So... where are the memos?

[CADsortaGUY]

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

My dog ate them...

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

more like your partisan blinder ate your common sense :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
more like your partisan blinder ate your common sense :roll:

as opposed to your "common sense" which makes you believe that they are real/authentic when there is nothing even close to showing that. Yep, partisan blinders alright - don't question them - just lap it up if you think it can be spun into something "bad" for Bush... :laugh:

CsG

 

[umbrella39]

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

I am still waiting for someone to produce memos of the existance of God/Jesus Christ. The Bible certainly does not count. I still somehow have blind faith that there is a God and don't require notorized documentation.

You can ask all you want, just like we all continue to ask Bush to respond to the 5 simple question that McClellan keeps saying "Have already been answered in the past, we don't want to dwell in the past..." Funny how that duhversion is not gong over too well on the press and the American public (the ones with memory's) who don't seem to remember this administration EVER answering these questions that have been posed.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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

I am still waiting for someone to produce memos of the existance of God/Jesus Christ. The Bible certainly does not count. I still somehow have blind faith that there is a God and don't require notorized documentation.

You can ask all you want, just like we all continue to ask Bush to respond to the 5 simple question that McClellan keeps saying "Have already been answered in the past, we don't want to dwell in the past..." Funny how that duhversion is not gong over too well on the press and the American public (the ones with memory's) who don't seem to remember this administration EVER answering these questions that have been posed.

Some people prefer common sense over blind faith.


Still looking.....

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

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

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

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

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

OK, so not having real proof is bad in the case of WMD's, but OK here?

 

[Steeplerot]

funny how the authors of said documents do not deny the contents of the leaked memos...you may want to try another diversion becasue noone is buying it.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
funny how the authors of said documents do not deny the contents of the leaked memos...you may want to try another diversion becasue noone is buying it.

funny how you think that any and every allegation must be fully answered by the accused. It would be funnier if you were accused of something and you need to defend yourslef, regardless whethere the accuser had any proof or not. I bet you wouldn't be laughing then. Presumption of innocense can only be applied selectively I guess.

Still looking. Memos! Has anyone seen the memos??!!

 

[umbrella39]

Oh boy, keep parroting the same thing over and over like a whiney little girl screaming at the top of her lungs. Suits you well. Personally, I could care less about these memos OR their existance. Fact is Bush lied and thousands of our young men and women have died because of it. I wonder if they care about these memos as much as the eSoldiers do? You know, the eSoldiers, the ones that REALLY fight the battle over there in Iraq :roll: What is YOUR rank nowadays?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Oh boy, keep parroting the same thing over and over like a whiney little girl screaming at the top of her lungs. Suits you well. Personally, I could care less about these memos OR their existance. Fact is Bush lied and thousands of our young men and women have died because of it. I wonder if they care about these memos as much as the eSoldiers do? You know, the eSoldiers, the ones that REALLY fight the battle over there in Iraq :roll: What is YOUR rank nowadays?

Of course you don't care. Libs never stopped at fabricating hoaxes, why stop now?

Still looking.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Oh boy, keep parroting the same thing over and over like a whiney little girl screaming at the top of her lungs. Suits you well. Personally, I could care less about these memos OR their existance. Fact is Bush lied and thousands of our young men and women have died because of it. I wonder if they care about these memos as much as the eSoldiers do? You know, the eSoldiers, the ones that REALLY fight the battle over there in Iraq :roll: What is YOUR rank nowadays?

Of course you don't care. Libs never stopped at fabricating hoaxes, why stop now?

Still looking.

Some cheese and a though I am not sure how it will taste with that jug of whine you are carrying around. Of course you don't care that 1000's have died for the lies you support. Again, what is your rank eSoldier? GOPs never stop champinion the REAL soldiers deaths, so why stop now. Still waiting for your rank and number in the elite eSoldier brigade.

 

[nergee]

second hand information.......no credibility..........

 

[Steeplerot]

if the authors were dead or something then it would be, but they are not nor are they denying the content.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

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

A lack of denial IS proof.

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

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

You mean the one that was typed but didn't say anything false?
I'm still waiting for the "Swift Boat Veterans" to show proof of their claims. Please....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: AnyMal

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

A lack of denial IS proof.

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

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

You mean the one that was typed but didn't say anything false?

Yep - the "fake but accurate" ones that the left tried to claim as "truth":laugh:

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: nergee
second hand information.......no credibility..........

If the above posted by Irwincur is true, then I would tend to agree. Proof provided, end of story.

Still a piss poor lie of a war.

 

[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: 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"...

still not a news organization. still does not adhere to journalistic standards. but hey, i know you like to be as disingenuous as possible...what with, selectively ignoring people's questions, selectively quoting them, and here, refusing to acknowledge the truth while repeating yourself over and over.

Yahoo is not bound to journalistic standards.

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...

Great! You got it, they are a news org. Yahoo is not. But then, right after that, sadly another statement where you provide no proof, and just claim it's "asinine since thats not even close to being the case". That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen. Give some evidence.

The source thinks theyre authentic. The AP believes him, or they wouldn't have put the source in the story.

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.

Nope, completely not out of the ordinary when a journalist tries to protect his source. Remember these are MEMOS. Photocopies of MEMOS can easily be traced back to the writer.

Perhaps you need to see a doctor and fix that paranoia?

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.

Wow. Just wow. The ANONYMOUS source was never quoted as saying they "appear authentic". Otherwise the AP would have put it in quotes. This is the AP's paraphrase. Nevertheless, there's really nothing vague about the statement "appear authentic". The ANONYMOUS source thinks they are authentic.

It's pretty easy to understand why the source was ANONYMOUS. The memos are classified, fool. The information in the memos is also classified.

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...

Sorry, I don't go out of my way to read your B.S. Can you clarify? two days before what? there's a bunch of memos out there, each from a different date. I never said that it was already decided. I've said that the intelligence search was being fixed around a policy of regime change.

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

awww, i knew you'd say that. you're the typical conservative, who would throw our soldiers to their deaths without an ounce of restraint, and try to justify leading them to die by a veil of patriotism. There's nothing patriotic about sending our soldiers to die for WMDs that never existed and because of intelligence that was fixed around policy.

We're not using them as pawns against Bush - Bush used them as pawns to get the regime change he always wanted, at the cost of thousands of their lives. Why do you think military recruitment is down? People don't want to become pawns in more of Bush's delusions.

Clearly you don't give two sh!ts about our dying soldiers.

 

[AnyMal]

No memos still?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
No memos still?

nope, just the truth, but cons like to live in a world of lies.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal
No memos still?

nope, just the truth, but cons like to live in a world of lies.

I'm starting to suspect there are no memos. Could that be the ultimate truth you speak of?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal
No memos still?

nope, just the truth, but cons like to live in a world of lies.

I'm starting to suspect there are no memos. Could that be the ultimate truth you speak of?

You're right. The originals have been destroyed, all that remains are the copies. They contain the ultimate truth, a truth so powerful that all conservatives must deny it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
No memos still?

??? Its authenticity has neither been confirmed nor denied by the British government, though Downing Street has stated the document contains "nothing new". I was not aware the Brits were under any obligation to give YOU tangible evidence. Juries convict people all the time without tangible evidence. Just because the murder weapon is never found does not give a murderer a get out of jail free card. Apparently none of us on the board live on Downing Street nor do we have access to the originals. So why is it you keep asking us to produce something you know we can't? Did you wake up today and say, oh boy, going to pose a real whopper over at P&N that no one can prove or disprove. Well you showed us :roll:

 

[sbacpo]

It sure is convenient that the memos no longer exist not that there's anything in them that come even close to proving anything the hen's are currently clucking about. They could have been put in a safety deposit box or given to a lawyer (like deep throats identity). Authenticity was obviously going to be an issue and it seems to me they would have gone out of their way to preserve it.

 

[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: 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"...

still not a news organization. still does not adhere to journalistic standards. but hey, i know you like to be as disingenuous as possible...what with, selectively ignoring people's questions, selectively quoting them, and here, refusing to acknowledge the truth while repeating yourself over and over.

Yahoo is not bound to journalistic standards.

I never said Yahoo was bound to anything - you are the one claiming that If a source is questioned - the person who questions the source is somehow questioning the "news" agency. That is an absurd accusation. If I was to attack AP - it wouldn't be for this as this is just them reporting what someone said -they(AP) are not making the claim as to the authenticity.

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...

Great! You got it, they are a news org. Yahoo is not. But then, right after that, sadly another statement where you provide no proof, and just claim it's "asinine since thats not even close to being the case". That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen. Give some evidence.

The source thinks theyre authentic. The AP believes him, or they wouldn't have put the source in the story.

No, you still fail to READ. Your accusation that I'm attacking the AP is what is asinine. Again, just because someone questions an anonymous source does NOT mean they are attacking AP.
The source says the APPEAR AUTHENTIC - this does not mean that they actually are authentic or that the AP thinks they are authentic. The AP is just reporting what the guy says - and I'm not taking issue with what AP reported - I'm taking issue with what the guy says and the conclusion you moonbats are coming to from it.

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.

Nope, completely not out of the ordinary when a journalist tries to protect his source. Remember these are MEMOS. Photocopies of MEMOS can easily be traced back to the writer.

Perhaps you need to see a doctor and fix that paranoia?

The "jounalist" obviously didn't care about the documents integrity - yet he and you are trying to proclaim them as some "evidence" of something. If this "journalist" actually cared about the story he wouldn't have destroyed the originals. It doesn't matter if he's trying to protect someone - he better have verifyable evidence if he wishes to make such claims. In this case he seems to have destroyed the evidence(according to him).
There is no parnoia - this is logical thinking about verification and document integrity. This case lacks both of those.

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.

Wow. Just wow. The ANONYMOUS source was never quoted as saying they "appear authentic". Otherwise the AP would have put it in quotes. This is the AP's paraphrase. Nevertheless, there's really nothing vague about the statement "appear authentic". The ANONYMOUS source thinks they are authentic.

It's pretty easy to understand why the source was ANONYMOUS. The memos are classified, fool. The information in the memos is also classified.

NO, the source didn't say they were authentic - he said they appeared authentic. There is NO WAY the "source" can state whether they are authentic or not - they are not ORIGINALS! They are retyped "copies" which are impossible to authenticate due to the originals being destroyed.
Them being classified means jack sh!t -they were leaked. Verification is essential in such cases otherwise we'd have more Rathergate problems(which this seems to be turning into).

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...

Sorry, I don't go out of my way to read your B.S. Can you clarify? two days before what? there's a bunch of memos out there, each from a different date. I never said that it was already decided. I've said that the intelligence search was being fixed around a policy of regime change.

Well, I have posted a clip of the memo that contradicts another. It states there was no decision made. So that itself throws these unverified documents into question. I really don't care about your opinion that you think Bush fixed intel - these memos don't prove that in the least anyway, but rather they show just how concerned the Brits were with WMDs.

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

awww, i knew you'd say that. you're the typical conservative, who would throw our soldiers to their deaths without an ounce of restraint, and try to justify leading them to die by a veil of patriotism. There's nothing patriotic about sending our soldiers to die for WMDs that never existed and because of intelligence that was fixed around policy.

We're not using them as pawns against Bush - Bush used them as pawns to get the regime change he always wanted, at the cost of thousands of their lives. Why do you think military recruitment is down? People don't want to become pawns in more of Bush's delusions.

Clearly you don't give two sh!ts about our dying soldiers.

:roll: No one is throwing our soldiers to their death you asshat. YOU are the ones claiming they died for no reason - YOU are the one who is disrespecting their sacrifice - not I.
Clearly you don't respect the sacrifice our troops make if you think they died for nothing. But hey, you keep up your whining and teeth gnashing - the public loves your types...
******


Anymal - any luck yet? :laugh:

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: AnyMal
No memos still?

nope, just the truth, but cons like to live in a world of lies.

I'm starting to suspect there are no memos. Could that be the ultimate truth you speak of?

You're right. The originals have been destroyed, all that remains are the copies. They contain the ultimate truth, a truth so powerful that all conservatives must deny it.

Yep, "fake but accurate" :laugh:
Great standards the left has set for themselves I mean it's almost an upgrade from their age old "seriousness of the charge" BS.

CsG