So... where are the memos?

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And on a side note, is there any chance you noobs can learn how to trim your nested quotes? Good God, we've got one in this thread nested 19 levels deep. Here's a clue guys: if they didn't read it the first 18 times, one more isn't going to help.

Thank you.

You could always ignore the post.

Thank you.

Way to miss the point. First, you're breaking at least some browsers, forcing pages wider than the screen. Second, you force others to scroll endlessly past hundreds of lines of crap we've seen and seen and seen before. Third, you're wasting Anandtech's expensive resources including disk and bandwidth. In short, it demonstrates ignorance, a lack of respect for others, or both. It's not that difficult to demonstrate a bit of courtesy to others.

Chill.... I agree with Bowfinger, but don't be pissy... both of you...

Having quotes THAT long are annoying, but I don't have any problems on a Dell 2005 WFP.

They should be shorter, it's hard to read.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And on a side note, is there any chance you noobs can learn how to trim your nested quotes? Good God, we've got one in this thread nested 19 levels deep. Here's a clue guys: if they didn't read it the first 18 times, one more isn't going to help.

Thank you.

You could always ignore the post.

Thank you.

Way to miss the point. First, you're breaking at least some browsers, forcing pages wider than the screen. Second, you force others to scroll endlessly past hundreds of lines of crap we've seen and seen and seen before. Third, you're wasting Anandtech's expensive resources including disk and bandwidth. In short, it demonstrates ignorance, a lack of respect for others, or both. It's not that difficult to demonstrate a bit of courtesy to others.

However, I've had problems with people selectively quoting what I say. I'd rather keep most of the discussion in my replies. I agree, getting down to 10 or 11 levels sucks, I'll try to fix that next time, but I'm still going to keep 4 or 5.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: AnyMal
All we've seen so far are plain white pages with typed text, nothing more.

Gee, we don't see anything more than this in in the Bible, either. No proof, signatures, or hard copies (and a sh_t-load of opportunity for transcription error). I guess this means the burden of proof is on those who claim Jesus was divine.

Wow, I never thought about it that way. :thumbsup:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And on a side note, is there any chance you noobs can learn how to trim your nested quotes? Good God, we've got one in this thread nested 19 levels deep. Here's a clue guys: if they didn't read it the first 18 times, one more isn't going to help.

Thank you.

You could always ignore the post.

Thank you.

Way to miss the point. First, you're breaking at least some browsers, forcing pages wider than the screen. Second, you force others to scroll endlessly past hundreds of lines of crap we've seen and seen and seen before. Third, you're wasting Anandtech's expensive resources including disk and bandwidth. In short, it demonstrates ignorance, a lack of respect for others, or both. It's not that difficult to demonstrate a bit of courtesy to others.

However, I've had problems with people selectively quoting what I say. I'd rather keep most of the discussion in my replies. I agree, getting down to 10 or 11 levels sucks, I'll try to fix that next time, but I'm still going to keep 4 or 5.

Thank you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
However, I've had problems with people selectively quoting what I say. I'd rather keep most of the discussion in my replies. I agree, getting down to 10 or 11 levels sucks, I'll try to fix that next time, but I'm still going to keep 4 or 5.

That's cool, that's all I ask. I often nest several levels for the same reason. It just gets unmanageable when you get so many levels of quoting. That's where a bit of pruning comes in. Thanks.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus
Oh, I see. So instead of agreeing, do you disagree? That the memo is lying in saying that the regime was producing the WMD, and that the British Defence Secretary was misquoted in his concern about Israel being hit by Iraq's WMD?

Well then, clearly we can't trust the contents of the memo.

Hehe - now quit it yllus - you're confusing the poor boy more than he already was on this issue.

CsG

You are both, surprisingly (please read the sarcasm dripping from that), off the mark. The case isn't and has never been made that the intel in the memos is the smoking gun. But of course you both know that and are trying to divert from the real topic. The smoking gun is the minutes of the meetings. Nice try though. Once again, you two are party loyal and follow the plan to a tee.....divert, deny, denagrate the argument till the point is forgotten and Bushco can go on with the deceit.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Still looking.... Where are they?

My dog ate them...

CsG

This is amazing even for CsG.

Please CsG or AnyMal provide a link to an article that disproves the authenticity of these memos. I mean we keep going back and forth on the yes they are real, no they are fake. But neither the US government NOR the UK government has stated that these memos are fake. Why is that? It would be very simple for the PR people to say, they are fake because there is no original. But they don't. Why?

I think this argument is typical. Instead of trying to say that the memo has been misrepresented or did not mean what it said, the right just joins the idea that they are fake (without providing anything showing they are) to the memos so most people assume they are fake and the admin does not have to answer any hard questions. And some Americans will just eat it up. Your spin is excellent, I give you credit.

It's kind of like joining the WOT with Iraq without showing any evidence that they are connected

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Still looking.... Where are they?

My dog ate them...

CsG

This is amazing even for CsG.

Please CsG or AnyMal provide a link to an article that disproves the authenticity of these memos. I mean we keep going back and forth on the yes they are real, no they are fake. But neither the US government NOR the UK government has stated that these memos are fake. Why is that? It would be very simple for the PR people to say, they are fake because there is no original. But they don't. Why?

I think this argument is typical. Instead of trying to say that the memo has been misrepresented or did not mean what it said, the right just joins the idea that they are fake (without providing anything showing they are) to the memos so most people assume they are fake and the admin does not have to answer any hard questions. And some Americans will just eat it up. Your spin is excellent, I give you credit.

It's kind of like joining the WOT with Iraq without showing any evidence that they are connected

Right on. Csg is just practicing the usual conservative slander.

It's no wonder that they've divided this country like no other time in history other than the civil war.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Still looking.... Where are they?

My dog ate them...

CsG

This is amazing even for CsG.

Please CsG or AnyMal provide a link to an article that disproves the authenticity of these memos. I mean we keep going back and forth on the yes they are real, no they are fake. But neither the US government NOR the UK government has stated that these memos are fake. Why is that? It would be very simple for the PR people to say, they are fake because there is no original. But they don't. Why?

I think this argument is typical. Instead of trying to say that the memo has been misrepresented or did not mean what it said, the right just joins the idea that they are fake (without providing anything showing they are) to the memos so most people assume they are fake and the admin does not have to answer any hard questions. And some Americans will just eat it up. Your spin is excellent, I give you credit.

It's kind of like joining the WOT with Iraq without showing any evidence that they are connected

You should always start from the beginning. There is no article. It is I who challenge the authenticity of the so-called "memos". Guess what? No one has been able to prove otherwise.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: AnyMal
All we've seen so far are plain white pages with typed text, nothing more.

Gee, we don't see anything more than this in in the Bible, either. No proof, signatures, or hard copies (and a sh_t-load of opportunity for transcription error). I guess this means the burden of proof is on those who claim Jesus was divine.

Originally posted by: AnyMal
The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

Until we see the proof, guess Jesus was just another wacko with delusions of grandeur.

I am going to have to disappoint you. I am an atheist. Nice try, but no

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

So where was the proof of WMD's in Iraq?

I guess your rule just applies when it fits YOUR agenda.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
All it "proves" is that as of July 2002, before U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq, there was enough uncertainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities that the people involved prudently asked a few what-if questions. It does NOT prove Iraq still had them. (And, of course, the longer the inspections went, the more clear it became Iraq had little if any remaininn WMD capabilities ... apparently a big reason why Bush was in such a hurry to invade, before everyone realized his excuse was a lie.)

I can agree with the first sentence of this paragraph. All this memo proves is that at the time of its writing, the Brits believed that Iraq was WMD-launch capable. Then you go on to turn to turn President Bush into Super Bad Guy Extreme, who hides crucial battleground details even from his #1 ally, which is really only expected in your buildup to twist the facts to suit you.

More to the point, this memo certainly does not prove anyone believed Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and a "reconstituted nuclear program" and the UAVs poised to strike America's homeland as repeatedly asserted by Bush and his minions. (You see, BuscCo didn't merely claim Iraq had WMDs. No, they repeatedly lied about the extent of and the certainty of their knowledge about Iraq's WMD capabilities. I've brought up this unpleasant fact many times before. It has always sent the Bush worshippers scuttling for cover. BushCo lied about Iraq's WMDs. Period.)

Here we go! Yes, this memo does not prove there are thousands of liters at Iraq's disposal. The opinion of UNMOVIC at the time of the war says that those "massive stockpiles" are mysteriously unspoken for, but when have facts ever been that important anyways. We should just accept your slant and believe.

More in the realms of logic, of course, we can accept that Saddam's "WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran" but was still massive enough that disabling that capability from the air was impossible - the troops were in danger.

Finally, if you are acknowledging this document is accurate, I assume YOU are ready to admit "Bush had made up his mind to take military action" long before he stood in front of Congress and America and pretended otherwise. In short, you are acknowledging this was yet another Bush lie. Nice to know we've come to an agreement.

Sure, I have no problem in stating that President Bush probably made up his mind to go to war with Iraq seven months or so before the campaign began. Horror of horrors really, believing ten years of reports from UNMOVIC and following a previous president's doctrine.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
These memos are just recordings of observations from meetings with American officials. Some of the prevailing opinions of those meetings have been shown to be false (i.e. WMD's in Iraq). But other parts of it are indisputable, since they simply give insight into how the decision was being arrived at. For example, what Condi said in the meeting.

I'm not playing politics. Both the British and U.S. thought WMD's existed in Iraq. Probably even France and Germany did too. But the memos noted that intelligence had showed that nothing had changed in the WMD situation since before 9.11, but there was a newfound fixture of that WMD situation around the desire to attack Iraq. Moreover, there was a desire to try to connect Iraq to al-Qaida to push others to join the coalition.

This is why I'm bewildered that Cons would try to slander the British reporter who obtained the memos. They are simply providing more insight into the decision making process, and they even refute some of what crazy people say - that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq.

You can't honestly believe that these memos are just recordings of observations from meetings. The Defence Secretary is basically quoted in his worry of WMD being used on Israel. That's quite a bit aways from monitoring the tempo in the room and ascribing it to text. If this memo is accurate, they legitimately thought that WMD was possibly at play in an invasion.

I have no idea who the British reporter is who obtained these memos, though his destruction of the originals and copy-making is a little convenient. Considering all of this is indeed a non-issue, I'm just looking for a little consistency.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You are both, surprisingly (please read the sarcasm dripping from that), off the mark. The case isn't and has never been made that the intel in the memos is the smoking gun. But of course you both know that and are trying to divert from the real topic. The smoking gun is the minutes of the meetings. Nice try though. Once again, you two are party loyal and follow the plan to a tee.....divert, deny, denagrate the argument till the point is forgotten and Bushco can go on with the deceit.

That's an interesting new take. What that memo says isn't important, it's the other ones that say only what we want it to say. Let's put that idiocy to rest with your own words: "Nice try though."

I'm party loyal? I don't agree with any of the President's domestic policy, nor am I a member of his party, nor even his country. Not everyone starts off of the same obvious slant that you do. What's amusing is - in your rather pathetic struggle to make "the right" look bad, you act at least as radical as those you oppose.

 

[Steeplerot]

I have a important breaking article for you guys....

Don't forget your tinfoil! And be safe from those pesky psychic mind control waves from british reporters!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: AnyMal
The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

So where was the proof of WMD's in Iraq?

I guess your rule just applies when it fits YOUR agenda.

WMD is not the topic of the discussion, is it? Let's stay focused.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: AnyMal
The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

So where was the proof of WMD's in Iraq?

I guess your rule just applies when it fits YOUR agenda.

WMD is not the topic of the discussion, is it? Let's stay focused.

It sucks when your own hypocrisy gets exposed, doesn't it?


BTW WMD's are part of the topic as they appear in the memos

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
totalcommand's tripe snipped due to screwing up the tags

I'm just going to ignore your AP tripe - you are wrong - period. I did not question or attack the AP. Try getting that through your skull.

The authenticity has NOT been confirmed by anyone. Would you kindly show proof of it's authenticity since you keep claiming it has been?
Oh, and yes there are problems with anonymous sources - there is no integrity to the claims made. Why do you think many newspapers and other media outlets have curbed their use of anonymous sources? That's right - because it can't be verified.
It has nothing to do with paranoia - I could care less if the originals were authentic or not because they really don't say much, but these "copies" sure as hell haven't been authenticated due to them being retyped "copies" and the originals seem to have been destroyed(according to the AP's version of the story).
Also, there was no slander anywhere in my post so your little whine about Conservatives fell way short.

Yes, these memos are unauthenticated and the Rathergate ones were discredited. Try to keep up here(which you might have been able to do if you hadn't been twisting in the wind with your duhversions.

No where do the memos state that Bush was fixing intel around policy, but that sure is some nice kook fringe spin.

Ah yes, the old poll canard. Wow, so people now don't think it was worth it - so? That doesn't mean we quit or admit defeat. It also doesn't mean soldiers are dying for a mistake - there is and always were MANY reasons for our actions there for you to continue with these disrespectful statements is repulsive.
You are NOT honoring the soldiers - you are using them as pawns to feed your hate of Bush.

Now again - please show where these memos have been authenticated, then answer the OP - where are the memos

CsG

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: AnyMal
The burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not? So where the proof?

So where was the proof of WMD's in Iraq?

I guess your rule just applies when it fits YOUR agenda.

WMD is not the topic of the discussion, is it? Let's stay focused.

It sucks when your own hypocrisy gets exposed, doesn't it?


BTW WMD's are part of the topic as they appear in the memos

I'll indulge you one last time. The question posed here is whether the memos do exist. So, let's be logic, first prove they exist, THEN worry about what's in them. Wouldn't that make more sense?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Still looking.... Where are they?

My dog ate them...

CsG

This is amazing even for CsG.

Please CsG or AnyMal provide a link to an article that disproves the authenticity of these memos. I mean we keep going back and forth on the yes they are real, no they are fake. But neither the US government NOR the UK government has stated that these memos are fake. Why is that? It would be very simple for the PR people to say, they are fake because there is no original. But they don't. Why?

I think this argument is typical. Instead of trying to say that the memo has been misrepresented or did not mean what it said, the right just joins the idea that they are fake (without providing anything showing they are) to the memos so most people assume they are fake and the admin does not have to answer any hard questions. And some Americans will just eat it up. Your spin is excellent, I give you credit.

It's kind of like joining the WOT with Iraq without showing any evidence that they are connected

Umm... just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean the accused has to respond or deny. In this case there is no reason for them to reply until the real memos appear and have been authenticated. All we have at this point are some memos that were retyped by a "reporter" who then (by some accounts) destroyed the originals(there is a story now that he destroyed the working photocopy he had of the original).
But yeah, it's great spin to make the claim that they must be real if no one is denying them...

CsG

 

[realsup]

Yet another fake story.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

So tell me CsG why is it that Bush denies to respond to the accusations? If they are not authentic Bush shouldn't have a problem with that, don't you think?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Pedro69
So tell me CsG why is it that Bush denies to respond to the accusations? If they are not authentic Bush shouldn't have a problem with that, don't you think?

I'll take the liberty and will copy what he just replied above. Hope he won't mind:

Umm... just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean the accused has to respond or deny. In this case there is no reason for them to reply until the real memos appear and have been authenticated. All we have at this point are some memos that were retyped by a "reporter" who then (by some accounts) destroyed the originals(there is a story now that he destroyed the working photocopy he had of the original).
But yeah, it's great spin to make the claim that they must be real if no one is denying them...

satisified?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: totalcommand
These memos are just recordings of observations from meetings with American officials. Some of the prevailing opinions of those meetings have been shown to be false (i.e. WMD's in Iraq). But other parts of it are indisputable, since they simply give insight into how the decision was being arrived at. For example, what Condi said in the meeting.

I'm not playing politics. Both the British and U.S. thought WMD's existed in Iraq. Probably even France and Germany did too. But the memos noted that intelligence had showed that nothing had changed in the WMD situation since before 9.11, but there was a newfound fixture of that WMD situation around the desire to attack Iraq. Moreover, there was a desire to try to connect Iraq to al-Qaida to push others to join the coalition.

This is why I'm bewildered that Cons would try to slander the British reporter who obtained the memos. They are simply providing more insight into the decision making process, and they even refute some of what crazy people say - that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq.

You can't honestly believe that these memos are just recordings of observations from meetings. The Defence Secretary is basically quoted in his worry of WMD being used on Israel. That's quite a bit aways from monitoring the tempo in the room and ascribing it to text. If this memo is accurate, they legitimately thought that WMD was possibly at play in an invasion.

I have no idea who the British reporter is who obtained these memos, though his destruction of the originals and copy-making is a little convenient. Considering all of this is indeed a non-issue, I'm just looking for a little consistency.

Really, please read my post in full before responding. Pay attention to the bold part, since you repeated it exactly in your post.

Since you didn't read, basically your whole post is for naught....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pedro69
So tell me CsG why is it that Bush denies to respond to the accusations? If they are not authentic Bush shouldn't have a problem with that, don't you think?

It doesn't matter so there is no reason for him to comment in the first place. IF the memos are proven to be authentic- then I expect specific questions about them to be asked of Bush and Blair by the left, but we are not even close to that point yet so there is no reason for comment.

CsG