So... where are the memos?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

If they are just reporting what is said why did they feel the need to verify the memos? Because they are trying to add their own reporting into the story. By attacking their source, you are attacking the AP. I think you're reading a little too much into the word "appeared". The official thinks they are authentic, end of story.

You're obviously trying to imply that the ANONYMOUS official as an unknown motive. And by questioning the integrity of this source, you are attacking the AP since a major principle of journalism is to question the motives of your sources.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

If they are just reporting what is said why did they feel the need to verify the memos? Because they are trying to add their own reporting into the story. By attacking their source, you are attacking the AP. I think you're reading a little too much into the word "appeared". The official thinks they are authentic, end of story.

So by your tortured "logic" I'm also attacking yahoo? They obviously have "decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story" too. :roll:

Get a grip - They had a guy look at the "copies" and give his opinion. They reported what the guy said. I'm not disputing that the guy actually said that or looked at the "copies".
Calling into question the source is not attacking the news service - it's calling into question the source. Why doesn't the source want to be known? Does the source have some other agenda? It also doesn't address the fact that these are retyped "copies" of the supposed real memos.

No, I'm not reading too much into it- you just aren't thinking critically about the issue. How can a guy look at retyped copies and declare them authentic? He can't - all he can say is that they appear authentic. You and the other leftists seem to have jumped the gun on these memos and convinced yourself of their "truth" before actually looking at the FACTS of the case:
No originals.
retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

Yet here you people sit trying to claim the memos are real. Not to mention you thinking that the AP is making the claim they are real. You people are a trip...

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

If they are just reporting what is said why did they feel the need to verify the memos? Because they are trying to add their own reporting into the story. By attacking their source, you are attacking the AP. I think you're reading a little too much into the word "appeared". The official thinks they are authentic, end of story.

So by your tortured "logic" I'm also attacking yahoo? They obviously have "decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story" too. :roll:

nope, yahoo is not a news organization. they do not practice journalism.

Get a grip - They had a guy look at the "copies" and give his opinion. They reported what the guy said. I'm not disputing that the guy actually said that or looked at the "copies".
Calling into question the source is not attacking the news service - it's calling into question the source. Why doesn't the source want to be known? Does the source have some other agenda? It also doesn't address the fact that these are retyped "copies" of the supposed real memos.

News organizations, to maintain their journalistic integrity, must investigate the motives of their sources. This isn't something new. News organizations must stand by their sources if they have any integrity. If you attack AP's source, you are attacking the AP.

No, I'm not reading too much into it- you just aren't thinking critically about the issue. How can a guy look at retyped copies and declare them authentic? He can't - all he can say is that they appear authentic. You and the other leftists seem to have jumped the gun on these memos and convinced yourself of their "truth" before actually looking at the FACTS of the case:
No originals.
retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

These memos have been in existence for a long, long time...it's pretty hard to jump any gun, it fired a long time ago.

retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

none of this is out of the ordinary in any way.

Yet here you people sit trying to claim the memos are real. Not to mention you thinking that the AP is making the claim they are real. You people are a trip...

CsG

You've been drinking too much of the conservative koolaid.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

If they are just reporting what is said why did they feel the need to verify the memos? Because they are trying to add their own reporting into the story. By attacking their source, you are attacking the AP. I think you're reading a little too much into the word "appeared". The official thinks they are authentic, end of story.

So by your tortured "logic" I'm also attacking yahoo? They obviously have "decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story" too. :roll:

nope, yahoo is not a news organization. they do not practice journalism.

Get a grip - They had a guy look at the "copies" and give his opinion. They reported what the guy said. I'm not disputing that the guy actually said that or looked at the "copies".
Calling into question the source is not attacking the news service - it's calling into question the source. Why doesn't the source want to be known? Does the source have some other agenda? It also doesn't address the fact that these are retyped "copies" of the supposed real memos.

News organizations, to maintain their journalistic integrity, must investigate the motives of their sources. This isn't something new. News organizations must stand by their sources if they have any integrity. If you attack AP's source, you are attacking the AP.

No, I'm not reading too much into it- you just aren't thinking critically about the issue. How can a guy look at retyped copies and declare them authentic? He can't - all he can say is that they appear authentic. You and the other leftists seem to have jumped the gun on these memos and convinced yourself of their "truth" before actually looking at the FACTS of the case:
No originals.
retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

These memos have been in existence for a long, long time...it's pretty hard to jump any gun, it fired a long time ago.

retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

none of this is out of the ordinary in any way.

Yet here you people sit trying to claim the memos are real. Not to mention you thinking that the AP is making the claim they are real. You people are a trip...

CsG

You've been drinking too much of the conservative koolaid.

Well, yahoo trusts AP and reprints their stories - no? Hey, it's your tortured "logic"...

Again, I'm not attacking AP, they reported what the guy said - that isn't at issue here. Only in your deluded mind does the questioning of an anonymous source equal attacking the AP. The issue is the memos - not the AP - try getting that through your skull.

If none of that is out of the ordinary - then what's your beef? Clearly one of sound mind wouldn't make the claim that the memos were authentic or verified - would they?

Ah, yes - the old tried(and continually failing) tactic of the left - claim the right is drinking cool-aid when the left is claiming that unverified(and non-original) documents prove something.

When will you wake up and realize that these memos are unverified and contradictory?

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

If they are just reporting what is said why did they feel the need to verify the memos? Because they are trying to add their own reporting into the story. By attacking their source, you are attacking the AP. I think you're reading a little too much into the word "appeared". The official thinks they are authentic, end of story.

So by your tortured "logic" I'm also attacking yahoo? They obviously have "decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story" too. :roll:

nope, yahoo is not a news organization. they do not practice journalism.

Get a grip - They had a guy look at the "copies" and give his opinion. They reported what the guy said. I'm not disputing that the guy actually said that or looked at the "copies".
Calling into question the source is not attacking the news service - it's calling into question the source. Why doesn't the source want to be known? Does the source have some other agenda? It also doesn't address the fact that these are retyped "copies" of the supposed real memos.

News organizations, to maintain their journalistic integrity, must investigate the motives of their sources. This isn't something new. News organizations must stand by their sources if they have any integrity. If you attack AP's source, you are attacking the AP.

No, I'm not reading too much into it- you just aren't thinking critically about the issue. How can a guy look at retyped copies and declare them authentic? He can't - all he can say is that they appear authentic. You and the other leftists seem to have jumped the gun on these memos and convinced yourself of their "truth" before actually looking at the FACTS of the case:
No originals.
retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

These memos have been in existence for a long, long time...it's pretty hard to jump any gun, it fired a long time ago.

retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

none of this is out of the ordinary in any way.

Yet here you people sit trying to claim the memos are real. Not to mention you thinking that the AP is making the claim they are real. You people are a trip...

CsG

You've been drinking too much of the conservative koolaid.

Well, yahoo trusts AP and reprints their stories - no? Hey, it's your tortured "logic"...

not a news organization. does not have to adhere to journalistic integrity.

Again, I'm not attacking AP, they reported what the guy said - that isn't at issue here. Only in your deluded mind does the questioning of an anonymous source equal attacking the AP. The issue is the memos - not the AP - try getting that through your skull.

Get this through your thick skull: the AP thinks the memos are real, and that's why they wrote that they had a source verify it.

If none of that is out of the ordinary - then what's your beef? Clearly one of sound mind wouldn't make the claim that the memos were authentic or verified - would they?

If nothing is out of the ordinary, any sane person would believe they are completely accurate. Looks like you're not sane.

Ah, yes - the old tried(and continually failing) tactic of the left - claim the right is drinking cool-aid when the left is claiming that unverified(and non-original) documents prove something.

The tactic of the right - instead of addressing the issue try to slander the sources with no proof.

When will you wake up and realize that these memos are unverified and contradictory?

CsG

LOL they are contradictory now huh? When will you wake up from that alternate reality you and Bush live in - the one where the Iraq war is good simply because we got a regime change using thousands american soldiers' lives as the price?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: 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

:roll:

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: 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

:roll:

OK, I'll play along :roll::roll::roll:

 

[Tab]

TotalCommand, it's time you add another thread to your signature.

 

[Steeplerot]

Desperation>CaD

It's ok, once we have your fearless liar locked up safe from the sane world you will have no further orders and will deactive.



wtf, my horizontal scroll bar is as long as the freakin congo in this thread..


B=================================================================================================================================================================================================================================D________LOOK!_IT'S_A_KARL_ROVE_TALKING_"POINT!"

 

[RightIsWrong]

Hey Cad,

Simple question for you. Why is it that neither the White House OR Blair's office have claimed that they are not authentic?

What Have George Bush and Tony Blair Said About the Memos?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at an early June 2005 press conference "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."
President George Bush said at the same conference, "There's nothing further from the truth. Look, both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Were is the denial of authenticity or even the denial that those meetings took place so the minutes couldn't be real?

The White House has a really strong rebuttal fo them at their press conference:

"No need'' to respond was the official line from White House press secretary Scott McClellan

Wow...they sure convinced the doubting American public with that stance how fake the memos are.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly - learn to read. The link has already been posted. The AP obtained COPIES-which are supposedly typed copies of the now destroyed originals.
AP then had an ANONYMOUS "official" look at them and thus they "APPEARED AUTHENTIC".

The AP has authenticated nothing as the originals are supposedly destroyed, the "copies" only "appear authentic, and that coming from an ANONYMOUS source.
Yep - "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

CsG

Case closed. Either you say they are accurate, or you don't trust the AP. You said it yourself. No need to play games as usual.

No, case isn't closed. Your tortured "logic" suggesting that if I don't think the memos are "real" then somehow I don't trust the AP? The AP isn't making the claim they are real - they are just saying that they had a guy look at them(an anonymous one at that) and he said they "appeared authentic".
Sheesh - how much clearer does it have to be for your types to understand? The real memos are said to be destroyed, the "copies" are actually "copies" typed from the originals - not even photocopies, and we have an ANONYMOUS person suggesting that these "copies" "appear authentic". None of that has to do with the AP - it has to do with the "memos" and whether they are "real" or not.

CsG

You are attacking the AP by questioning their ANONYMOUS person. He may be ANONYMOUS, but the AP has decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story. News organizations do not publish things they cannot verify in some way.

Keep it coming, I'll keep pounding till you stop being disingenuous.

HAHAHA - I'm attacking the AP? Are you for real? The only thing I'm attacking is the claim by the leftists that the memos are "real" and authentic. Pointing out that the source the AP used is anonymous only attacks the credibility of the claims that it is authentic - which the AP has not done. AP is doing the reporting and they have posted what their source has said - that does NOT mean they think it's authentic. They however did report that their anonymous source said it APPEARED authentic - which in NO WAY means that the memos actually were authentic.

But hey, keep trying to claim I'm attacking the AP when clearly the AP has nothing to do it as they are just reporting what is said.

CsG

If they are just reporting what is said why did they feel the need to verify the memos? Because they are trying to add their own reporting into the story. By attacking their source, you are attacking the AP. I think you're reading a little too much into the word "appeared". The official thinks they are authentic, end of story.

So by your tortured "logic" I'm also attacking yahoo? They obviously have "decided to use him as their source, trust his judgement, and printed a story" too. :roll:

nope, yahoo is not a news organization. they do not practice journalism.

Get a grip - They had a guy look at the "copies" and give his opinion. They reported what the guy said. I'm not disputing that the guy actually said that or looked at the "copies".
Calling into question the source is not attacking the news service - it's calling into question the source. Why doesn't the source want to be known? Does the source have some other agenda? It also doesn't address the fact that these are retyped "copies" of the supposed real memos.

News organizations, to maintain their journalistic integrity, must investigate the motives of their sources. This isn't something new. News organizations must stand by their sources if they have any integrity. If you attack AP's source, you are attacking the AP.

No, I'm not reading too much into it- you just aren't thinking critically about the issue. How can a guy look at retyped copies and declare them authentic? He can't - all he can say is that they appear authentic. You and the other leftists seem to have jumped the gun on these memos and convinced yourself of their "truth" before actually looking at the FACTS of the case:
No originals.
retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

These memos have been in existence for a long, long time...it's pretty hard to jump any gun, it fired a long time ago.

retyped "copies".
DESTROYED originals
Anonymous "official"
statements that is "appeared authentic"

none of this is out of the ordinary in any way.

Yet here you people sit trying to claim the memos are real. Not to mention you thinking that the AP is making the claim they are real. You people are a trip...

CsG

You've been drinking too much of the conservative koolaid.

Well, yahoo trusts AP and reprints their stories - no? Hey, it's your tortured "logic"...

not a news organization. does not have to adhere to journalistic integrity.

Again, I'm not attacking AP, they reported what the guy said - that isn't at issue here. Only in your deluded mind does the questioning of an anonymous source equal attacking the AP. The issue is the memos - not the AP - try getting that through your skull.

Get this through your thick skull: the AP thinks the memos are real, and that's why they wrote that they had a source verify it.

If none of that is out of the ordinary - then what's your beef? Clearly one of sound mind wouldn't make the claim that the memos were authentic or verified - would they?

If nothing is out of the ordinary, any sane person would believe they are completely accurate. Looks like you're not sane.

Ah, yes - the old tried(and continually failing) tactic of the left - claim the right is drinking cool-aid when the left is claiming that unverified(and non-original) documents prove something.

The tactic of the right - instead of addressing the issue try to slander the sources with no proof.

When will you wake up and realize that these memos are unverified and contradictory?

CsG

LOL they are contradictory now huh? When will you wake up from that alternate reality you and Bush live in - the one where the Iraq war is good simply because we got a regime change using thousands american soldiers' lives as the price?

But they still source AP and print their stuff. Hey, it's your tortured "logic"...

No, the AP reported what their guy said - that does not mean the AP itself thinks anything. They are a news org - they are there to report - which they did. For you to claim "the AP thinks the memos are real" is absurdly asinine since thats not even close to being the case. BTW - their source didn't verify it - try getting that through YOUR thick skull...

Ah, so you think not having the originals, having someone retype them, then purposely destroy the originals isn't out of the ordinary? WTF are you smoking? ALL authenticity and integrity of the information has been lost when these things happen - especially when they happen on purpose.

The source is in question - it's very valid to question it when it is "anonymous" and when they make vague statements like "appear authentic" which people then claim means it actually is authentic. The memos were never authenticated - only opined on by an anonymous person.

Yes, they are contradictory - have you not read what I've posted? The memo two days before explicitly stated that NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE -yet you and others keep chanting that it was already decided. So IF the memos are real - which one do you believe? I have a hunch I know which one...

Ah yes - typical leftist tossing in a little whine about the soldiers at the end - as if you really care anyway. You use them as pawns against Bush- how nice - I'm sure they'd appreciate you saying their sacrifice wasn't worth it...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tab
TotalCommand, it's time you add another thread to your signature.

So he can doubly show his ignorance? Go ahead!

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hey Cad,

Simple question for you. Why is it that neither the White House OR Blair's office have claimed that they are not authentic?

What Have George Bush and Tony Blair Said About the Memos?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at an early June 2005 press conference "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."
President George Bush said at the same conference, "There's nothing further from the truth. Look, both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Were is the denial of authenticity or even the denial that those meetings took place so the minutes couldn't be real?

The White House has a really strong rebuttal fo them at their press conference:

"No need'' to respond was the official line from White House press secretary Scott McClellan

Wow...they sure convinced the doubting American public with that stance how fake the memos are.

It doesn't matter that neither have denied them. Do you think people have to deny everything otherwise it's ok for you to think it's absolutely true?

Again, a denial doesn't have to take place just because someone comes up with some wild charge. The proof is on the accuser. In this case the accuser(the reporter) destroyed the evidence on purpose after altering it's form. "Fake but accurate" :laugh:

The White House doesn't have to comment on the unverified "leaked" memos. Are you suggesting that the White House comment on every unverified "leaked" piece of information from around the globe? :roll:

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

getting very desperate here CaD...if there was a credibility gap don't you think the original authors whould have spoken up?

none has called the actual documents legitamcy into question, not even blair.

just a desperate freeper looking for a distraction.

got any comments? bush could straight up be impeached for this...
or just more smoke and mirrors as you love to use.

your credibility with even me is taking a huge nosedive here as you grasp for straws.

don't go down with those jerks, your a intellegent guy, or has your partisan blinders

gone so far as to take your word as a gentlemen down with them even though you owe


them nothing in reality. or do you?

 

[wiin]

Fake But Accurate?

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.

Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.


Hehehe.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
getting very desperate here CaD...if there was a credibility gap don't you think the original authors whould have spoken up?

none has called the actual documents legitamcy into question, not even blair.

just a desperate freeper looking for a distraction.

got any comments? bush could straight up be impeached for this...
or just more smoke and mirrors as you love to use.

your credibility with even me is taking a huge nosedive here as you grasp for straws.

don't go down with those jerks, your a intellegent guy.

No, I'm not desperate - you leftist are. I'm the one taking the rational route by asking for verification and pointing out the problems with just lapping it up. You take unverified and unauthentic documents and claim them to be real/fact. There are many things that call into question the integrity/authenticity of these memos - for you to ignore all that and tell yourself they are fact is real desperation.

Hahaha - as if I cared about what you think of me Do you really want to know what I think of you? Do you really think you have any sort of credibility in the real world? Nah, we'll just leave your little emotional outburst alone for now.

Bush will not be impeached for this- there is nothing impeachable even IF these documents were real in the first place.

But hey, continue with your deluded parade...

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

and what does bill burkett have to do with DSM?

you are reaching into dishonesty here.

"supposedly went through the same laundry service"

is a huge leap by a right wing blogger..we are not even speaking of the same country.

and like I said there have been no denials from the authors.

nice try but totally unrelated events...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: wiin
Fake But Accurate?

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.

Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.


Hehehe.

Hehe - I'm sure the leftists here won't understand what you are pointing out but some of us do. I mean it's not like we need authentic documents to make the claim of fact anymore(especially if it's against Bush) - no?
"Fake but accurate" the high bar set by the left...

CsG

 

[AnyMal]

Still looking.... Where are they?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: 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

:roll:

OK, I'll play along :roll::roll::roll:

That's the spirit. I was getting dizzy.