That may be, but I believe it's existence and contents were known quite a while ago. |
|
06-05-2005, 03:13 AM | #10 |
High School JV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
I had never heard or seen anything about it until a few weeks ago, so I think it just came out. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am...
__________________
I hope life isn't a joke, because I don't get it |
06-05-2005, 04:07 AM | #11 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
My guess is that it appears to some to possibly be as big a fake as the Rathergate "memo". When a "smoking gun" is too good to be true, it usually is.
Maybe we should Snopes it? |
06-05-2005, 02:30 PM | #12 |
High School JV
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
I know when asked about it, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said something to the effect of it being a non story, but neither him nor Tony Blair have denied its authenticity to the best of my knowledge.
__________________
I hope life isn't a joke, because I don't get it |
06-05-2005, 03:31 PM | #13 |
Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, England
|
If it were real it would be all over the British news, so I doubt it is genuine.
|
06-05-2005, 03:49 PM | #14 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
The memo was first published by the Times of London on May 1 and has been reported on everywhere. You can read the memo and all the press on it here: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/index.html
Or you can delude yourself into believing whatever you want to believe. Who cares. |
06-05-2005, 04:11 PM | #15 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
I hate America as as much as the next guy, but I don't see how this is particularly damning to anyone. Sounds like it's just relating perceptions about the Bush administration's policies that most people already accept as fact.
__________________
"I'm losing my edge--to better looking people... with better ideas... and more talent. And who are actually really, really nice." "Everyone's a voyeurist--they're watching me watch them watch me right now." |
06-05-2005, 08:14 PM | #16 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Have any of the inmates at Guantanamo verified this memo yet?
|
06-05-2005, 08:41 PM | #17 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
I'm totally confused. As far as I know there is no doubt about the authenticity of the memo. This is not like Rathergate at all. I'm especially confused by Ryan S.'s comment because this story was all over the British media right before the elections. I must have read a dozen stories about it in the British newspapers online. St. Cronin's comments are also a little weird, because although there have long been allegations that the Bush administration "massaged" the information to reach a pre-determined policy option, the memo was not even rumored about before April of this year.
I think the memo is a pretty good piece of evidence, but I guess I concluded a long time ago that the Bush administration was dead set on a course of action and was fine fixing the facts to do it. Of course, I thought Clarke was pretty credible, so that may be why. And given the administration's policy architect's beliefs in Straussian government, lying to acheive foreign invasion is pretty much a moral obligation for them. So, for me, the memo is more of the same. I believe the US media isn't picking up because (contrary to Dutch and other's belief) the story is boring and not that the media is liberally biased. Rather, the media is sensationally biased and this story feels stale. Even though it is a "good" story, it just won't sell newspapers. Foxnews has shown flag-waving makes money and Rathergate has chilled most of the press from really criticizing the administration. Instead they resort to pot shots and small stories with no real investigative journalism. It's sad really.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
06-05-2005, 08:41 PM | #18 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
WTF do you mean by that?
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-05-2005, 09:56 PM | #19 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-05-2005, 10:40 PM | #20 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps if evidence or information was provided showing that Bush "fixed" facts, people would take it a little more seriously. As it stands now, it just looks like someone who didn't like the US policy sounding off in a memo - Shocking, I know. As to addressing it, what specific charges are here? Which facts were fixed and what evidence does Mr. Rycroft have? If he has none, the president would be trying to address a general charge with no factual basis - no different from answering the perverbial "when did you stop beating your wife". For this to be taken seriously, some specifics need to be provided by Rycroft to form some legitimate questions to be answered. Last edited by Arles : 06-05-2005 at 10:52 PM. |
||
06-05-2005, 11:29 PM | #21 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
As sad as it sounds, I was very aggravated (and vocal) by the whole Iraq war lead up and the effect on the election (as well as the Abu Graib, etc.), but I have moved on. Bush has only 3 1/2 years left, and the majority of the US public was ok with the deceit, obviously believing the ends justify the means. Summer is here, and frankly I am now more interested in some good trips to the beach. Sad, really. But, I can't help it.
|
06-06-2005, 07:39 AM | #22 | ||
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
You're a hoot, John. The point of using a Guantanamo Terror Suspect and the Downing Street Memo was satirical (poking fun at modern day left-wing sensationalism). So, for example, if Newsweek were to get a hold of a terror suspect in say....Guantanamo, and that person were to say, "The US is pure evil and everything in the Memo surely is true." I wouldn't put it past Newsweek to assume they have enough information to write a story. Quote:
|
||
06-06-2005, 08:03 AM | #23 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2005, 10:20 AM | #24 | ||
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Yeah, that was an odd quote. I haven't been keeping up with this story very much, but here's a conservative who's writing about it. hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp Quote:
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
||
06-06-2005, 10:42 AM | #25 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2005, 11:11 AM | #26 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Move along, nothing to see here...
|
06-12-2005, 09:47 AM | #27 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
here it comes, now the media is starting to ask the questions...it just pisses me off. If the Admin. had simply stuck to the humanitarian angle I think less people would object today. I was/am for the war on this merit but damnit, why'd he have to go the WMD route? and perhaps someone should've considered, "what if they're not there...maybe we shouldn't hanf our hat on this WMD thing entirely.:
Report: British had doubts on U.S. postwar plan in Iraq Sunday, June 12, 2005 Posted: 9:26 AM EDT (1326 GMT) British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush said they viewed military action in Iraq as a last resort. WASHINGTON (AP) -- A staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion of Iraq concluded that U.S. military officials were not planning adequately for a postwar occupation, The Washington Post reported. "A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," authorities of the briefing memo wrote, according to the Post. "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden." The eight-page memo was written in advance of a July 23, 2002, meeting at Blair's Downing Street offices, the Post said in Sunday editions. It said the memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith of the London Sunday Times and that excerpts made available to Post were confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. The Post said the introduction to the memo -- "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" -- said U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it." The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session. According to those minutes -- known as the Downing Street memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said the Bush administration believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein. why'd he do this when it wasn't 100% and the humanitarian stuff was is beyond me...a marketing decision, I guess. Blair denied at a news conference with President Bush last week that intelligence was manipulated to justify the war. (Full story)
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-12-2005 at 09:49 AM. |
06-12-2005, 10:24 AM | #28 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I've always maintainted that it was a mistake to make WMDs the primary reason for the invasion, but anyone who says that the other reasons for war weren't mentioned are wrong. The humanitarian concerns and others were routinely mentioned by the administration and President leading up to and after the war. Those statements simply aren't as sexy as the WMD angle. That is, almost certainly, why they decided to give the WMD center stage, I too have come to the conclusion that it was purely a PR decision. I do also believe that the Administration wouldn't have gone out nearly so far on the WMD limb, if they weren't 100% sure we would find the WMDs in Iraq. |
|
06-12-2005, 10:29 AM | #29 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02...22006_tpo.html
Quote:
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger elaborating on U.S. goals in Iraq, February 18, 1998. Last edited by Dutch : 06-12-2005 at 12:31 PM. |
|
06-12-2005, 11:21 PM | #30 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
You can't really equate wrong rhetoric with wrong actions. |
|
06-12-2005, 11:41 PM | #31 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I don't think the majority of folks would consider it wrong rhetoric. Hell I'm not sure a majority would right now consider it a wrong action. |
|
06-12-2005, 11:42 PM | #32 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
I can think of about 1700 families that might beg to differ with you. |
|
06-13-2005, 07:10 AM | #33 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Regardless of right or wrong, those families raised men and women of action. Most people who are opposed to the war are more likely to be men and women of rhetoric. So you are wrong to think that. Last edited by Dutch : 06-13-2005 at 07:11 AM. |
|
06-13-2005, 07:13 AM | #34 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Hmmm, couldn't stomach requoting a democratic admin agreeing word for word with the Bush admin? Hurts huh? After all that left-wing media had you thinking otherwise? |
|
06-13-2005, 08:39 AM | #35 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
Found those WMDs - check Capture Osama - check Short stay in Iraq - check oh wait, that's only in bizarro world. I mean, I sure am glad we came out with that Iraqi deck of cards because who the hell would really want to get Osama... with all the updates on our progress there we surely must be close Sorry but there's a huge difference between 1 admin relying on faulty intel and going the diplomatic route vs another admin relying on faulty intel and starting a needless war over it. glen - care to find the latest poll numbers regarding support for the war to back up your claim? |
|
06-13-2005, 09:37 AM | #36 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
On the other hand, Clinton has said his biggest foreign policy mistake was NOT using military force to remove Saddam from power. |
|
06-13-2005, 09:43 AM | #37 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
|
Quote:
Yeah, but we all know Clinton was a man of public opinion polls. So did Clinton say this in 2002 when everyone in the democratic party except Dean was all about the war on terror or 2004 when everyone in the democratic party suddenly was opposed to the war in Iraq? |
|
06-13-2005, 09:45 AM | #38 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not Delaware - hurray!
|
The real indictment is against our information gathering, not Clinton or Bush.
__________________
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah! She loves you, yeah! how do you know? how do you know? |
06-13-2005, 09:52 AM | #39 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
As to the memo, I'm still waiting for any shred of evidence or information that led the author to make the claim that the US admin was "fixing" intel. It's all fine and dandy to jump to these type of conclusions on a private memo. But if people are going to actually use this memo as evidence against the administration the emphasis needs to shift from the seriousness of the charge to the evidence supporting the claim. Heck, I bet if you dug through every email in the state department and CIA you could fine memos declaring everything from WMDs being found to the war being a sham to Saddam being caught in lady's underwear. But writing a memo doesn't make any of these claims any more valid without having some sort of corroborating evidence from which to base them on. Last edited by Arles : 06-13-2005 at 09:53 AM. |
|
06-13-2005, 10:15 AM | #40 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Henderson, Nevada
|
Quote:
__________________
Toujour Pret |
|
06-13-2005, 10:15 AM | #41 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Then tell Sen. Roberts that he should fulfill his promise of investigating pre-war intelligence usage. |
|
06-13-2005, 10:20 AM | #42 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-13-2005, 10:29 AM | #43 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not a blind nationalist. I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's positions. But here is a short list of things he didn't do: - Invade Iraq on trumped up charges I don't think you can argue that that did not happen. Under Clinton we worked through the UN in Iraq, and it worked out splendidly: Saddam had no WMD capability and no ties to international terrorism. |
||
06-13-2005, 10:43 AM | #44 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't convict Bush and his administration on the information that we have, but I would certainly impeach him and find out everything there is to find out, this was the biggest fuck-up since Pearl Harbor at least and it would be nice to know how it happened. But our congress is only concerned about doing that if it has to do with blowjobs. Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 06-13-2005 at 10:43 AM. |
||
06-13-2005, 11:15 AM | #45 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
You would impeach a president over a third party memo in which the most explosive claim is subjective and based on the author's opinion, not fact? Good lord. You talk about a flimsy pretext for going to war... so the answer to that is to use a flimsy pretext to impeach the man responsible? The people of England saw this story a month before the elections and they didn't feel it was worthy of getting Labor (and Blair) out of office. Yet you're ready to impeach a president over this? BTW, before you start up with the inane blowjob comparisons, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. He could've been getting rimjobs from the Rockettes and I doubt Congress would have said anything. Well, Santorum would've said something, but he wasn't there at the time. One more thing before I get out of this thread. Chubby, you don't speak for the families of those who've lost their lives in this war any more than I do. I'd appreciate it if you'd quit speaking as if every person who's lost someone is of the same mind you are.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
06-13-2005, 11:39 AM | #46 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-13-2005, 11:57 AM | #47 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
MrBigglesworth,
I strongly encourage you to get in touch with Howard Dean to push for impeachment because of that "evidence". If it's not just a bunch of BS, do something about it, or are the Democrats living up to their image of inactive politicians that can only spout rhetoric? |
06-13-2005, 12:15 PM | #48 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
The Dems are unwilling to start anything because of the incorrect, media-created image that Bush is a popular President, and I agree with you that they are being huge pusses. It makes me sad that I have to choose between crooks and vag's right now. But maybe when the President's approval ratings dip below 40% they will challenge him, and by that point I bet the GOPers that have eyes on the Presidency will start distancing themselves from the lame duck as well. |
|
06-13-2005, 02:06 PM | #49 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Isnt everything written by a 3rd party....Even the closest thing the Gitmo Torture memo came from the main guy and people discount that as coming from someone outside the circle. I mean you could take it down the slippery slope and say you will not believe it until Bush sits in front of you personally and admits to it (over TV a liberal could edit the picture and possibly dub over the verbage). At some point, like it usually bears out in my threads (it pans out in almost all of my topics - eventualy), the truth comes out. It just take a while before those Deep Throats get people's ears....but then someone has to write it and then youre destined to say it's crap...because it was written down. Entrenched, you are....maybe I am too, but the paper and evidence start over there and eventually ends up settling down over here...just takes time.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-13-2005, 05:06 PM | #50 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
or maybe it's just the subjective opinion of an intelligence analyst that's completely contradicted by another memo, by another intelligence analyst, written the VERY SAME WEEK.
somehow I doubt this 2nd memo is going to be pushed by the folks that brought you downingstreetmemo.com http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/po...3downing.html? Quote:
Is this where you claim that this second memo is clearly a fake designed to take the heat off the REAL memo?
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|