Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: totalcommand
totalcommand's tripe snipped due to screwing up the tags
Bowfinger - see what I'm talking about? The tags were fine.
I'm just going to ignore your AP tripe - you are wrong - period. I did not question or attack the AP. Try getting that through your skull.
Typically conservative, everything is black and white. No evidence to back up their views. Ignores the implications of their views.
The authenticity has NOT been confirmed by anyone. Would you kindly show proof of it's authenticity since you keep claiming it has been?
Oh, and yes there are problems with anonymous sources - there is no integrity to the claims made. Why do you think many newspapers and other media outlets have curbed their use of anonymous sources? That's right - because it can't be verified.
It has nothing to do with paranoia - I could care less if the originals were authentic or not because they really don't say much, but these "copies" sure as hell haven't been authenticated due to them being retyped "copies" and the originals seem to have been destroyed(according to the AP's version of the story).
The AP reporter found the proof of authenticity of the content. If you had your way, Nixon would still be in office. But hey, I guess that's in line with your radical fringe conservative views.
Also, there was no slander anywhere in my post so your little whine about Conservatives fell way short.
Right, slandering the ANONYMOUS source simply because he's anonymous doesn't count. :roll:
Yes, these memos are unauthenticated and the Rathergate ones were discredited. Try to keep up here(which you might have been able to do if you hadn't been twisting in the wind with your duhversions.
It's spelled diversions. Memos have been authenticated by the AP, which you continue to ignore, simply because the AP's source is anonymous. :roll:
No where do the memos state that Bush was fixing intel around policy, but that sure is some nice kook fringe spin.
Ok, you decided to stay with slander, not the facts. I'll deal. Read the bolded part:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Ah yes, the old poll canard. Wow, so people now don't think it was worth it - so? That doesn't mean we quit or admit defeat. It also doesn't mean soldiers are dying for a mistake - there is and always were MANY reasons for our actions there for you to continue with these disrespectful statements is repulsive.
You are NOT honoring the soldiers - you are using them as pawns to feed your hate of Bush.
You are dishonoring our soldiers by mindlessly sending them to war. They are real people, they deserve our respect. We should not throw their lives away as you would have to promote your conservative agenda. The fact that you support regime change irregardless of the presence of WMD's tells me that you have no value for the lives of our soldiers whatsoever.
I never said we should quit or admit defeat, but I guess you like baseless accusations. In fact, I think we should stay there for the long haul now that you cons have put our soldiers in this mess. I fully support their actions today.
The majority of the country thinks it was a mistake because so many soldiers have paid with their lives. But you don't care.
Now again - please show where these memos have been authenticated, then answer the OP - where are the memos
CsG
I've answered him, he won't find the originals. :laugh:
Facebook
Twitter