So... where are the memos?

[AnyMal]

I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

Haven't checked these out yet.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/fcolegal020308.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/meyer020318.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ods020308.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ricketts020322.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/straw020325.pdf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Well the DSM they say is a classified document.

Anyone else have better links to the real deal?

Once these things are shown, are they enough to wake Bush Fan Bois up???

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

Where was the real proof of Watergate? Although there was never any "hard" evidence there....everything that the informant said was true. If you would actually take the time to read the reporter's story that is being fed this information, he is destroying the originals to protect the source a la Watergate. If they are not proof, why has neither Bush nor Blair called them fraudulant? Answer, because they are accurate accounts.

 

[AnyMal]

Already saw those, they are linked to Yahoo article. Problem is, there is no way to authenticate them. Plain paper, no singatures.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power.

US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other.

Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

So are we in control of all the Iraqi WMD?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power.

US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other.

Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

So are we in control of all the Iraqi WMD?

Learn to read. I asked, where are the memos? Where is the proof? Where are the hard copies? Where are the signatures?

All we've seen so far are plain white pages with typed text, nothing more.

 

[Engineer]

And not too much denial on the British government part....eh?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Engineer
And not too much denial on the British government part....eh?

And why should they deny anything? The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer
And not too much denial on the British government part....eh?

And why should they deny anything? The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

I have no proof that it's real...just as you "have no proof" that it's not. What's wrong? Getting worried that "your boy" told a little white (WMD) lie? Ah shucks!!!

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

I have a letterhead version that I printed at work. For now...

"British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity..."

? Bush asked to explain UK war memo,
CNN, May 12, 2005

"Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the document's authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant..."

? Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents,
LA Times, May 12, 2005

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer
And not too much denial on the British government part....eh?

And why should they deny anything? The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

I have no proof that it's real...just as you "have no proof" that it's not. What's wrong? Getting worried that "your boy" told a little white (WMD) lie? Ah shucks!!!

I have definitive proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be found. Care to prove me wrong?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer
And not too much denial on the British government part....eh?

And why should they deny anything? The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

The proof is in the fact that if they deny, it goes to court, then REAL minutes have to be released. This would be disasterous to the DumbYa/Blair camps.

 

[zephyrprime]

Sorry but a lack of denial IS proof. It's basically an admission. Let me say that again for those in denial.

A lack of denial IS proof.

Also, why on earth would the memo be signed? It's not a contract or even a letter. It's a memo. Does anyone sign reports and emails that are produced at a workplace? Somethings like an audit or an annual report are signed but most documents aren't.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

:roll:

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Sorry but a lack of denial IS proof. It's basically an admission. Let me say that again for those in denial.

A lack of denial IS proof.

Also, why on earth would the memo be signed? It's not a contract or even a letter. It's a memo. Does anyone sign reports and emails that are produced at a workplace? Somethings like an audit or an annual report are signed but most documents aren't.

Uh huh. This "memo" reminds me of another "memo" that was sent to Dan Rather right before the election. Remember?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

:roll:

what's the matter? didn't think anyone would ask for proof?

 

[sandorski]

When I'm done with them I'll pass them on....

 

[dardin211]

I think the biggest proof is already out there. The fact there were no WMD, there was no terrorist links between Saddam and Al Quiada, there was no attempt to obtain the yellow cake, and so on and so forth.

These memo's only back up what is already out in front of everyone's eyes to see plain as day. This administration lied.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

:roll:

what's the matter? didn't think anyone would ask for proof?

:roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

As posted in one of the many threads on this subject:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

How nice. I almost missed this part when first reading the link. So let me get this straight. The supposed originals were destroyed after a reporter typed a copy of them. These typed copies were then reviewed by an anonymous "official" which somehow earns them the appearance of authentic.

Yep, I guess these really are the smoking guns the left is claiming they are. I suppose it's only a matter of time for the "fake but accurate" apologists to chime in...

CsG

Link to yahoo AP story posted by RightIsWrong as the "Full Story".

CsG

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I am yet to find one. Can someone help?

BTW, I did see few .pdf's linked on yahoo, and, frankly, they don't mean crap. Anyone could type those.

What I am looking for is beyond any doubt real deal with letterheads, signatures.

:roll:

what's the matter? didn't think anyone would ask for proof?

:roll:

wanna hug? It must be tough to be a miserable lib. Have a

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As posted in one of the many threads on this subject:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

How nice. I almost missed this part when first reading the link. So let me get this straight. The supposed originals were destroyed after a reporter typed a copy of them. These typed copies were then reviewed by an anonymous "official" which somehow earns them the appearance of authentic.

Yep, I guess these really are the smoking guns the left is claiming they are. I suppose it's only a matter of time for the "fake but accurate" apologists to chime in...

CsG

Link to yahoo AP story posted by RightIsWrong as the "Full Story".

CsG

As I said above. This bruhaha reminds me of another "memo" that surfaced right before the election at CBS. And we all know how that ended.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As posted in one of the many threads on this subject:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

How nice. I almost missed this part when first reading the link. So let me get this straight. The supposed originals were destroyed after a reporter typed a copy of them. These typed copies were then reviewed by an anonymous "official" which somehow earns them the appearance of authentic.

Yep, I guess these really are the smoking guns the left is claiming they are. I suppose it's only a matter of time for the "fake but accurate" apologists to chime in...

CsG

Link to yahoo AP story posted by RightIsWrong as the "Full Story".

CsG

As I said above. This bruhaha reminds me of another "memo" that surfaced right before the election at CBS. And we all know how that ended.

LOL you Cons don't even trust the AP now? I'm telling you, there's no way we're gonna get God to come down and tell you these are real. You have to trust the AP.

Maybe we should outlaw all news material that hasn't been verified by God?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As posted in one of the many threads on this subject:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

How nice. I almost missed this part when first reading the link. So let me get this straight. The supposed originals were destroyed after a reporter typed a copy of them. These typed copies were then reviewed by an anonymous "official" which somehow earns them the appearance of authentic.

Yep, I guess these really are the smoking guns the left is claiming they are. I suppose it's only a matter of time for the "fake but accurate" apologists to chime in...

CsG

Link to yahoo AP story posted by RightIsWrong as the "Full Story".

CsG

As I said above. This bruhaha reminds me of another "memo" that surfaced right before the election at CBS. And we all know how that ended.

LOL you Cons don't even trust the AP now? I'm telling you, there's no way we're gonna get God to come down and tell you these are real. You have to trust the AP.

Maybe we should outlaw all news material that hasn't been verified by God?

Huh? WTF are you reading? Who said anything about trusting the AP? The AP is reporting the claims of some reporter who says he retyped the memos and destroyed the originals. This isn't about the AP at all - sheesh.

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As posted in one of the many threads on this subject:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

How nice. I almost missed this part when first reading the link. So let me get this straight. The supposed originals were destroyed after a reporter typed a copy of them. These typed copies were then reviewed by an anonymous "official" which somehow earns them the appearance of authentic.

Yep, I guess these really are the smoking guns the left is claiming they are. I suppose it's only a matter of time for the "fake but accurate" apologists to chime in...

CsG

Link to yahoo AP story posted by RightIsWrong as the "Full Story".

CsG

As I said above. This bruhaha reminds me of another "memo" that surfaced right before the election at CBS. And we all know how that ended.

LOL you Cons don't even trust the AP now? I'm telling you, there's no way we're gonna get God to come down and tell you these are real. You have to trust the AP.

Maybe we should outlaw all news material that hasn't been verified by God?

Huh? WTF are you reading? Who said anything about trusting the AP? The AP is reporting the claims of some reporter who says he retyped the memos and destroyed the originals. This isn't about the AP at all - sheesh.

CsG

Learn to read:

"The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...50619/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos