CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yeah, it's obvious the "journalist" didn't care about the document's integrity yet he chose to cast them as truth. Well, without the real ones - we will never know if these retyped "copies" are authentic or not.
CsG
Yeah, it's obvious the "journalist" didn't care about the document's integrity yet he chose to cast them as truth. Well, without the real ones - we will never know if these retyped "copies" are authentic or not.
CsG
ugh. you guys don't need to quote the entire history of the conversation. Could you please just quote the stuff you are directly replying to? Thanks.
So if these memos are fake, Bush&CO shouldn't have a problem with answering some questions? So when does the investigation start?
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: CADsortaGUY
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 nothing is out of the ordinary, any sane person would believe they are completely accurate. Looks like you're not sane.
The tactic of the right - instead of addressing the issue try to slander the sources with no proof.
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.
exactly. news agency. yahoo is not a news agency, i'm glad that's finally settled.
the AP reporter is making the claim that he can trust his source, or he wouldn't have included it in his article. It's pretty damn simple. If you are saying we cannot trust his source, you are saying we cannot trust this AP reporter's judgement.
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.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.
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.
By questioning the anonymous source you are questioning the judgement of the AP reporter. Funny, this whole APPEAR AUTHENTIC word game seems to remind me of the conservative mockery of Bill Clinton's "what is the meaning of is". The source thinks they are authentic. Do you agree? Yes or No?
The source is anonymous. So what? Bob Woodward's source was anonymous, and stayed that way for tens of years.
It does matter. This is why Woodward never revealed his source. This why the [conservative!] Robert Novak never revealed his source about the CIA agent, and continues to refuse today. A journalist's only resource is his sources, and he must protect that trust at all costs.
You are paranoid, maybe because this is so damaging to Bush. As I said earlier, the first thing a conservative tries to do is slander the opposition, then only after than try to go for the issues.
The source thinks they are authentic. Or he would have said otherwise, it's damned simple.
I've made an edit to your post in bold (originally said rathergate). I think this is what you are afraid of. Another Watergate, with anonymous sources, a smart reporter, bringing down another lying Republican president. It's paranoia.
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.
There were several different memos written by different authors. But all are consistent in saying that the intel was questionable, and possibly being fixed around Bush's proccupation with regime change.
: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...
******
[/quote]
They died for our country. Bush sent them to their deaths for his manufactured war. The ultimate disrespect is saying that they died for reasons that have been proven false. In fact, it's beyond disrespect, it's despicable and dishonors our soldiers. You should be ashamed that you call this "whining".
The majority of the country believes the war was a mistake. I can't believe that you and Bush sent the soldiers to die over a MISTAKE.
It's pretty hard for a con to admit the truth. I doubt any luck on his side will help.
< /sarcasm >
The butler hid them in the parlor, under the candelabra. :shocked:
Actually, I have the memos right here in my desk drawer. :laugh:
Now, if you're looking for brain to transplant, maybe you can get Terry Schiavo's. It's got to be in better shape than yours.
< /sarcasm >
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Oh, I see. So instead of agreeing, do you disagree? That the memo is lying in saying that the regime was producing the WMD, and that the British Defence Secretary was misquoted in his concern about Israel being hit by Iraq's WMD?
Well then, clearly we can't trust the contents of the memo.
Well then, clearly we can't trust the contents of the memo.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yahoo uses AP as it's news source. So by your twisted logic - if Yahoo posts an AP report and someone questions something contained within it - they are attacking the AP and thus yahoo too(if your "logic" is applied)
The AP reporter is REPORTING what the guy said. AP did NOT make a claim either way on the memo's authenticity - they reported what the guy said. It has NOTHING to do with judgement or anything else regarding the AP. It only has to do with the guy who is being reported. Just because a "journalist" or news agency reports something that someone said does not mean that they believe it. How hard is that for you to understand? Sheesh.:roll:
NO! By questioning the anonymous person being reported - does NOT mean I'm questioning or attacking the AP. It's really not that hard to understand so I'm not sure why you've deluded yourself into thinking that calling into question what an anonymous person says is somehow attacking the news agency reporting it. Clearly I have not attacked the AP and have focused on the memos. YOU are the only one bringing the AP into this.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.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.
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.
By questioning the anonymous source you are questioning the judgement of the AP reporter. Funny, this whole APPEAR AUTHENTIC word game seems to remind me of the conservative mockery of Bill Clinton's "what is the meaning of is". The source thinks they are authentic. Do you agree? Yes or No?
The source is anonymous. So what? Bob Woodward's source was anonymous, and stayed that way for tens of years.
NO, the source can not think they are authentic because they aren't the originals - they are retyped "copies". So if he claims they are authentic - then he is immediately a liar because we know they are retyped "copies".
I don't care about woodward - why don't you quit duhverting to asinine topics like the AP and woodward and start focussing on the memos.
No it doesn't matter. I don't give two sh1ts about woodward or Novak - this isn't about them so quit duhverting. If the journalist cared about the truth then they wouldn't have destroyed the documents and made retyped "copies" - he would have made photocopies and blacked out things that might out his source. He also would have kept the originals in a safe place for authenticity. The way it is now - there is nothing to prove the authenticity of these "copies" if the "journalist" destroyed the originals.
There is no paranioa involved at all. Delusion on your part? yep. But there definately is no paranoia on my part. If you'd actually try looking honestly at this issue instead of just playing the typical leftist "fake but accurate" game you might actually see what I'm saying.
The source can't and didn't say they were authentic - because he has retyped copies. It's that simple.
Nice try with the watergate duhversion. Rathergate was about this same attempt by leftist to play the "fake but accurate" game. Don't have originals so they instead claim that the unauthenticated/discredited documents are still "accurate".
The memos show that Britain really was concerned about WMDs and that a decision was not made yet.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.
There were several different memos written by different authors. But all are consistent in saying that the intel was questionable, and possibly being fixed around Bush's proccupation with regime change.
They died for our country. Bush sent them to their deaths for his manufactured war. The ultimate disrespect is saying that they died for reasons that have been proven false. In fact, it's beyond disrespect, it's despicable and dishonors our soldiers. You should be ashamed that you call this "whining".
: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...
******
The majority of the country believes the war was a mistake. I can't believe that you and Bush sent the soldiers to die over a MISTAKE.
It's pretty hard for a con to admit the truth. I doubt any luck on his side will help.[/quote]
It may be your opinion that the war was manufactured but it's nothing more than your opinion. For you to claim that Bush sent them to their death is absurd and disrespectful to their sacrifice. Yeah, the ultimate disrespect is you radical leftist claiming that they were sent for a lie - they weren't.
Oh, and it's quite hilarious that you claim it's hard for a "con to admit the truth" when you can't even admit the truth about these memos.
CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Hehe - now quit it yllus - you're confusing the poor boy more than he already was on this issue.
CsG
The memo obviously contains some fact and some conjecture. But when the memo's writer met directly with Condi and reveals what she said in the conversation, it's impossible to chalk that up to conjecture. It's fact.
One of those memos says that there was nothing had changed in the Iraq WMD situation since before 9.11, only the circumstances (i.e. 9.11) had changed. And that's why Bush wanted to go to war. Others of them say that Bush intel was being fixed around policy.
I don't know why you and CsG are so up in arms over these memos. The main stream media is done with them, theyve had their (small) impact, and we won't be hearing about them anytime soon again IMO.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I'm not up in arms about it, in fact I don't care at all what it says considering the war is a fait accompli. If I had to make a wager, I'd say that the memos were accurate in saying that the President has had his eye on Iraq for a long time. I had no idea it was so awful to plan for the deposing of a tyrant especially since that's been the official U.S. policy on Iraq since '98.
Your understanding of the memo must be better than most; I sure as hell don't hear that it "obviously contains some fact and some conjecture" from others. Which really doesn't make sense considering they're supposedly notes taken by someone in the room when those utterances were made, by the way. It's interesting that the WMD portion of the memo, plus the pre-war statements of multiple UNMOVIC inspectors, are cast aside for political expediency.
Your understanding of the memo must be better than most; I sure as hell don't hear that it "obviously contains some fact and some conjecture" from others. Which really doesn't make sense considering they're supposedly notes taken by someone in the room when those utterances were made, by the way. It's interesting that the WMD portion of the memo, plus the pre-war statements of multiple UNMOVIC inspectors, are cast aside for political expediency.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Between this and the napalm thread, you guys are so dishonest. The memo does not prove Iraq still had WMDs in 2003. Not even close. That's just pure Bush apologist wishful thinking. Let's start with the "damning" excerpt you selected:
- DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
...
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
More to the point, this memo certainly does not prove anyone believed Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and a "reconstituted nuclear program" and the UAVs poised to strike America's homeland as repeatedly asserted by Bush and his minions. (You see, BuscCo didn't merely claim Iraq had WMDs. No, they repeatedly lied about the extent of and the certainty of their knowledge about Iraq's WMD capabilities. I've brought up this unpleasant fact many times before. It has always sent the Bush worshippers scuttling for cover. BushCo lied about Iraq's WMDs. Period.)
Finally, if you are acknowledging this document is accurate, I assume YOU are ready to admit "Bush had made up his mind to take military action" long before he stood in front of Congress and America and pretended otherwise. In short, you are acknowledging this was yet another Bush lie. Nice to know we've come to an agreement.
No, yahoo is not a news agency. It is not bound to the standards of journalism. In journalism, you must investigate the motives of your sources, and take them into account appropriately. Yahoo does not have to do that. Nice Strawman though.
The AP journalist went out of his/her way to confirm the memos, which is why the ANONYMOUS source was included in the article.
This is not just reporting something that someone said. It is a journalist's attempt to verify the contents of the memo. By attacking the fact that the source is anonymous, you are doubting that the journalist did his/her job in investigating the contents of the memo.
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.
You are attacking the reporting of the AP. Why do you think that CBS News was attacked for their reporting of other documents? You can't have it both ways, I'm sorry. You are taking issue with an AP reporter's ability to do journalism, since a journalist must investigate the motives of his sources and take them into account.
By questioning the anonymous source you are questioning the judgement of the AP reporter. Funny, this whole APPEAR AUTHENTIC word game seems to remind me of the conservative mockery of Bill Clinton's "what is the meaning of is". The source thinks they are authentic. Do you agree? Yes or No?
The source is anonymous. So what? Bob Woodward's source was anonymous, and stayed that way for tens of years.
NO! By questioning the anonymous person being reported - does NOT mean I'm questioning or attacking the AP. It's really not that hard to understand so I'm not sure why you've deluded yourself into thinking that calling into question what an anonymous person says is somehow attacking the news agency reporting it. Clearly I have not attacked the AP and have focused on the memos. YOU are the only one bringing the AP into this.
NO, the source can not think they are authentic because they aren't the originals - they are retyped "copies". So if he claims they are authentic - then he is immediately a liar because we know they are retyped "copies".
I don't care about woodward - why don't you quit duhverting to asinine topics like the AP and woodward and start focussing on the memos.
LOL. You are questioning the AP reporter's ability to do journalism, i.e. investigate the motives of his sources.
This maybe the weakest attempt at word games I have ever seen. He said the CONTENT of the memos was authentic, not that the memos were original. Fess up that you're just plain lying now, and just trying to slander the source.
If you cared about the truth you'd trust the AP journalist's journalistic integrity. The authenticity of the content has been proven by this ANONYMOUS source.
Nice red herring. The Woodward or Novak reference was to the ANONYMITY of the source. They never revealed their sources, and continued to use anonymous sources in their reporting. There is nothing wrong with an ANONYMOUS source. You are paranoid.
Could you stop with the usual Conservative slander for once?
The source can't and didn't say they were authentic - because he has retyped copies. It's that simple.
Nice try with the watergate duhversion. Rathergate was about this same attempt by leftist to play the "fake but accurate" game. Don't have originals so they instead claim that the unauthenticated/discredited documents are still "accurate".
"duhversion" sounds a little rednecky.
Anyways, nice attempt at red herring again. It won't work. There is nothing wrong with having ANONYMOUS sources.
LOL @ "unauthenticated/discredited". NOBODY has discredited them. Not Condi, not Bush, not Blair, not even you. And on top of that, the AP has authenticated them using an ANONYMOUS source.
Just another attempt at Conservative slander. Maybe you want to address the issue sometime? Even most cons get to that after a while. You're way out there.
The memos show that Britain really was concerned about WMDs and that a decision was not made yet.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.
There were several different memos written by different authors. But all are consistent in saying that the intel was questionable, and possibly being fixed around Bush's proccupation with regime change.
I agree. And they also say that the Iraq situation had not changed since before 9.11 with respect to WMDs, and that Bush intel was being fixed around policy.
Looks like I spoke to soon, you're finally getting to the issues. Can you drop the slander now?
They died for our country. Bush sent them to their deaths for his manufactured war. The ultimate disrespect is saying that they died for reasons that have been proven false. In fact, it's beyond disrespect, it's despicable and dishonors our soldiers. You should be ashamed that you call this "whining".
: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...
******
The majority of the country believes the war was a mistake. I can't believe that you and Bush sent the soldiers to die over a MISTAKE.
It's pretty hard for a con to admit the truth. I doubt any luck on his side will help.
It may be your opinion that the war was manufactured but it's nothing more than your opinion. For you to claim that Bush sent them to their death is absurd and disrespectful to their sacrifice. Yeah, the ultimate disrespect is you radical leftist claiming that they were sent for a lie - they weren't.
Oh, and it's quite hilarious that you claim it's hard for a "con to admit the truth" when you can't even admit the truth about these memos.
CsG
More than half of the country thinks the war was a mistake. Soldiers are dying there every day. The soldiers are dying over Bush's mistake. If Bush wasn't so fervent in his attempt to fix the intel, we wouldn't be in this quagmire with no end in sight right now.
I'm honoring the soldiers, and disrespecting Bush. I think that's what you can't handle, since you'd rather disrepect the soldiers and honor Bush.
I will never give in to your slander.
edit: thanks for cleaning up the tags :thumbsup:
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
And on a side note, is there any chance you noobs can learn how to trim your nested quotes? Good God, we've got one in this thread nested 19 levels deep. Here's a clue guys: if they didn't read it the first 18 times, one more isn't going to help.
Thank you.
Thank you.
These memos are just recordings of observations from meetings with American officials. Some of the prevailing opinions of those meetings have been shown to be false (i.e. WMD's in Iraq). But other parts of it are indisputable, since they simply give insight into how the decision was being arrived at. For example, what Condi said in the meeting.
I'm not playing politics. Both the British and U.S. thought WMD's existed in Iraq. Probably even France and Germany did too. But the memos noted that intelligence had showed that nothing had changed in the WMD situation since before 9.11, but there was a newfound fixture of that WMD situation around the desire to attack Iraq. Moreover, there was a desire to try to connect Iraq to al-Qaida to push others to join the coalition.
This is why I'm bewildered that Cons would try to slander the British reporter who obtained the memos. They are simply providing more insight into the decision making process, and they even refute some of what crazy people say - that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Way to miss the point. First, you're breaking at least some browsers, forcing pages wider than the screen. Second, you force others to scroll endlessly past hundreds of lines of crap we've seen and seen and seen before. Third, you're wasting Anandtech's expensive resources including disk and bandwidth. In short, it demonstrates ignorance, a lack of respect for others, or both. It's not that difficult to demonstrate a bit of courtesy to others.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Gee, we don't see anything more than this in in the Bible, either. No proof, signatures, or hard copies (and a sh_t-load of opportunity for transcription error). I guess this means the burden of proof is on those who claim Jesus was divine.
Until we see the proof, guess Jesus was just another wacko with delusions of grandeur.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter