So... where are the memos?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken



.............................http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html...........................
Ssshhhh. Let them think they've actually found something.

The article doesn't actually refer to the DSM documents, but they'll delude themselves into thinking so anyway.

There's your pudding Ozoned! More chocolaty sweet B.S. from the cons.

maybe you can help me out, Chicken

I'm looking for this proof that the memos are fabricated. I can't seem to find the proof anywhere. Do you have originals of the proof? I don't just want the verified content posted here, I really need the full thing. Please???

Typically, you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The documents don't have to be proven to be fabrications. They need to be validated as real. Feel free to do that. I haven't seen it happen yet.

Now can you explain the prescience of the Guardian? Kindly tell us all how an article in September 2004, long before the DSM ever appeared on the scene, can claim they are genuine? Or are you willing it's yet another case of the left grasping at straws?

Haha, I was hoping you'd fall into some pwnage.

From the guardian article:

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change. "

And one of the downing street memos, dated March 14th 2002...posted on AP's site....http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

PWNED!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

The DSM is from July, not March. What your linking to is one of the Whitehall memos, which has been out since before the Guardian article and is nothing new.

So congrats. Your ignorance just pwned :roll: yourself.

Perhaps you better check your own knowledge?

All these memos, both new and old, were collected by one single reporter, Michael Smith. Collectively, all of them are called the Downing Street Memos. (Do you even know what Downing Street is???)

Your ignorance and B.S. would have us believe that Michael Smith fabricated some memos, but not others. Clearly, you're full of sh!t.

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

AnyMal, here is the connection above. Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

Are you refering to .pdf above? What exactly does it prove? What makes it an "authentic" document?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html
One of Michael Smith's memos, part of the collection of Downing Street Memos is described as

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change."

That memo is here http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf.

All memos were collected by Michael Smith.

That's what I call pwnage

Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

What are you saying? original copies of what?

I'm still searching to no avail. I can't find this proof that the memos were fabricated . Please help me. I can only find proof that they are real . I only see senseless B.S. by conservatives, no ORIGINAL copies of the proof of fabrication .

Help. Please.

You are now starting to lump things in that have nothing to do with the original subject in a vain attempt to have something stick.

It is quite a sad display I might add.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting to note that the Right has finally decided to apply some critical thinking to the whole matter of the WOI. It's a shame, however, that these mental faculties didn't come to the fore prior to the invasion, and that they're being applied only in terms of self-congratulatory rationalizations.

Did you demand that the original Niger documents be produced and scrutinized?

Did you demand any proof at all for the claims of links to al qaeda?

How about Cheney's claim of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program?

Did you bother to examine the pros and cons wrt the aluminum tubes and plutonium extraction centrifuges?

How about the claims of "We know where they are!" wrt alleged Iraqi WMD's?

Did you apply any of this newly discovered skepticism towards the foundations of a position you now support and defend against all reason?

Obviously not, and you're obviously not prepared to do so anytime real soon now, either....

Yet you demand that original documents be produced now, even though Bush, Blair, Rice and Straw have very pointedly refused to deny the veracity of the information, even when the question was put to them straight up...

If none of those people will call it "fake", what then makes you believe that you can do so without suffering from some rather righteous and heartfelt derision? That you have God on your side? That kneejerk pseudo patriotism trumps all? That the words of our Leader are not to be questioned?

Or is this just another example of avoiding cognitive dissonance, of entering into a bunker mentality, a state of denial?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken



.............................http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html...........................
Ssshhhh. Let them think they've actually found something.

The article doesn't actually refer to the DSM documents, but they'll delude themselves into thinking so anyway.

There's your pudding Ozoned! More chocolaty sweet B.S. from the cons.

maybe you can help me out, Chicken

I'm looking for this proof that the memos are fabricated. I can't seem to find the proof anywhere. Do you have originals of the proof? I don't just want the verified content posted here, I really need the full thing. Please???

Typically, you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The documents don't have to be proven to be fabrications. They need to be validated as real. Feel free to do that. I haven't seen it happen yet.

Now can you explain the prescience of the Guardian? Kindly tell us all how an article in September 2004, long before the DSM ever appeared on the scene, can claim they are genuine? Or are you willing it's yet another case of the left grasping at straws?

Haha, I was hoping you'd fall into some pwnage.

From the guardian article:

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change. "

And one of the downing street memos, dated March 14th 2002...posted on AP's site....http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

PWNED!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

The DSM is from July, not March. What your linking to is one of the Whitehall memos, which has been out since before the Guardian article and is nothing new.

So congrats. Your ignorance just pwned :roll: yourself.

Perhaps you better check your own knowledge?

All these memos, both new and old, were collected by one single reporter, Michael Smith. Collectively, all of them are called the Downing Street Memos. (Do you even know what Downing Street is???)

Your ignorance and B.S. would have us believe that Michael Smith fabricated some memos, but not others. Clearly, you're full of sh!t.

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

AnyMal, here is the connection above. Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

Are you refering to .pdf above? What exactly does it prove? What makes it an "authentic" document?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html
One of Michael Smith's memos, part of the collection of Downing Street Memos is described as

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change."

That memo is here http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf.

All memos were collected by Michael Smith.

That's what I call pwnage

Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

What are you saying? original copies of what?

I'm still searching to no avail. I can't find this proof that the memos were fabricated . Please help me. I can only find proof that they are real . I only see senseless B.S. by conservatives, no ORIGINAL copies of the proof of fabrication .

Help. Please.

You are now starting to lump things in that have nothing to do with the original subject in a vain attempt to have something stick.

It is quite a sad display I might add.

I'm sorry I can only find proof that the memos are real.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...50618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

"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://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war."

I can't find the proof that they're fabricated. Maybe you can help me out? I'm crying because I can't find the ORIGINAL copies of proof of fabrication .

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken



.............................http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html...........................
Ssshhhh. Let them think they've actually found something.

The article doesn't actually refer to the DSM documents, but they'll delude themselves into thinking so anyway.

There's your pudding Ozoned! More chocolaty sweet B.S. from the cons.

maybe you can help me out, Chicken

I'm looking for this proof that the memos are fabricated. I can't seem to find the proof anywhere. Do you have originals of the proof? I don't just want the verified content posted here, I really need the full thing. Please???

Typically, you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The documents don't have to be proven to be fabrications. They need to be validated as real. Feel free to do that. I haven't seen it happen yet.

Now can you explain the prescience of the Guardian? Kindly tell us all how an article in September 2004, long before the DSM ever appeared on the scene, can claim they are genuine? Or are you willing it's yet another case of the left grasping at straws?

Haha, I was hoping you'd fall into some pwnage.

From the guardian article:

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change. "

And one of the downing street memos, dated March 14th 2002...posted on AP's site....http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

PWNED!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

The DSM is from July, not March. What your linking to is one of the Whitehall memos, which has been out since before the Guardian article and is nothing new.

So congrats. Your ignorance just pwned :roll: yourself.

Perhaps you better check your own knowledge?

All these memos, both new and old, were collected by one single reporter, Michael Smith. Collectively, all of them are called the Downing Street Memos. (Do you even know what Downing Street is???)

Your ignorance and B.S. would have us believe that Michael Smith fabricated some memos, but not others. Clearly, you're full of sh!t.

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

AnyMal, here is the connection above. Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

Are you refering to .pdf above? What exactly does it prove? What makes it an "authentic" document?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html
One of Michael Smith's memos, part of the collection of Downing Street Memos is described as

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change."

That memo is here http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf.

All memos were collected by Michael Smith.

That's what I call pwnage

Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

What are you saying? original copies of what?

I'm still searching to no avail. I can't find this proof that the memos were fabricated . Please help me. I can only find proof that they are real . I only see senseless B.S. by conservatives, no ORIGINAL copies of the proof of fabrication .

Help. Please.

ORIGINAL copy of the proof??? why not ask for proof of the copy of the original proof? better yet, the copy of the proof of the original copy? You're dumber then I though...

Still looking....

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand




.............................http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html...........................


Haha, I was hoping you'd fall into some pwnage.

From the guardian article:

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change. "

And one of the downing street memos, dated March 14th 2002...posted on AP's site....http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

PWNED!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

The DSM is from July, not March. What your linking to is one of the Whitehall memos, which has been out since before the Guardian article and is nothing new.

So congrats. Your ignorance just pwned :roll: yourself.

Perhaps you better check your own knowledge?

All these memos, both new and old, were collected by one single reporter, Michael Smith. Collectively, all of them are called the Downing Street Memos. (Do you even know what Downing Street is???)

Your ignorance and B.S. would have us believe that Michael Smith fabricated some memos, but not others. Clearly, you're full of sh!t.

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

AnyMal, here is the connection above. Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

Are you refering to .pdf above? What exactly does it prove? What makes it an "authentic" document?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html
One of Michael Smith's memos, part of the collection of Downing Street Memos is described as

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change."

That memo is here http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf.

All memos were collected by Michael Smith.

That's what I call pwnage

Please provide me with ORIGINAL copies that show the memos were fabricated. PLEASE!??

What are you saying? original copies of what?

I'm still searching to no avail. I can't find this proof that the memos were fabricated . Please help me. I can only find proof that they are real . I only see senseless B.S. by conservatives, no ORIGINAL copies of the proof of fabrication .

Help. Please.

ORIGINAL copy of the proof??? why not ask for proof of the copy of the original proof? better yet, the copy of the proof of the original copy? You're dumber then I though...

Still looking....

I'm sorry I can only find proof that the memos are real.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...50618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

"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://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war."

Please keep looking. I'm gonna keep crying until you find those ORIGINAL copies that demonstrate this is all a fabrication. I don't just want a demonstration that it's a fabrication, I need an ORIGINAL copy. Please?

 

[AnyMal]

totalcommand - welcome to two days ago. If you want my take, it's already been posted.

Still looking.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
totalcommand - welcome to two days ago. If you want my take, it's already been posted.

Still looking.

Please keep looking for that proof of fabrication. All I can find is proof that it's authentic:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...50618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

"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://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war."

 

[AnyMal]

Can you explain what's "proof of fabrication"? The concept seem to elude me.

The stuff you keep refering to as authentic is neither proof nor authentic. copy of the copy of the copy has never been "authentic
". Do fewel free to prove me wrong.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Interesting to note that the Right has finally decided to apply some critical thinking to the whole matter of the WOI. It's a shame, however, that these mental faculties didn't come to the fore prior to the invasion, and that they're being applied only in terms of self-congratulatory rationalizations.

Did you demand that the original Niger documents be produced and scrutinized?

Did you demand any proof at all for the claims of links to al qaeda?

How about Cheney's claim of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program?

Did you bother to examine the pros and cons wrt the aluminum tubes and plutonium extraction centrifuges?

How about the claims of "We know where they are!" wrt alleged Iraqi WMD's?

Did you apply any of this newly discovered skepticism towards the foundations of a position you now support and defend against all reason?

Obviously not, and you're obviously not prepared to do so anytime real soon now, either....

Yet you demand that original documents be produced now, even though Bush, Blair, Rice and Straw have very pointedly refused to deny the veracity of the information, even when the question was put to them straight up...

If none of those people will call it "fake", what then makes you believe that you can do so without suffering from some rather righteous and heartfelt derision? That you have God on your side? That kneejerk pseudo patriotism trumps all? That the words of our Leader are not to be questioned?

Or is this just another example of avoiding cognitive dissonance, of entering into a bunker mentality, a state of denial?

The right has been lying so long and so hard that they're starting to believe their own lies are true.

 

[AnyMal]

still looking

 

[jahawkin]

The delayed reaction by the right on these memos is laughable. Don't say a thing about them for weeks, and finally, when the marching orders are issued, question the authencity of the memos. Good job guys.
Despite the fact that these memos were seen by many many people in the British Government and despite the fact that none of those officials have said anything about the lack of veracity of the docs, the right is convinced that the memos are fake. This is what happens when the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Newsmax and Fox News (or most or the rest of the media, for that matter) doesn't report somthing - it must not exist or be fake!!

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Too bad the AP has authenticated their content

and then the ?jew-controlled? media didn't report on it?
I don?t buy it, that?s big ratings if it means a thing.

Nixon? Is that you?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
still looking

Please keep looking for that proof of fabrication. All I can find is proof that it's authentic:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...50618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

"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://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war."

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
The delayed reaction by the right on these memos is laughable. Don't say a thing about them for weeks, and finally, when the marching orders are issued, question the authencity of the memos. Good job guys.
Despite the fact that these memos were seen by many many people in the British Government and despite the fact that none of those officials have said anything about the lack of veracity of the docs, the right is convinced that the memos are fake. This is what happens when the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Newsmax and Fox News (or most or the rest of the media, for that matter) doesn't report somthing - it must not exist or be fake!!

reaction to what?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Learn to read: "you and the other guy are asking for the originals only because you know they do not exist. this is a great tactic, but is the definition of disingenuous."

You opened this thread to take a crap on the whole issue. The premise of this thread is B.S. At least CsG makes arguments to back up his statements, but you just keep spewing from your bowels. As CsG eloquently puts it, here's something to refuel yourself:

If you don't like me confronting you on your B.S., leave your thread.

The premise of this thread is a valid question: "do these memos exist?" I realize the you prefer bullsh1t over truth since it fits your agenda the best. Just like anything you libs do, half-truths and outright lies are OK as long as they serve their purpose. Nice trolling, but I don't buy your BS.

You're right, the premise of your thread is a valid question: "am I a tool?" Let me answer it for you. Yes, you are a tool.

You know the original memos have been destroyed, and that's why you're asking them.

I haven't seen the original copy of the Bible. I guess Jesus's word is all a lie.

THE ORIGINALS HAVE NOT BEEN DESTROYED!

THE REPORTER, WHO IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAD ACCESS TO PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ORIGINALS, DESTROYED THEM.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE THE ORIGINALS, OR A PHOTOCOPY OF THEM SINCE THEY ARE CONFIDENTIAL.

THAT IS WHY THESE CONS ARE ASKING FOR THEM, BECAUSE THEY KNOW NO ONE CAN OBTAIN THEM.

Then please state that the photocopies have been destroyed, not the originals.

There really is no difference, since you nor the cons will find either. So f.off.

What the f*ck is your problem? I'm trying to persuade you not to aid the fools on this board by enforcing the notion that the original source documents were destroyed. I was trying to clarify something that you seemed to either be unclear or wrong about.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
......................http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html................
Ssshhhh. Let them think they've actually found something.

The article doesn't actually refer to the DSM documents, but they'll delude themselves into thinking so anyway.

There's your pudding Ozoned! More chocolaty sweet B.S. from the cons.

maybe you can help me out, Chicken

I'm looking for this proof that the memos are fabricated. I can't seem to find the proof anywhere. Do you have originals of the proof? I don't just want the verified content posted here, I really need the full thing. Please???

Typically, you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The documents don't have to be proven to be fabrications. They need to be validated as real. Feel free to do that. I haven't seen it happen yet.

Now can you explain the prescience of the Guardian? Kindly tell us all how an article in September 2004, long before the DSM ever appeared on the scene, can claim they are genuine? Or are you willing it's yet another case of the left grasping at straws?

Haha, I was hoping you'd fall into some pwnage.

From the guardian article:

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

Mr Blair has consistently said publicly he supported President George Bush in the war because of the threat posed by Saddam's alleged WMD rather than because of a desire for regime change.

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change. "

And one of the downing street memos, dated March 14th 2002...posted on AP's site....http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

PWNED!

Now, I can't seem to find that proof of fabrication anywhere (sniff). I really need originals. Can you help me find them? Please????

The DSM is from July, not March. What your linking to is one of the Whitehall memos, which has been out since before the Guardian article and is nothing new.

So congrats. Your ignorance just pwned :roll: yourself.

Perhaps you better check your own knowledge?

All these memos, both new and old, were collected by one single reporter, Michael Smith. Collectively, all of them are called the Downing Street Memos. (Do you even know what Downing Street is???)

Your ignorance and B.S. would have us believe that Michael Smith fabricated some memos, but not others. Clearly, you're full of sh!t.

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
still looking

OT..

Are you still looking for the papers that said Saddam has WMD ?

Or is it because Bush said so that is all you need to know.

 

[AnyMal]

no memos yet? sad

 

[BBond]

No WMD yet? Sadder.

The UK has admitted the memos are true and accurate. WTFU.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BBond
No WMD yet? Sadder.

The UK has admitted the memos are true and accurate. WTFU.

Righties just don't care if they have to lie to achive a goal, no matter how many people it hurts. To them the end justifies the means.

Now, let a lefty distort the facts and they scream and holler bloody murder!!

 

[40Hands]

Well after reading quite a bit of this thread I would have to say the OP fails. He comes off sounding like a child with the argument "I know you are but what am I?" Spouting the same thing over and over and grasping for any shred of doubt that the memos are real. Do you honestly think that if Bush or Blair could some how denounce these memos that they would just sit back and let the memos spread as much as they have already? They are just trying to ignore them and hope this blows over. It's painfully obvious.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Perhaps you better check your own knowledge?

All these memos, both new and old, were collected by one single reporter, Michael Smith. Collectively, all of them are called the Downing Street Memos. (Do you even know what Downing Street is???)

Your ignorance and B.S. would have us believe that Michael Smith fabricated some memos, but not others. Clearly, you're full of sh!t.

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you beter check your own knowledge.

Previous to the appearance of the Downing Street Memo, six other British (Blair) Cabinet papers originating around March 2002 were obtained by Michael Smith and used in two Daily Telegraph stories*[24] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml) *[25] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xml) published on September 18, 2004. The documents describe issues relating to the meetings held between Bush and Blair at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in April 2002.

What you linked to are the Whitehall Papers, not the DSM, and it's an OLD document, not a new one.

So once again, congrats on pwing :roll: yourself.

Keep up the good work making yourself look clueless, idiotic, and fringe fanatical.

Thanks for playing. I look forward to making you look stupid again in the very near future.

 

[1EZduzit]

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

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

Dave posted those links on the first page.


TLC, Are you trying to make a point, besides that of showing yourself intentionally being a troll?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
no memos yet? sad

Tony Blair accepts the fact that the memos are real, but he has yet to state that you are, and you have yet to present any proof you aren't spam spewing software. Pathetic.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

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

Dave posted those links on the first page.


TLC, Are you trying to make a point, besides that of showing yourself intentionally being a troll?

I guess you don't find it appropriate to "LOL" now that you know he was wrong?

Calling others a troll?

LOL