Downing Street Memo Hearing

[Back]

Well over a month after its release to the press, the Downing Street Memo is finally being acknowledged. Some say its nothing new, that everyone knew all along that proof was being fixed to make the case for war. Others say its proof that the world was lied to.

Senators are holding a hearing on it today. Below is a statement preceeding the hearing from the Congressman who initiated it. And yes, I am one of the 500,000 citizens who signed the request he is presenting the president.

Conyers issues statement in advance of hearing; 122 Dems onboard

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) issued this statement in advance of his hearing on the Downing Street documents:

#

Few issues are more important under our constitutional form of government than the decision to go to war and place our soldiers lives at risk.

It is no insignificant matter when in the fall of 2002 President Bush told us that war would be his last resort. It is not unimportant when on March 6, 2003, the president promised us, "I've not made up [my] mind about military action."

Over the last two months, the veracity of those statements has - to put it mildly -- come into question:

*

On May 1, the London Times released the now infamous Downing Street Minutes, in which the head of Britain's intelligence agency reported "military action [by the U.S.] was now seen as inevitable ... and "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." A former senior U.S. official subsequently told Knight Ridder that the minutes were "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired."
*

On May 29, further documents were released revealing that in the summer of 2002, British and U.S. aircraft had doubled their rates of bombing in Iraq, in an apparent attempt to provoke an excuse for war.
*

Last Sunday, the London Times released six new British documents corroborating the Downing Street Minutes and indicating that as early as March of 2002, our government had decided it would be "necessary to create the conditions" to justify war.
*

Today Newsweek is reporting that two high ranking British Officials confirmed that by 2002, Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and there was "no recent evidence" tying Iraq to international terrorism.


If these disclosures are true - and so far no one from the Bush Administration has bothered to respond to our letters -- they establish a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses. This means that more than 1,600 brave Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have lost their lives for a lie.

That is why we are here today. That is why 122 Members of Congress -- which as of today includes the Minority Leader -- have asked the president to explain his actions. That is why more than 550,000 Americans are joining with us in demanding answers from the Administration.

We are here because many of us find it unacceptable for any Administration - be it Democratic or Republican - to put our troops in harms way based on false information. The fact that our intelligence turned out to be flawed in no way absolves those who would intentionally mislead our nation or its allies.

We can't do anything in this hearing to change the facts on the ground in Iraq today, but we can pledge today to do everything within our power to find out how we got here and make sure it never happens again.

[Back]

The steam is building. CNN has this report (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l3&flok=FF-APO-1153&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050616%2F1831027383.htm&sc=1153) on the hearing.

And check out today’s White House Press Briefing (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050616-5.html) where McClellan fends it, and other interesting questions put to him by the press, off.

[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Backlash]

[Kuyuk]

Wait for some silly republican to post about how it's all false (i.e. PB/Dave etc)


Not that I care, we should be used to being lied to by our gov't. Just shows (once more) that Bush sucks.


K.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Kuyuk
Wait for some silly republican to post about how it's all false (i.e. PB/Dave etc)


Not that I care, we should be used to being lied to by our gov't. Just shows (once more) that Bush sucks.


K.


I hope they do post their facts on whether or not the memo/evidence is false. Then, we can get onto posting our own. We can't condemn debate in a democracy; dissenting opinion is one of the things that places our country above countries like Iraq. When differing opinion is squealched by economic sanction, torture, or punative action, our system becomes a dictatorship little better than the ones we criticize.

-Melissa

:rolleyes::yawn:

[ElanthianSiren]

BTW that was no way meant as a slam at Kuyuk; simply, I'm tired of people name calling over political beliefs in general. I actually enjoy debating with Dave and PB. Would rather have people who can debate a point of view, (democrat or republican) in politics, than those who go in once every four years and pull a lever based on what's trendy this election.

-Melissa

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
:rolleyes::yawn:

Damnit Dave. Just go and ruin my post on your virtues :P Oh well.

-Melissa

:heart:

[Back]

Well, the first obvious argument on this board is “Backlash posted it, ITS A CONSPIRACY!” You’re damn right it is. A conspiracy to fight a war we did not need to.

The one currently running through the media-watchdog mill is that war proponents will say “Yeah, we knew this the whole time. So what?”

The neocons say, “Thats the past, we need to join together and make this work! But the Democrats are obstructionists!”

And there is always the “Support Your Troops” argument, even though the recruitment numbers have been the lowest they’ve been in the past 5 years.

And then, there is the assent from silence.

PS. I think Dave joined for noble reasons.

[Hulkein]

Let's invade Backlashes condo next.

[Back]

Dang, can you give me a few months heads-up? So I can, you know, clean up, buy some snacks and a keg or bottle or two? Cause you all are welcome here if you behave yourselves. (Women get a free pass on the last clause)

[Gan]

I heard a little bit about the memos today on NPR but I really have not followed the story to tell the truth.

Once I form an opinion (neocon, war proponent, troop supporter, or other wise) then I'll weigh in. Please do not consider my silence as assent though. I'm merely exercising my right to use my brain before opening my mouth. ;)

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I heard a little bit about the memos today on NPR but I really have not followed the story to tell the truth.

Once I form an opinion (neocon, war proponent, troop supporter, or other wise) then I'll weigh in. Please do not consider my silence as assent though. I'm merely exercising my right to use my brain before opening my mouth. ;)

The report has been up on LittleRedCookBook.com for quite awhile. I'm surprised it took so long to get to the states actually.

-Melissa

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
The report has been up on LittleRedCookBook.com for quite awhile. I'm surprised it took so long to get to the states actually.

It's the liberal media, of course. :grin:

Raven

[Gan]

Sorry.

The Little Red Cookbook is not on my list of media sources to read. I suppose I'll crawl out of my rock someday and check it out... [/sarcasm]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Sorry.

The Little Red Cookbook is not on my list of media sources to read. I suppose I'll crawl out of my rock someday and check it out... [/sarcasm]

Well, they didn't post the source, just a link to the article in the Guardian, which was a scan of the original memo notes, if I remember correctly.

I think it came out right before the British Election.

-Melissa

[DeV]

"The fact that our intelligence turned out to be flawed in no way absolves those who would intentionally mislead our nation or its allies."
Refreshing to hear someone, anyone in government say these words.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Let's invade Backlashes condo next.

I heard he has yellow cake and aluminium tubes..

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by Tijay]

[Warriorbird]

It's pretty tenuous. Democrats also don't have a nice majority to impeach with. Republicans control all three branches of government. Pretty hard to move forward with.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's pretty tenuous. Democrats also don't have a nice majority to impeach with. Republicans control all three branches of government. Pretty hard to move forward with.

My guess would be that the political strategy is to out it about now and have its climax in oh say 2006 before elections.

If Red lost house seats, Blue would have enough control to attempt an impeachment proceeding, though I don't see the advantage to doing so. (Do we really want Cheney in power????)

I realize that there are some very good republicans in the senate and that it would be unfair for voters to judge their performance based on whether or not signs point to deceit by a republican president, but we all know it will happen anyway. That's my best guess on the strategy anyway. Dems definitely want control of one branch, and the legislative seems the most timely.

The judicial branch is somewhat discounted imo as a control center because, republican or democrat in their daily lives, they are chosen (supposedly) with the mind that they will act impartially based on evidence at hand and the most constitutional recourse, not personal biases.

-Melissa
(this entire post is opinions)

[Warriorbird]

Ha ha ha. You're funny. :P I think judicial is the biggest problem.



[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Keller]

First of ... most reports have the number of dead Iraqi's around 30,000. I don't know where you got "hundreds of thousands."

With that said I don't think there is a ray of doubt that this administration had it's missiles trained on Iraq before they explored the Lincoln bedroom. Of course they didn't approach the intelligence skeptically nor did they present it with any sense but sheer confidence. That was their intention.

It wasn't intentional deceipt but rather naive faith that has killed 1,600 american boys and girls.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Ha ha ha. You're funny. :P I think judicial is the biggest problem.



[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Warriorbird]

Possibly, but if it is... it would be because the individuals there have lost sight of why they should be there IMO.

-Melissa

[Ebondale]

Interesting that the memo was released during the same week as the Bilderberg Group's 2005 meeting. I don't think this happened by accident.

[Back]

Originally posted by Keller
It wasn't intentional deceipt but rather naive faith that has killed 1,600 american boys and girls.

I disagree, vehemently. Naive faith may have played a part in the deception of our nation’s people, and the rest of the world, but that does not excuse the criminal act.

Will much come of this with a Republican controlled Congress? (who by the way forced the hearing to be held in the depths of the Capitol Building while scheduling 11 budgetary votes at the same time) I agree with Siren. If this builds enough steam, 2006 is going to see a lot of seat changes.

If you feel this war is wrong, that you’ve been lied to, or misled, and want to see and end to it there is a very easy thing to do. Email your Senators and Representatives, the President, Vice President, and anyone in office. Sign petitions, speak your mind, use your vote.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
If this builds enough steam, 2006 is going to see a lot of seat changes.
This is the aspect of it I personally thought would be most beneficial in the long run for those opposed to the reasons for going to war.

[Back]

Building steam. CNN (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l3&flok=FF-APO-1103&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050618%2F1205175164.htm&sc=1103), tonight. Must be a slow news weekend.

[Hulkein]

Bush '08

edited to add: DAMN, we need to change the Constitution.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Easy enough. You have all three branches. Dictatorship rising!

[Artha]

Dictatorship rising!
I, for one, can't wait.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Easy enough. You have all three branches. Dictatorship rising!

Not that easy, though they'd have to just turn back time and do away with that whole ex post facto thing... but who needs that?

-Melissa

[Warriorbird]

We already did away with checks and balances for the Schiavo case.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
edited to add: DAMN, we need to change the Constitution.

Like this? (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:)

Raven

[Warriorbird]

"I, for one, can't wait."

If young Democrats become old Republicans.

What do young Republicans become?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
We already did away with checks and balances for the Schiavo case.

I think the doing away with checks and balances during that case may be another issue that will work against the individuals that initiated the BS midnight voting etc in 2006. The majority of people thought it was ridiculous.

-Melissa

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Hulkein
edited to add: DAMN, we need to change the Constitution.

Like this? (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:)

Raven

Hah, that's actually being attempted?

In seriousness, that's a terrible idea.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"I, for one, can't wait."

If young Democrats become old Republicans.

What do young Republicans become?
president.

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Hulkein
edited to add: DAMN, we need to change the Constitution.

Like this? (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:)

Raven

Hah, that's actually being attempted?

In seriousness, that's a terrible idea.
Agreed, thats really fucking stupid.

[Artha]

"I, for one, can't wait."

If young Democrats become old Republicans.

What do young Republicans become?
Extra awesome.

[Back]

Anarchists.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If young Democrats become old Republicans.

What do young Republicans become?

PB.

[Back]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If young Democrats become old Republicans.

What do young Republicans become?

PB.

:?:

[Back]

I still cant believe you guys let a dumbass in the White House. Truly astounding.

Does the President tell you what he is going to do? Or do you tell him what you want him to do?

[Warriorbird]

I dunno. I detest the President but I've never thought he was stupid. Sly like a fox would be more accurate, and savy enough to know how to be well managed.

Now, Neil on the other hand... that's a stupid Bush. Jeb and Dubya, while I disagree with just about all they stand for, are not stupid.

Originally posted by Backlash
I still cant believe you guys let a dumbass in the White House. Truly astounding.

Does the President tell you what he is going to do? Or do you tell him what you want him to do?
Isn't that cute, he tried to bait us into a fight.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
What do young Republicans become?

Douche bags that read the newspaper and then repeat what they read as though it is their own opinion?

It seems to me that a lot of you are rabid Republicans, which is all fine and well. I just prefer to think than to align myself with a single political faction.

I have no idea how Bush got re-elected. He stole the first election, I'm still trying to figure out how he fixed the second election. :/

[Back]

Where is Keneth Star when you need top-notch investigative skillz?

Haha, I just emailed him at ken.starr@pepperdine.edu


Dear Dean Starr,

Recognizing your top-notch investigative skills, I was wondering why you have not began an investigation into President Bush’s manipulation of the people of our nation into a needless war.

Sincerley,

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Backlash]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Where is Keneth Star when you need top-notch investigative skillz?

Haha, I just emailed him at ken.starr@pepperdine.edu


Dear Dean Starr,

Recognizing your top-notch investigative skills, I was wondering why you have not began an investigation into President Bush’s manipulation of the people of our nation into a needless war.

Sincerley,

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Backlash]

He probably trashed your email because you mispelled Sincerely. :lol:

[Gan]

I find the blatant republican bashing laughable in this thread. The rabid Democrats had their 8 years of Clintonism and obviously the cigar didnt last long enough.

Asking how W duped the public into 8 years of power is the very same questions republicans asked about Billery being in the house for 8 years. Payback's a bitch aint it?

The real question is whether or not the democratic party will field a viable candidate in 2008 or just another patsy. And please be prepared to receive huge amounts of mockery should a republican be elected again to the white house after all the conspiracy generation of these last 8 years. Especially when the left wingers try to blame their next and third loss on some shadow conspiracy like they keep trying to do in the past two elections.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Warriorbird
What do young Republicans become?

Douche bags that read the newspaper and then repeat what they read as though it is their own opinion?

It seems to me that a lot of you are rabid Republicans, which is all fine and well. I just prefer to think than to align myself with a single political faction.

I have no idea how Bush got re-elected. He stole the first election, I'm still trying to figure out how he fixed the second election. :/

Just the fact that you have to use derogatory names like duchebags to describe someone with a different political viewpoint explains everything.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Warriorbird
What do young Republicans become?

Douche bags that read the newspaper and then repeat what they read as though it is their own opinion?

It seems to me that a lot of you are rabid Republicans, which is all fine and well. I just prefer to think than to align myself with a single political faction.

I have no idea how Bush got re-elected. He stole the first election, I'm still trying to figure out how he fixed the second election. :/

Just the fact that you have to use derogatory names like duchebags to describe someone with a different political viewpoint explains everything.

I think 'douche bag' is a perfectly acceptable form of address for a Young Republican. Have you ever actually met one? I'm from Washington, D.C. so I'll let you in on a little secret.... they are ALL, in fact, douche bags.

Thats great if you think that me using the term 'douche bag' discredits my opinion but the fact remains - they have no real opinions, only what they read in the newspapers and what mommy and daddy tell them to believe.

Its funny to me how you're so desperate to grasp a hold of some way to cling to your shitty little ideals that you cry about me refering to them as douche bags. Surely you can defend the Young Republicans a little better than that, can't you?

Oh, but wait... you folks don't actually HAVE any opinions that aren't spoon fed to you.

My bad.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
He probably trashed your email because you mispelled Sincerely. :lol:

DAMN! I usually get it right. It must be too early.

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

[Gan]

I'll post my take on the Billery years in a few. First I want to post some thoughts on the memos since I've been trying to do some reading up with it in my spare time.

When I first heard of the memos I initially dismissed them as 'just another conspiracy'. Thats why I havnt been following up on it until lately.

Now I do some searching, I find huge amounts of information on Blogs but as its not a recognized source of authority I can only catagorize it as opinion. I find some op-ed pieces in the newspapers which I find informative but still no production of the actual memo. I then find a re-typed copy of the memo by a British paper but still I cant find the original memos that were supposedly recovered.

Initially the British story was buried by the American papers because, as Dan Rather found out recently, jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon with 'uncovered uber secret documents' is that they can be easily manufactured, and even a career ender for those who's reputation in delivering the news in an untainted manner.

In fact, the American papers seemed to be reluctant to run the story at all until pressure, in huge amounts, was produced by the left sided conspiracy loving blogging community. That itself is an amazing study for political scientists. But still no production of the original documents for John Q Public to look at and decide for himself what was said in them as well as who said it (even then it would still be counted as here say in a court of law). Its amazing that so many can be moved into action by someone elses interpretation of a written document, and kind of scary. I believe the same can be said for those of the religious fanatic persuasion.

In summary, I really dont give alot of credit to whats been revealed thus far because I want to see for myself what the memo's reveal in their true unaltered form. My trust for my fellow man in delivering information is at its all time low because of the strong desire to spin and slant information to their personal gain.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

They actually found us laughable as much as our foreign policy was laughable. We were called the paper tiger...

[Ebondale]

Ganalon, larger news organizations often seek to discredit reports like this one because the rich and powerful control the media. The Bilderburg Group itself controls a VAST portion of the world's media and banking communities and their meetings have been frequented by Bush in the past. Why have you probably never heard of them?

They don't want you to.

Here is a list of those in attendance in 2004:

Honorary Chairman - Davignon, Etienne - Vice-Chairman, Suez-Tractebel

Honorary Secretary General - Taylor, Martin - International Adviser, Goldman Sachs International

Nationalities of participants followed by names and partial portfolios
N - Auser, Svein - CEO, DnB NOR ASA

D - Ackermann, Josef - Chairman, Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG

I - Ambrosetti, Alfredo - Chairman, Abbrosetti Group

TR - Babacan, Ali - Minister of Economic Affairs

P - Balsemao, Francisco Pinto - Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, SGPS, Former Prime Minister

ISR - Barnavie, Elie - Department of General History, Tel-Aviv University

I - Benedetti, Rodolfo De - CEO, CIR

I - Bernabe, Franco - Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe

F - Beytout, Nicolas - Editor In Chief, Les Echos

INT - Bolkestein, Frits - Commissioner for the Internal Market, European Commission, former leader of Dutch right wing Liberal Party VVD.

USA - Boot, Max - Neoconservative, Council on foreign Relations, Features Editor, Wall Street Journal

CH - Borel, Daniel - Chairman, Logitech International S.A.

I - Bortoli, Ferrucio de - CEO, RCS Libri

S - Brock, Gunnar - CEO, Atlas Copco AB

GB - Browne, John - Group Chief Executive, BP plc

NL - Burgmans, Antony - Chairman, Unilever NV

F - Camus, Phillipe - CEO, European Aeronautic Defence and Space NV

I - Caracciolo, Lucio - Director, Limes Geopolitical Review

F - Castries, Henri de - Chairman, AXA Insurance

E - Cebrian, Juan Luis - CEO, PRISA (Spanish language media company), former Chairman, International Press Institute

TR - Cemal, Hasan - Senior Columnist, Milliyet Newspaper

GB - Clarke, Kenneth - Member of Parliament (Con.), Deputy Chairman, British American Tobacco

USA - Collins, Timothy C - MD and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings LLC, Yale School of Management, Trilateral Commission

USA - Corzine, Jon S. - Senator (D, New Jersey), Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs

CH - Couchepin, Pascal - Former Swiss President, Head of Home affairs Dept.

GR - David, George A. - Chairman, Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company SA

B - Dehaene, Jean-Luc - Former Prime Minister, Mayor of Vilvoorde

TR - Dervis, Kemal - Member of Parliament, former senior World bank official

GR - Diamantopoulou, Anna - Member of Parliament, former European Commissioner for Social Affairs

USA - Donilon, Thomas L - Vice-President, Fannie Mae, Council on Foreign Relations

I - Draghi, Mario - Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs

USA - Edwards, John - Senator (D. North Carolina), Democratic Presidential Candidate

DK - Eldrup, Anders - Chairman, DONG gas company (becoming privatised) A/S

DK - Federspiel, Ulrik - Ambassador to the USA

USA - Feith, Douglas J. - Undersecretary for Policy, Department of Defense

I - Galateri, Gabriele - Chairman, Mediobanca

USA - Gates, Melinda F. - Co-Founder, Gates Foundation, wife of Bill Gates

USA - Geithner, Timothy F. - President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

I - Giavazzi, Francesco - Professor of Economics, Bocconi University; adviser, world bank and European Central bank

IRL - Gleeson, Dermot - Chairman Allied Irish Bank Group (currently being investigated for personal and corporate tax evasion)

USA - Graham, Donald E. - Chairman and CEO, Washington Post Company

USA - Haas, Richard N. - President, Council on Foreign Relations, former Director of Policy and Planning staff, State Department

NL - Halberstadt, Victor - Professor of Economics, Leiden University

B - Hansen, Jean-Pierre - Chairman, Suez Tractabel SA

S - Heikensten, Lars - Governor, Swedish Central Bank

USA - Holbrooke, Richard C - Vice Chairman, Perseus, former Director, Council on Foreign Relations, former Assistant Secretary of State

USA - Hubbard, Allen B - President E&A Industries

USA - Issacson, Walter - President and CEO, Aspen Institute

USA - Janow, Merit L. - Professor, International Economic Law and International Affairs, Columbia University

USA - Jordan, Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard Freres & Co LLC

USA - Kagan, Robert - Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

GB - Kerr, John - Director, Shell, Rio Tinto, Scottish American Investment Trust

USA - Kissinger Henry A. - Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.

TR - Koc, Mustafa V. - Chairman, Koc Holdings AS

NL - Koenders, Bert (AG) - Member of Parliament, president, Parliamentary Network of the World Bank

USA - Kovner, Bruce - Chairman Caxton Associates LLC, Chairman, American Enterprise Institute

USA - Kravis, Henry R. - Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., acquisitions financier

USA - Kravis, Marie Josee - Senoir Fellow, Hudson Institute Inc.

FIN - Lehtomaki, Paula - Minister of Foreigh Trade and Development

FIN - Lipponen, Paavo - Speaker of Parliament

CHN - Long, Yongtu - Secretary General, Boao forum for Asia

P - Lopes, Pedro M. Santana - Mayor of Lisbon

USA - Luti, William J. - Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs

CDN - Lynch, Kevin G. - Deputy Minister, Department of Finance

USA - Mathews, Jessica T. - President, Carnegie Endowment for International War Peace

USA - McDonough, William J. - Cahirman and CEO, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, former president, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

CDN - McKenna, Frank - Counsel, McInnes Cooper, former premier of New Brunswick

I - Merlini, Cesare - Executive Vice Chairman, Council for the United States and Italy, Council on Foreign Relations, former director, Italian Institute for International Affairs

F - Montbrial, Thierry de - President, French Institute of International Relations

INT - Monti, Mario - Competition Commissioner, European Commission

USA - Mundie, Craig J. - Chief Technical Officer, Advanced Strategies and Policies, Microsoft Corporation

N - Myklebust, Egil - Chairman, Scandinavian Airline System (SAS)

D - Naas, Matthias - Deputy Editor, Die Zeit

NL - Netherlands, Beatrix HM Queen of The - Lady Shell, nuff said

GB - Neville-Jones, Pauline - Chairman, QuinetiQ (UK privatised military research/services company), governor of the BBC, Chairman Information Assurance Advisory Council, formar Chairman Joint Intelligence Committee, former Managing Director NatWest Markets

USA - Nooyi, Indra K. - President and CEO, PepsiCo Inc.

PL - Olechowski, Andrzej - Leader, Civic Platform

FIN - Ollila, Jorma - Chairman, Nokia Corporation

INT - Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso - Director, European Central Bank

CY - Pantelides, Leonidas - Ambassoador to Greece

I - Passera, Corrado - CEO, Banca Intesa SpA

USA - Perle, Richard N. - Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, former Likud policy adviser, former chair Defence Policy Board, former co-chairman, Hollinger Digital

B - Phillipe, HRH Prince

USA - Reed, Ralph E. - President, Century Strategies

CDN - Reisman, Heather - President and CEO, Indigo Books and Music Inc.

I - Riotta, Gianni - Editorialist, Corriere della Serra

USA - Rockefeller, David - Member JP Morgan International Council, Chairman, Council of the Americas

E - Riodriguez Inearte, Matias - Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander

USA - Ross, Dennis B - Director, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

D - Sandschneider, Eberhard - Director, Research Institute, German Society for Foreign Policy

I - Scaroni, Paolo - CEO, Enel SpA

D - Schilly, Otto - Minister of the Interior

USA - Schnabel, Rockwell A. - Ambassador to the EU

A - Scholten, Rudolf - Director, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG

D - Schrempp, Jurgen E. - Chairman, DaimlerChrysler AG

E - Serra Rexach, Eduardo - Head, Real Institute Elcano

RUS - Shevtsova, Lilia - Senior Associate. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

PL - Sikora, Slawomir - President and CEO, Citibank Handlowy

I - Siniscalo, Domenico - Director General Ministry of the Economy

P - Socrates, Jose - Member of Parliament

USA - Strmecki, Marin J. - Smith Richardson Foundation

B - Struye de Swielande, Dominique - Permanant repressentative of Belguim, NATO

IRL - Sutherland, Peter D. - Chairman, Goldman Sachs International, Chairman, BP plc

USA - Thornton, John L. - Chairman, Brookings Institution, Professor, Tsinghua University

I - Tremonti, Giulio - Minister of Economy and Finance

INT - Trichet, Jean-Claude - President, European Central Bank

I - Tronchetti Provera, Marco - Chairman and CEO, Pirelli SpA

N - Underdal, Arild - Rector, University of Oslo

CH - Vasella, Daniel L. - Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG

NL - Veer, Jeroen van der - Chairman, Committee of Managing Directors, Royal Dutch/Shell

GB - Verwaayen, Ben J. M. - CEO, British Telecom; former director, Lucent Technologies

I - Visco, Ignazio - Foriegn Affairs Manager, Banca D'Italia

INT - Vitorino, Antonio M. - Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, European Union

INT - Vries, Gijs M. de - EU Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator

S - Wallenberg, Jacob - Chairman, SEB investments (including biotech); Chairman, W Capital Management AB

D - Weber, Jurgen - Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutche Lufthansa AG

GB/USA - Weinberg, Peter - CEO, Goldman Sachs International

NL - Wijers, Hans - Chairman, AkzoNobel NV

D - Wissmann, Matthias - Member of Parliament

GB - Wolf, Martin H. - Associate Editor/Economic Commentator, The Financial Times

INT/USA - Wolfenson, James D. - President, The World Bank

RUS - Yavlinsky, Grigory A. - Member of Parliament

USA - Yergin, Daniel - Chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates

D - Zumwinkel, Llaus - Chairman, Deutche Post Worldnet AG

Rapporteurs
GB - Rachman, Gideon - Brussels Correspondent, The Economist

GB - Wooldridge, Adrian D. - Foreign Correspondant, The Economist

[Ebondale]

The 2005 meeting took place shortly after the memo came out.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Honorary Chairman

B, Davignon, Etienne, Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel

Honorary Secretary General

GB, Taylor, J. Martin, International Advisor, Goldman Sachs International
NL, Aartsen, Jozias J. van, Parliamentary Leader, Liberal Party (VVD)
PNA, Abu-Amr, Ziad, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council; President of the Palestinian Council on Foreign Relations; Professor of Political Science, Birzeit University
D, Ackermann, Josef, Chairman, Group Executive Committee. Deutsche Bank AG
INT, Almunia Amann, Joaquin, Commissioner, European Commission
GR, Alogoskoufis, George, Minister of Economy and Finance
TR, Babacan, Ali, Minister of Economic Affairs
P, Balsemão, Francisco Pinto, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister
INT, Barroso. José M. Durão, President, European Commission
S, Belfrage, Erik, Senior Vice President, SEB
I, Bernabè, Franco, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe
F, Beytout, Nicolas, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro
A, Bronner, Oscar, Publisher and Editor, Der Standard
GB, Browne, John, Group Chief Executive, BP plc
D, Burda, Hubert, Chairman of the Board of Management, Hubert Burda Media
IRL, Byrne, David, WHO Special Envoy on Global Cornmunicable Diseases; Former Commissioner, European Commission
F, Camus, Philippe, CEO, EADS
F, Castries, Henri de Chairman of the Board, AXA
E, Cebrián. Juan Luis, CEO, PRISA
USA, Collins, Timothy C., Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
F, Collomb, Bertrand, Chairman, Lafarge
CH, Couchepin, Pascal, Head, Department of Home Affairs
GR, David, George A., Chairman, Coca-Cola H.b.c. S.A.
F, Delpech, Thérèse, Director for Strategic Affairs, Atomic Energy Commission
GR, Diamantopoulou, Anna, Member of Parliament
NL, Docters van Leeuwen, Arthur W.H., Chairman of the Executive Board, Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets
USA, Donilon, Thomas E., Partner, O'Melveny & Myers
D, Döpfner, Mathias, CEO, Axel Springer AG
DK, Eldrup, Anders, President, DONG A/S
I, Elkann, John, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
USA, Feldstein, Martin S, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research
USA, Ford, Jr., William C., Chairman and CEO, Ford Motor Company
USA, Geithner, Timothy F., President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
TR, Gencer, Imregul, Member of the Board, Global Investment Holding
ISR, Gilady, Eival, Strategic Advisor to Prime Minister Sharon
IRL, Gleeson, Dermot, Chairman, AIB Group
USA, Graham, Donald E., Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
N, Grydeland, Bjørn T., Ambassador to the EU
P, Guterres, António, Former Prime Minister; President, Socialist International
USA, Haass, Richard N., President, Council on Foreign Relations
NL, Halberstadt, Victor, Professor of Economics, Leiden University
B, Hansen, Jean-Pierre, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A.
A, Haselsteiner, Hans Peter, CEO, Bauholding Strabag SE (Societas Europea)
DK, Hedegaard, Connie, Minister for the Environment
USA, Holbrooke, Richard C., Vice Chairman, Perseus
INT, Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de Secretary General, NATO
USA, Hubbard, Allan B., Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council
B, Huyghebaert, Jan, Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group
USA, Johnson, James A., Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC
INT, Jones, James L., Supreme Allied Commander Euope, SHAPE
USA, Jordan, Jr.,Vernon E., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
USA, Keane, John M., President, GSI, LLC; General, US Army, Retired
GB, Kerr, John, Director, Shell, Rio Tinto, Scottish Americal Investment Trust
USA, Kissinger, Henry A., Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
D, Kleinfeld, Klaus, President and CEO, Siemens AG
TR, Koç, Mustafa V., Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
D, Kopper, Hilmar, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, DaimlerChrysler AG
F, Kouchner, Bernard, Director, "Santé et développement", CNAM
USA, Kravis, Henry R., Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA, Kravis, Marie-Josée, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
INT, Kroes, Neelie, Commissioner, European Commission
CH, Kudelski, André, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Kudelski Group
F, Lamy, Pascal, President, Notre Europe; Former Commissioner, European Commission
USA, Ledeen, Michael A., American Enterprise Institute
FIN, Liikanen, Erkki, Govemor and Chairman of the Board, Bank of Finland
N, Lundestad, Geir, Director, Norwegian Nobel Institute; Secretary, Norwegian Nobel Committee
USA, Luti, William J., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
DK, Lykketoft, Mogens, Chairman, Social Democratic Party
CDN, Manji, Irshad, Author/Founder of "Project Ijtihad"
USA, Mathews, Jessica T., President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
CDN, Mau, Bruce, Bruce Mau Design
CDN, McKenna, Frank, Ambasssador to the US
USA, Medish, Mark C., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
USA, Mehlman, Kenneth B., Chairman, Republican National Committee
D, Merkel, Angela, Chairman, CDU; Chairman CDU/CSU-Fraction
SVK, Miklos, Ivan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
F, Montbrial, Thierry de, President, French Institute of International Relations (IFRI)
INT, Monti, Mario, President, Bocconi University; Former Commissioner for Competition, European Commission
CDN, Munroe-Blum, Heather, Principal and Vice Chancellor, McGill University
N, Myklebust, Egil, Chairman of the Board of Directors, SAS
D, Nass, Matthias, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit
RUS, Nemirovskaya, Elena, Founder and Director, Moscow School of Political Studies
NL, Netherlands, H.M. tihe Queen of The
PL, Olechowski, Andrzej, Leader Civic Platform
FIN, Ollila, Jorma, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Nokia Corporation
INT, Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso, Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank
E, Palacio, Loyola de, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Partido Popular
GR, Papandreou, George A., President, Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK)
USA, Pearl, Frank H., Chairman and CEO, Perseus, LLC
USA, Pearlstine, Norman, Editor-in-Chief, Time Inc.
FIN, Pentikäinen, Mikael, President, Sanoma Corporation
USA, Perle, Richard N., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
D, Pflüger, Friedbert, Member of Parliament, CDU/CSU Fraktion
B, Philippe, H.R.H. Prince
CDN, Prichard, J. Robert S., President. Torstar Media Group and CEO, Torstar Corporation
IN'T, Rato y Figaredo, Rodrigo de, Managing Director, IMF
CDN, Reisman, Heather, President and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
USA, Rockefeller, David, Member, JP Morgan International Council
USA, Rodin, Judith, President, The Rockefeller Foundation
E, Rodriguez Inciarte, Matias, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander
USA, Ross, Dennis B., Director, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
F, Roy, Olivier, Senior Researcher, CNRS
P, Sarmento, Nuno Morais, Former Minister of State and of Presidency; Member of Parliament
I, Scaroni, Paolo, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Enel S.p.A.
D, Schily, Otto, Minister of the Interior
A, Scholten, Rudolf, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
D, Schrempp , Jürgen E., Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG
D, Schulz, Ekkehard D., Chairman of the Executive Board, ThyssenKrupp AG
E, Sebastián Gascón, Miguel, Chief Economic Adviser to Prime Minister
ISR, Sharansky, Natan, Former Minister for Jerusalem & Diaspora Affairs
I, Siniscalco, Domenico, Minister for Economy and Finance
GB, Skidelsky, Robert, Professor of Political Economy, Warwick University
E, Spain, H.M. the Queen of
IRL, Sutherland, Peter D., Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Chairman, BP p.1.c.
PL, Szwajcowski, Jacek, CEO, Polska Grupa Farmaceutyczna
FIN, Tiilikainen, Teija H., Director, University of Helsinki, Network for European Studies
NL, Tilmant, Michel, Chairman, ING N.V.
INT, Trichet, Jean-Claude, Governor, European Central Bank
TR, Ülsever, Cüneyt, Columnist, Hürriyet
CH, Vasella, Daniel L., Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG
NL, Veer, Jeroen van der, Chairman Committee of.Managing Directors, Royal Dutch Shell Group
USA, Vinocur, John, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune
S, Wallenberg, Jacob, Chairman of the Board, Investor AB; Vice-Chairman, SEB
USA, Warner, Mark R., Governor of Virginia
GB, Weinberg, Peter, CEO, Goldman Sachs International
D, Wissmann, Matthias, Member of Parliament, CDU/CSU Fraktion
GB, Wolf, Martin H., Asscociate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
INT/USA, Wolfensohn, James D., President, The World Bank
USA, Wolfowitz, Paul, President designate, The World Bank
USA, Zakaria, Fareed, Editor, Newsweek International
D, Zumwinkel, Klaus, Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG

Rapporteurs

GB, Micklethwait, R., John, United States Editor, The Economist
GB, Wooldridge, Adrian D., Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I'll post my take on the Billery years in a few. First I want to post some thoughts on the memos since I've been trying to do some reading up with it in my spare time.

When I first heard of the memos I initially dismissed them as 'just another conspiracy'. Thats why I havnt been following up on it until lately.

Now I do some searching, I find huge amounts of information on Blogs but as its not a recognized source of authority I can only catagorize it as opinion. I find some op-ed pieces in the newspapers which I find informative but still no production of the actual memo. I then find a re-typed copy of the memo by a British paper but still I cant find the original memos that were supposedly recovered.

Initially the British story was buried by the American papers because, as Dan Rather found out recently, jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon with 'uncovered uber secret documents' is that they can be easily manufactured, and even a career ender for those who's reputation in delivering the news in an untainted manner.

In fact, the American papers seemed to be reluctant to run the story at all until pressure, in huge amounts, was produced by the left sided conspiracy loving blogging community. That itself is an amazing study for political scientists. But still no production of the original documents for John Q Public to look at and decide for himself what was said in them as well as who said it (even then it would still be counted as here say in a court of law). Its amazing that so many can be moved into action by someone elses interpretation of a written document, and kind of scary. I believe the same can be said for those of the religious fanatic persuasion.

In summary, I really dont give alot of credit to whats been revealed thus far because I want to see for myself what the memo's reveal in their true unaltered form. My trust for my fellow man in delivering information is at its all time low because of the strong desire to spin and slant information to their personal gain.

No WMDs. And thats no conspiracy. The real conspiracy is that there were supposed to be WMDs. Or was it that Iraq did 9/11? Or was it to save the poor Iraqis from a brutal regime?

Its bullshit. We all know it. We need to rectify it.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Douche bags that read the newspaper and then repeat what they read as though it is their own opinion?

Yeah, that sure is a trait only republican's have! Let me tell ya!

Not to mention there are so many popular conservatively biased newspapers out there.

Both newspapers in my area endorse every democrat in every election. That includes the pos John Street who should be in jail, and may be someday with the corruption that's being exposed.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ebondale
I think 'douche bag' is a perfectly acceptable form of address for a Young Republican. Have you ever actually met one? I'm from Washington, D.C. so I'll let you in on a little secret.... they are ALL, in fact, douche bags.

Thats great if you think that me using the term 'douche bag' discredits my opinion but the fact remains - they have no real opinions, only what they read in the newspapers and what mommy and daddy tell them to believe.

Its funny to me how you're so desperate to grasp a hold of some way to cling to your shitty little ideals that you cry about me refering to them as douche bags. Surely you can defend the Young Republicans a little better than that, can't you?

Oh, but wait... you folks don't actually HAVE any opinions that aren't spoon fed to you.

My bad.

Wow.... Never realized you were such a moron. :lol:

Dont feed them.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Wow.... Never realized you were such a moron. :lol:

Because I actually choose to make my own decisions rather than base opinion upon what the the media forces the American public to believe?

I assure you that I'm no moron, Hulkein. :)

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Ebondale
Douche bags that read the newspaper and then repeat what they read as though it is their own opinion?

Yeah, that sure is a trait only republican's have! Let me tell ya!

Not to mention there are so many popular conservatively biased newspapers out there.

Both newspapers in my area endorse every democrat in every election. That includes the pos John Street who should be in jail, and may be someday with the corruption that's being exposed.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are any better, actually. The whole damn system is broken and it has gotten to the point that people don't vote for the 'best man for the job' any more, they just vote for the lesser of two evils.

Isn't that sad?

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

They actually found us laughable as much as our foreign policy was laughable. We were called the paper tiger...

Thats the best you can do. Huh.

I don’t think getting a blowjob in the oval office is anywhere near as bad as the deaths of over 1700 working-class Americans, and god knows how many working-class Iraqis.

Maybe that is your way. I voted the way I did because I feel he is the best man for the job.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Dave
Dont feed them.

Dave, I'm absolutely not trying to troll. Hell, I can't stand trolls. I'll be the first one to admit it. I'd love to have a little more input than that from you on the subject. :)

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, the PDF scan I read was of the original memos. I'm sure you can still find it on the Guardian. Must I post a link?

-Melissa

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Wow.... Never realized you were such a moron. :lol:

Well I just read Bob pwning Ebondale in the picture post thread, so I guess if I hadn't seen his posts here I would've eventually come to the same conclusion.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

They actually found us laughable as much as our foreign policy was laughable. We were called the paper tiger...

Thats the best you can do. Huh.

I don’t think getting a blowjob in the oval office is anywhere near as bad as the deaths of over 1700 working-class Americans, and god knows how many working-class Iraqis.
1700 working class Americans who ironically overwhelmingly voted for him, Maybe they know something you dont care to, what we are fighting for.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ebondale
I'm not saying that the Democrats are any better, actually. The whole damn system is broken

Then isn't it kind of stupid to single out one group for the sake of your argument? If you're going to acknowledge both sides do it, it goes beyond ignorance and into intentional deception to blast one side for it while saying nothing of the other side.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Dave
Maybe that is your way. I voted the way I did because I feel he is the best man for the job.

How exactly is Bush the best man for the job?

He wanted to finish a little grudge match that daddy started so he manipulated the American public WHO TRUSTED HIM into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a terrorist state so that he could remove a soverign leader from power.

The man has sent over 1,700 Americans to die in a war that Americans do not support and was based solely on lies to begin with.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave

1700 working class Americans who ironically overwhelmingly voted for him, Maybe they know something you dont care to, what we are fighting for.

Last I checked, voting was a private process; please don't speak for 1700 dead Americans when neither election was a vast divide of votes.

-Melissa

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Ebondale
I'm not saying that the Democrats are any better, actually. The whole damn system is broken

Then isn't it kind of stupid to single out one group for the sake of your argument? If you're going to acknowledge both sides do it, it goes beyond ignorance and into intentional deception to blast one side for it while saying nothing of the other side.

With all of you bloodthirsty republicans calling Backlash a troll and this and that how could I not step in and voice my opinion?

Do I think Democrats are better than Republicans? No. They're all the same in my eyes. The difference is this: The senior leadership in power right now that is sending Americans to die needlessly in a war that hasn't made our country any safer are all Republicans.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Last I checked, voting was a private process; please don't speak for 1700 dead Americans when neither election was a vast divide of votes.

-Melissa

The armed forces voted for Bush in a much larger margin than the general election.



[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Hulkein]

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Hulkein
Wow.... Never realized you were such a moron. :lol:

Well I just read Bob pwning Ebondale in the picture post thread, so I guess if I hadn't seen his posts here I would've eventually come to the same conclusion.

Bob didn't pwn shit, he came off as sounding like a retarded hick to me and I left the thread in disgust.

Your warped sense of reality is actually quite funny, though. :)

Originally posted by Ebondale


He wanted to finish a little grudge match that daddy started
Very original thinking there

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Ebondale


He wanted to finish a little grudge match that daddy started
Very original thinking there

You don't think so? Disprove it, then.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

They actually found us laughable as much as our foreign policy was laughable. We were called the paper tiger...

Thats the best you can do. Huh.

I don’t think getting a blowjob in the oval office is anywhere near as bad as the deaths of over 1700 working-class Americans, and god knows how many working-class Iraqis.
1700 working class Americans who ironically overwhelmingly voted for him, Maybe they know something you dont care to, what we are fighting for.

Don’t give me the holier-than-thou shit, Dave. I know, as well as you know, there are those in the military who did not vote for this CIC, and many who have returned asking WTF?

I respect you Dave. I think your intentions are noble. It saddens me that your passion was not better served.

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Dave

1700 working class Americans who ironically overwhelmingly voted for him, Maybe they know something you dont care to, what we are fighting for.

Last I checked, voting was a private process; please don't speak for 1700 dead Americans when neither election was a vast divide of votes.

-Melissa
I speak for the 68% or so of U.S. military personnel (I think it was a standard +/- 3 margin of error) that voted for bush in the last election.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Do I think Democrats are better than Republicans? No. They're all the same in my eyes. The difference is this: The senior leadership in power right now that is sending Americans to die needlessly in a war that hasn't made our country any safer are all Republicans.

I'd have very little problem with your opinion had you said that.

I have a problem with you telling me I'm spoonfed because of my decision to vote for Bush.

Being in a communications major I assure you I'm exposed to the viewpoints of others (read: Backlash type liberals) in almost every Mass Media course I take.



Originally posted by Ebondale
Bob didn't pwn shit, he came off as sounding like a retarded hick to me and I left the thread in disgust.

Your warped sense of reality is actually quite funny, though. :)

Bob: Asians aren't hot.
You: U R RAZIST
Bob (and a few other rational posters): Not being sexually attracted to the physical features of a certain race doesn't make you racist.
You: BUT IT'S LIKE ME SAYING TEH BLACKS EAT CHIKEN

Good thing you left the thread in disgust, you weren't getting anywhere with your quick racist calls and failed analogies.

[Ebondale]

I respect you Dave. I think your intentions are noble. It saddens me that your passion was not better served.

I like Dave on a personal level very much and while I respect his opinions it saddens me that he doesn't open his eyes a little more than he does, you know?

You can respect the office of the President of the United States and still see that they are lying to you.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Hulkein

I'd have very little problem with your opinion had you said that.

I have a problem with you telling me I'm spoonfed because of my decision to vote for Bush.

Being in a communications major I assure you I'm exposed to the viewpoints of others (read: Backlash type liberals) in almost every Mass Media course I take.

Well answer this, Mr. Communications major. As someone who studies communications and should understand a bit about psychology because of it... do you think that it is completely out of the realm of possibility that a large group of rich globalists manipulate the masses by reporting only certain news stories and putting their own spin on things?



Bob: Asians aren't hot.
You: U R RAZIST
Bob (and a few other rational posters): Not being sexually attracted to the physical features of a certain race doesn't make you racist.
You: BUT IT'S LIKE ME SAYING TEH BLACKS EAT CHIKEN

Good thing you left the thread in disgust, you weren't getting anywhere with your quick racist calls and failed analogies.

Heh, your summary isn't exactly how it goes, but hey.

Bob said that 'all asians are ugly'. His words. He didn't say "Well, personally I'm not attracted to asian females."

Synopsis: Fucking ignorant.

[ElanthianSiren]

as promised

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

Having a cache is great -- especially when it goes back 5 weeks.

-Melissa

damn different board posting styles. 68% of 1700 then, not 1700.

[Edited on Sun, June th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

They actually found us laughable as much as our foreign policy was laughable. We were called the paper tiger...

Thats the best you can do. Huh.

I don’t think getting a blowjob in the oval office is anywhere near as bad as the deaths of over 1700 working-class Americans, and god knows how many working-class Iraqis.

Actually, that was just a teaser, now that I'm finished getting the wife and kid off to church I'll elaborate:

filegate - FBI files found in Hillary's posession regarding people labeled as 'enemies' of the Clintons.

Travelgate - Hillary firing whitehouse staff to be replaced by employees from her old lawfirm.

Massive firings of white house employees fired for downloading huge amounts of porn on white house computers.

The hiding of thousands of white house email coorespondence regarding filegate, chinagate, monica, and campaign finance abuses that were under subpoena.

whitewater and the castle grand land development scheme

chinagate - reuters report of collusion between Clinton and China on covering up illegal contributions to the 1996 democratic campaign

Hillary Clinton forced to return 20,000 in finance contributions from convicted cuban drug smuggler Juan Cabrera.

Ruling by federal judge that Clinton violated the US Privacy Act of accuser Kathleen Wiley by releasing private letters she had sent to Clinton, during an criminal investigation that led to his impeachment and acquittal.

All the coincidental deaths of witnesses against Clinton's wrongdoings - Johnny Lawhon, James McDougal, Mary Mahoney, Vince Foster

Clinton found in contempt of court for lying in the Jones deposition.

"I smoke pot but I didnt inhale"

"Define Sex..."


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon



And that equals the deaths of innocents how? And you call dems on being sour grapes? Take a look in the mirror buddy.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ebondale
I'm still trying to figure out how he fixed the second election.Through the time-honored technique of "getting more electoral votes than the other guy", the scaliwag!!
At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.Yeah, Clinton never authorized any sort of military action against a foreign nation. Unless you count this. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/08/us.kosovo.01/) But he certainly never attacked Iraq! No, never! (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Frank0920.htm)

And unless only Americans are innocent, Backlash, I find your stance extremely puzzling. I was still in middle school at the time and I remember the whole "Impeach this!! *missile launch*".

[Gan]

Like I said, I find the finger pointing laughable. I find the name calling laughable. If what you claim is so bad under the republican leadership, lets see what happens when the public reacts to it in the next election.

The public reacted to all of the Clinton trash by electing Bush. Lets see if its true form and a Democrat lands in office in 2008.

If a Republican lands back in office then I'd take that as a public endorsement on the republican leadership of the past 8 years.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Well answer this, Mr. Communications major. As someone who studies communications and should understand a bit about psychology because of it... do you think that it is completely out of the realm of possibility that a large group of rich globalists manipulate the masses by reporting only certain news stories and putting their own spin on things?

In America, at this time? Yes.

There's no way Bush and his crew can manipulate the public to the tune of 53% of the popular vote (or whatever he got).

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Hulkein]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
as promised

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

Having a cache is great -- especially when it goes back 5 weeks.

-Melissa


-Melissa

[Back]

You having been in middle-school explains quite a bit. Back then, we had a budget surplus, a booming economy, crazy job growth, and we only paid $1.25 for a gallon of gas.

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Ebondale
Well answer this, Mr. Communications major. As someone who studies communications and should understand a bit about psychology because of it... do you think that it is completely out of the realm of possibility that a large group of rich globalists manipulate the masses by reporting only certain news stories and putting their own spin on things?

Yes.
you forgot to add, but not the direction you think, Hulkein.

[Gan]

Reading it now, is this the reported reproduction or the original?

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The public reacted to all of the Clinton trash by electing Bush. Lets see if its true form and a Democrat lands in office in 2008.

Actually, I think it was the Supreme Court. Over half a million Americans voted for Gore over Bush.

Originally posted by Backlash
You having been in middle-school explains quite a bit. Back then, we had a budget surplus, a booming economy, crazy job growth, and we only paid $1.25 for a gallon of gas.

No we had a internet bubble in the stock market, Remember when that one popped and we went into a resession BEFORE clinton was out of office, a surplus that the republicans demanded and forced on the country by shutting down the federal government (the whole balanced budget debate if you didnt remember) yet somebody didnt want to pay down the debt with it... wonder who that was... OH yeah! Clinton, he wanted to spend it on social programs. Talk to OPEC about the gas prices not republicans, we want to drill in alaska but somebody wont let us.



[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Dave]

:shibby: That felt good. I gotta go take care of a friends pets, since I am a evil animal hating person, and hit the gym on the way back sorry if I cant continue being so right all the time.

(the above was a joke nein so don't bother)

[Ebondale]

"There's no way Bush and his crew can manipulate the public to the tune of 53% of the popular vote (or whatever he got)."

Who needs to manipulate 53% when you can manipulate 20% and depend on another 33% to just be plain old stupid die hard Republicans? ;)

[Gan]

Well, the guardian still is saying its reproducing 'exerpts' from the memos and is not putting the whole thing out on the table.

Why?

I read the link provided above and it gives a nice opinion but I dont see where its so damaging. Its a legal memo, to which I cannot veryfiy its authenticity, that describes possible scenarios and resultant legal opportunities but yet the description of the 'attitude' of the US and others is still here say.

Show me the documents if they are so damaging. Quit releasing them in exerpts that can be twisted greatly without taking them into the context of which they were written.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ebondale

"There's no way Bush and his crew can manipulate the public to the tune of 53% of the popular vote (or whatever he got)."

Who needs to manipulate 53% when you can manipulate 20% and depend on another 33% to just be plain old stupid die hard Republicans? ;)

Yes, we're all stupid if we're all a republican. Riiiiiight.

Can I say you're not helping your case any by this kind of reasoning?

[Back]

Memos Show British Fretting Over Iraq War (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOWNING_STREET_MEMOS?SITE=TXADT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&S ECTION=HOME).

From the Associated Press, finally. Yeah, they spin.

[Gan]

He said, she said, he said, she said.

Show me the memos plz.

you will never see the originals Ironically THEY WERE DESTROYED.

[Gan]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thats what you were getting at all along wasent it Ganalon?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
You having been in middle-school explains quite a bit. Back then, we had a budget surplus, a booming economy, crazy job growth, and we only paid $1.25 for a gallon of gas.
And that equals the deaths of innocents how?As a non-snarky response: Presidents != economy.

Here's what I don't get: the quotes the guy uses in Backlash's first post don't appear in the memo at all. :?:

[Warriorbird]

But the Republicans could NEVER do something BAD!

:eye roll:

[Artha]

Who needs to manipulate 53% when you can manipulate 20% and depend on another 33% to just be plain old stupid die hard Republicans?
Think what you will, I'd say it was more this kind of smug superiority mixed with hysterical molehill-to-mountain arguments and conspiracies by the left that drove people away from voting Democrat. Bush didn't win it so much as, Kerry (and moveon) lost it.

[Back]

Wallow in ignorance if you must. I’ll help a brother out if I can. But you need to nut-up. You are not going to make it in the new world with that kind of attitude.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, a lot of it was careful utilization of religious constituency as well as the "get out the vote" notions backfiring on the Democrats, Artha... if you want me to give me reasoned thinking on the matter. Getting those gay rights amendments on the ballots was genius.

[Gan]

Part of it.


1. If the documents were so inflammatory then they would have been released before Blair's re-election thus shitcanning him. This gives me doubts to their validity or damaging value.

2. If the documents were so inflammatory then they would have been used to bring some sort of international action against the US and the Bush administration. This hasnt happened yet either.

3. If the documents were so inflammatory then they would have surfaced in time to prevent Bush from getting re-elected, since some of them originated in 2002. This didnt happen. Hmmmmmm

4. If the documents were so inflammatory then they would have been released to provide such a huge constituency outcry that Bush would have been impeached or forced to resign. I dont see that happening either.


Does that mean we dont want our troops back and out of harms way? No. I would like to see the war done with too. In fact, I wish the middle east would get their shit together and quit acting like a group of uneducated immature children who can not get along. But no, the larger neighbors had to step in and administer a spanking and remove an insane dictator from power. Unfortunately if we pull all support out now, thousands more of Iragui's will be killed - but those who align themselves with the Democratic movement dont care evidentally, they only care about our boys.

I think we talked about this in another thread too. Seems we're having too much fun beating up on dead horses.

Produce the memos and let the evidence speak for themselves. Otherwise STFU.


Edited to add: time for lunch, so those who think my lack of response is because of any further left-winged enlightenment, never fear - ITS NOT.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Produce WMDs.

Damn, lunch already? Oh shit its half past noon.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Backlash]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I find the blatant republican bashing laughable in this thread. The rabid Democrats had their 8 years of Clintonism and obviously the cigar didnt last long enough.

One more thing before my afternoon nap. You are full of shit. Thats right. I said you are full of shit. Thanks for your opinion.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
I find the blatant republican bashing laughable in this thread. The rabid Democrats had their 8 years of Clintonism and obviously the cigar didnt last long enough.

One more thing before my afternoon nap. You are full of shit. Thats right. I said you are full of shit. Thanks for your opinion.

Yea, it sounds like you do need a nap, you're starting to get cranky. Might have a little milk with that too bud.

Full of Shit eh? No more than you my brown blooded brother. You are just as full of shit as any of us are. Thats right, I said it. You are just as full of shit as me or anyone else. In fact, are your eyes brown???

:lol:


Next time come up with something more logical than a personal attack. It just shows the tried and true response when you run out of anything legitimate to say and merely post that garbage.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Just more proof that the Republican impeached Clinton because they wanted more oral from interns. Thanks, Ganalon.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by Backlash

But to address your post lamenting the Clinton years... please do tell me. What was so terrible about the Clinton years?

Absolutely nothing. At least while Clinton was in office the world didn't hate America and our foreign policy.

They actually found us laughable as much as our foreign policy was laughable. We were called the paper tiger...

Thats the best you can do. Huh.

I don’t think getting a blowjob in the oval office is anywhere near as bad as the deaths of over 1700 working-class Americans, and god knows how many working-class Iraqis.

Actually, that was just a teaser, now that I'm finished getting the wife and kid off to church I'll elaborate:

filegate - FBI files found in Hillary's posession regarding people labeled as 'enemies' of the Clintons.

Travelgate - Hillary firing whitehouse staff to be replaced by employees from her old lawfirm.

Massive firings of white house employees fired for downloading huge amounts of porn on white house computers.

The hiding of thousands of white house email coorespondence regarding filegate, chinagate, monica, and campaign finance abuses that were under subpoena.

whitewater and the castle grand land development scheme

chinagate - reuters report of collusion between Clinton and China on covering up illegal contributions to the 1996 democratic campaign

Hillary Clinton forced to return 20,000 in finance contributions from convicted cuban drug smuggler Juan Cabrera.

Ruling by federal judge that Clinton violated the US Privacy Act of accuser Kathleen Wiley by releasing private letters she had sent to Clinton, during an criminal investigation that led to his impeachment and acquittal.

All the coincidental deaths of witnesses against Clinton's wrongdoings - Johnny Lawhon, James McDougal, Mary Mahoney, Vince Foster

Clinton found in contempt of court for lying in the Jones deposition.

"I smoke pot but I didnt inhale"

"Define Sex..."


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Ganalon]

What?!? No response from the Clinton huggers? You asked, I produced and we get nothing in response.

Bash Bush all you like, Clinton was worse in many more ways than anything you can come up with against Bush. You just hate to admit it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
The public reacted to all of the Clinton trash by electing Bush. Lets see if its true form and a Democrat lands in office in 2008.

Actually, I think it was the Supreme Court. Over half a million Americans voted for Gore over Bush.

One picture is worth a thousand words...

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon

filegate - FBI files found in Hillary's posession regarding people labeled as 'enemies' of the Clintons.

Travelgate - Hillary firing whitehouse staff to be replaced by employees from her old lawfirm.

Massive firings of white house employees fired for downloading huge amounts of porn on white house computers.

The hiding of thousands of white house email coorespondence regarding filegate, chinagate, monica, and campaign finance abuses that were under subpoena.

whitewater and the castle grand land development scheme

chinagate - reuters report of collusion between Clinton and China on covering up illegal contributions to the 1996 democratic campaign
Hillary Clinton forced to return 20,000 in finance contributions from convicted cuban drug smuggler Juan Cabrera.

Ruling by federal judge that Clinton violated the US Privacy Act of accuser Kathleen Wiley by releasing private letters she had sent to Clinton, during an criminal investigation that led to his impeachment and acquittal.

All the coincidental deaths of witnesses against Clinton's wrongdoings - Johnny Lawhon, James McDougal, Mary Mahoney, Vince Foster

Clinton found in contempt of court for lying in the Jones deposition.

"I smoke pot but I didnt inhale"

"Define Sex..."


:lol: :lol: :lol:



What?!? No response from the Clinton huggers? You asked, I produced and we get nothing in response. [/quote]

Perhaps you got no response because people don't equate the (already legally-investigated activities) that you mentioned with lying to the american public about something as serious as war and weapons of mass distra...err destruction. Especially, when those activities have not yet undergone investigation.

Additionally, those activities by Clinton, while even if 100% true and factual, do not equate the deaths of thousands of Iraqii civilians nor the attack of a soverign nation that was not at the time our enemy. Add to that, the death of close to 2,000 American troops and the comparison is rather laughable. The general activities surrounding politicians, no matter how disgusting or repulsive, don't even touch war. We could bring up everything that's occurred in Bush's tenure as well as before, including his fishy expunged record, his frat partying etc, but that's not pertinent to the issue of WMDs and whether or not the memos prove he lied.

-Melissa

[Artha]

because they wanted more oral from interns. Thanks, Ganalon.
Come on; honestly, who doesn't?

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Artha]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
those activities by Clinton, while even if 100% true and factual, do not equate the deaths of thousands of Iraqii civilians nor the attack of a soverign nation that was not at the time our enemy.Of course they don't. (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Frank0920.htm)

[Celexei]

just curious.....Living on the west coast, we have ALOT of factual public broadcasting radioshows, many of which i frequent my ears to the majority of the day. The other day there was mention that in the U.S. Constitution itself, it is stated that at times when the U.S. government oversteps its boundaries, and does not act according to the laws set in the Constitution itself, the backbone of our country, and to the U.S. peoples intentions, then it is the U.S. peoples DUTY to their country, to take up arms against the government as to prevent the wrong doings of said gov't. I have been wishing to find where this is at, and was just curious if anyone out there knew the Constitution well enough to point me in the direction. Thanks bunches

Celexei Teranth

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Celexei
just curious.....Living on the west coast, we have ALOT of factual public broadcasting radioshows, many of which i frequent my ears to the majority of the day. The other day there was mention that in the U.S. Constitution itself, it is stated that at times when the U.S. government oversteps its boundaries, and does not act according to the laws set in the Constitution itself, the backbone of our country, and to the U.S. peoples intentions, then it is the U.S. peoples DUTY to their country, to take up arms against the government as to prevent the wrong doings of said gov't. I have been wishing to find where this is at, and was just curious if anyone out there knew the Constitution well enough to point me in the direction. Thanks bunches

Celexei Teranth

you're close:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

Thomas Jefferson

C/Valth

[Gan]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Perhaps you got no response because people don't equate the (already legally-investigated activities) that you mentioned with lying to the american public about something as serious as war and weapons of mass distra...err destruction. Especially, when those activities have not yet undergone investigation.

Additionally, those activities by Clinton, while even if 100% true and factual, do not equate the deaths of thousands of Iraqii civilians nor the attack of a soverign nation that was not at the time our enemy. Add to that, the death of close to 2,000 American troops and the comparison is rather laughable. The general activities surrounding politicians, no matter how disgusting or repulsive, don't even touch war. We could bring up everything that's occurred in Bush's tenure as well as before, including his fishy expunged record, his frat partying etc, but that's not pertinent to the issue of WMDs and whether or not the memos prove he lied.

-Melissa

No, the reason I got no response when Clinton's behaviors were challenged earlier in this thread is because he has conspiracies and dirty laundry way more than Bush every will think of having.

And remember, Clinton was found guilty of perjury - not acquitted. Something that Bush has yet to face charges or judgement on.

Bottom line, if you throw stones and expect not to have them thrown back, make sure you talk about a subject thats spotless. Clinton isnt spotless, nor was his record. Bush isnt spotless either, but as the comparison which was made earlier on shows... the name calling and gastric emptying that happens so frequently with regards to our current administration is hardly note worthy compared to the leadership that those doing the gasteric ejaculation represent.

Bottom line is that the Downing memos, if ever released or produced, represent not only the consequences forwarned to all involved in the military campaign in Iraq but also the knowledge that it was known going into this. It all will mean nothing once they find the WMD's that Saddam has hidden. They will be found, regardless if they are buried somewhere or have been removed to another country. And while we're in Iraq helping them re-establish stable leadership and state-hood we'll keep looking for them. When we do find them I'll be expecting alot of eating crow on the thread discussing their discovery as well.

As far as comparing the loss of life; there is no comparison which is why I did not include it. War is war, it sucks, but sometimes its necessary. Having an isolationist viewpoint concerning international relations will bring what you dont want to your doorstep with you not being prepared. Pacifisim will only turn into martydom when you have agressors bent on violence. I for one dont intend to be a martyr and will vote and support those in leadership who reflect my views.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Bottom line, if you throw stones and expect not to have them thrown back, make sure you talk about a subject thats spotless.

I believe you were the one who brought up Clinton, in fact initially in this thread.

-Melissa

edited to add that I see a huge difference between pacifism and bombing a country with no ties to terrorism and no WMDs under the guise of preventing terrorism. This is why I was not adversely-minded toward military action in Afghanistan.

People can crow that Iraq had WMDs all they like, but the plain fact of the matter is that we've been in position there looking unimpeeded by Saddam for over two years, intelligence has suddenly admitted to mistakes, and evidence points toward no WMDs.


[Edited on Mon, June th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Gan]

I did in response to those who seem to take pleasure in pointing out the falacies of our current leadership and how he stole elections, is an idiot, thief, liar, etc. etc. as if its never happened before. And with that challenge, no response was forthcoming, so I bumped the post.

If you represent neither political party represented in this thread then you should not feel obligated to respond or defend. If you do, then the post was on target.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I did in response to those who seem to take pleasure in pointing out the falacies of our current leadership and how he stole elections, is an idiot, thief, liar, etc. etc. as if its never happened before. And with that challenge, no response was forthcoming, so I bumped the post.

If you represent neither political party represented in this thread then you should not feel obligated to respond or defend. If you do, then the post was on target.

I feel responsible to represent my views on the subject, nobody else's, especially not a party's. Otherwise I'd be in politics instead of voting :) In actuality, I am more interested in the way that this will be spun by both sides, manipulated with voting in mind in 2006, and how far it will go, than the real ramifications (which will in my estimation be minimal).

-Melissa

[Warriorbird]

Except he doesn't, Ganalon. His one real scandal (You always have to add gate to unimportant scandals to make them sound more important) involved a fat chick that gave good head.

A bit different than, y'know, figuring out how to fake things to provoke a war.

I'm sorry you're so attached to this notion.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except he doesn't, Ganalon. His one real scandal (You always have to add gate to unimportant scandals to make them sound more important) involved a fat chick that gave good head.

A bit different than, y'know, figuring out how to fake things to provoke a war.

I'm sorry you're so attached to this notion. \
you're right waterGATE was unimportant

[Warriorbird]

That it was. All the cheesy scandals where people try to add gate to other things pall in comparison. Thanks for illustrating my point, Dave.

:)

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except he doesn't, Ganalon. His one real scandal (You always have to add gate to unimportant scandals to make them sound more important) involved a fat chick that gave good head.

A bit different than, y'know, figuring out how to fake things to provoke a war.

I'm sorry you're so attached to this notion.

You give me way too much credit. I'm not the one who added gate to all of that mentioned above, the media did. :lol:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
No no. The Republicans did, to try to make them more effective. It didn't really work, so they worked on the Monica angle.

For a minute I thought you were going to say that was part of a mass republican slander conspiracy... :lol:

Yes, its all the Republicans fault. Those damn Republicans. hahahahahahahahaha.

By the way, regardless if they had gate on the end of it or not doesnt discount the fact that those topics didnt exist. But that kind of denial would only be capable of a Republican right? :lol2:



[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Of course. It also doesn't discount that they were far more minor than hey, "Let's make some excuses to have to have a war!"

[Ravenstorm]

Let's not forget that Bush can't be charged with perjury because he refused to testify under oath.

'Oh, fine! If you're going to make a Federal case out of it, I guess I'll have to testify. But I'll only do it if I can lie without it being a crime!'

Raven

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Yea, it sounds like you do need a nap, you're starting to get cranky. Might have a little milk with that too bud.

Full of Shit eh? No more than you my brown blooded brother. You are just as full of shit as any of us are. Thats right, I said it. You are just as full of shit as me or anyone else. In fact, are your eyes brown???

:lol:


Next time come up with something more logical than a personal attack. It just shows the tried and true response when you run out of anything legitimate to say and merely post that garbage.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Ganalon]

I deserved that. Without question, my brown-blooded brother. Its a pity, however, with all your intelligence and resource, that you resort to finger-pointing. This thread has nothing to do about Clinton and his term. You are the sour grape.

Yes, I point a finger. One big middle finger to a man who has catered to his “base” and fucked over the working class and who could give two shits about people below the poverty level.

You harbor some hatred towards dems. An unfounded hatred, like some rival football team. Guess what? This isn’t a fucking game man. This is our fucking country.

You want logic? Well, I’m not the best at it, but whatever it is you think you are trying to prove here... I sure the fuck know its not with logic.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

You harbor some hatred towards dems. An unfounded hatred, like some rival football team.


Pot meet kettle.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

You harbor some hatred towards dems. An unfounded hatred, like some rival football team.


Pot meet kettle.

Hey Kettle. I’m registered Independant. And no, I will not scan my voter registration card, so don’t even ask.

But you missed the whole point. There is not much more I can say than we agree to disagree.

[Gan]

Just in case you forgot. I'm a moderate republican. I dont always agree with my republican party mates, and I dont always agree with moderate republicans. I never find agreement with those who are so extreme right or left that it blinds them to reality.

What I cant stand is biased hatred and unfounded stupidity. And I'm tired of just sitting around and watching the idiotic bandwagoning that happens when someone yells "Its all Bush's fault!, blah blah blah."

Like I said, once the WMD's are found it will negate all this drama of the Downing Street Memos and everything else that has taken place.

The only thing it wont recover are the lives lost during this war. But for those who seek validation in their efforts, it will justify that too if it has not already in what its given back to the civilized people of Iraq. For those who seek excuses to rebel against authority and quench their thirst for anarchy with the cries of conspiracy and democracy/capitalism sucks, it will validate nothing.

[Gan]

Agreed.

We agree to disagree.

[Artha]

I’m registered Independant.
So is Michael Moore. When'll he be voting republican next?

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Just in case you forgot. I'm a moderate republican. I dont always agree with my republican party mates, and I dont always agree with moderate republicans. I never find agreement with those who are so extreme right or left that it blinds them to reality.

What I cant stand is biased hatred and unfounded stupidity. And I'm tired of just sitting around and watching the idiotic bandwagoning that happens when someone yells "Its all Bush's fault!, blah blah blah."

Like I said, once the WMD's are found it will negate all this drama of the Downing Street Memos and everything else that has taken place.

The only thing it wont recover are the lives lost during this war. But for those who seek validation in their efforts, it will justify that too if it has not already in what its given back to the civilized people of Iraq. For those who seek excuses to rebel against authority and quench their thirst for anarchy with the cries of conspiracy and democracy/capitalism sucks, it will validate nothing.

So thats your plan is it? To crush those who disagree with your high and fucking mighty moral standards? Sorry, but who the fuck are you? Oh shit! Its Jesus Fucking Christ back from the dead to make things right again! All praise...

Pipe dreams.

You can say I speak out because I’m some armchair quarterback. It may fit to a certain extent in that I am part of the voice of this nation. And I do think the Republican party has become a ghastly horror of what it used to be... but by no means am I saying what I say (post) because of some bullshit rivalry. That seems to be your, and the republicans, agenda.

Leave me the fuck out of it. I just want my peaceful condo dinner parties with good food, music, and people to interact with.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

I’m registered Independant.
So is Michael Moore. When'll he be voting republican next?

Hey, I’m all for dissolving the democratic party and joining the republican. The bipartisan bullshit needs to stop, because all our lives depend on unity.

[Gan]

I really dont get where you think I'm trying to crush your opinion with high moral standards. And who said anything about Jesus?

I'm just merely voicing a different opinon of what you're voicing. If you cant stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Leave me the fuck out of it. I just want my peaceful condo dinner parties with good food, music, and people to interact with.

You could probably succeed in this request if you slow down on all the conspiracy threads you start.


With that said, I'm heading to bed. So dont get your feelings hurt if I dont respond quick enough for your next witty retort. I'll be back again tomorrow afternoon to pick up where we leave off.
Ciao.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

I’m here to bake cakes, baby. But enough of this bullshit posturing.

Thanks, C/Val, for posting that part of our Constitution.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
Leave me the fuck out of it. I just want my peaceful condo dinner parties with good food, music, and people to interact with.

You could probably succeed in this request if you slow down on all the conspiracy threads you start.


With that said, I'm heading to bed. So dont get your feelings hurt if I dont respond quick enough for your next witty retort. I'll be back again tomorrow afternoon to pick up where we leave off.
Ciao.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

Right. I am in league with a bunch of people who just hate Bush and want to bring him down. Just because of what? The way he looks? The way he talks? His suits? Because he is a recovering alcoholic who found sobriety through Jesus?

No man, I’m just a guy who can see that this man has made some piss-poor decisions and didn’t even get a blow-job out of it.

Doesn't it suck when you’re wrong?

[Back]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Let's not forget that Bush can't be charged with perjury because he refused to testify under oath.

'Oh, fine! If you're going to make a Federal case out of it, I guess I'll have to testify. But I'll only do it if I can lie without it being a crime!'

Raven

http://www.zendada.com/images/bcm010904.gif

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Backlash
I’m here to bake cakes, baby. But enough of this bullshit posturing.

Thanks, C/Val, for posting that part of our Constitution.

It's the Declaration of Independence....

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Valthissa]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
Leave me the fuck out of it. I just want my peaceful condo dinner parties with good food, music, and people to interact with.

You could probably succeed in this request if you slow down on all the conspiracy threads you start.


With that said, I'm heading to bed. So dont get your feelings hurt if I dont respond quick enough for your next witty retort. I'll be back again tomorrow afternoon to pick up where we leave off.
Ciao.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

Right. I am in league with a bunch of people who just hate Bush and want to bring him down. Just because of what? The way he looks? The way he talks? His suits? Because he is a recovering alcoholic who found sobriety through Jesus?

No man, I’m just a guy who can see that this man has made some piss-poor decisions and didn’t even get a blow-job out of it.

Doesn't it suck when you’re wrong?

I'm not wrong... you're just here to... bake cakes... riiiiiiight.


Originally posted by Backlash
I’m here to bake cakes, baby.

Whatever Betty Crocker, just continue baking, and we'll continue to throw them back at you when you slide them out onto the table.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

Originally posted by Valthissa

Originally posted by Backlash
I’m here to bake cakes, baby. But enough of this bullshit posturing.

Thanks, C/Val, for posting that part of our Constitution.

It's the Decleration of Independence.... :yeahthat:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Like I said, once the WMD's are found it will negate all this drama of the Downing Street Memos and everything else that has taken place.
A little hope never hurt anyone.


Originally posted by Ganalon
I find the blatant republican bashing laughable in this thread. The rabid Democrats had their 8 years of Clintonism and obviously the cigar didnt last long enough.I thought the whining baby was the seal of the Democratic party. Better yet...

Originally posted by Ganalon
If you cant stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. Fully agree.

We need some unity... for real though.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/240424/unity.jpg

that's a awesome pic DEV, I can hear the Elephant saying to the Donkey, "You're my bitch, that's right MY BITCH."

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
that's a awesome pic DEV, I can hear the Elephant saying to the Donkey, "You're my bitch, that's right MY BITCH." Screwing people in the ass is nothing new aparently.

:saint:

Hey, I watch OZ and have seen American History X. :bleh:

[Gan]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Ganalon
Like I said, once the WMD's are found it will negate all this drama of the Downing Street Memos and everything else that has taken place.
A little hope never hurt anyone.


Originally posted by Ganalon
I find the blatant republican bashing laughable in this thread. The rabid Democrats had their 8 years of Clintonism and obviously the cigar didnt last long enough.I thought the whining baby was the seal of the Democratic party. Better yet...

Originally posted by Ganalon
If you cant stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. Fully agree.

We need some unity... for real though.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/240424/unity.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thank you Dev. I dont know if you were intending to be insulting or trying to lighten the mood in this thread; however, I got an excellent chuckle out of your post. Yes, all of those were comments from me. And I still find them entertaining. If anything, I'll continue so you can keep posting just so I can continue to gaze fondly at your avatars.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I dont know if you were intending to be insulting or trying to lighten the mood in this threadIf it were the former, you wouldn't be laughing now would you. :P

But yeah, those particular replies were what inspired the posting of the photo which I thought was very very fitting for the thread, considering...

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
One more thing before my afternoon nap. You are full of shit. Thats right. I said you are full of shit. Thanks for your opinion.

[Parkbandit]

Why haven't I heard much about these memos on the evening news? I watch NBC usually..

[Warriorbird]

Republican cowed media.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Why haven't I heard much about these memos on the evening news? I watch NBC usually..

I find the US media myopic and Americentric. I assume because these memo's were about British meetings and not American, was the reason it wasn't a big headline on CNN.

We dont know if these memo's even exist, the only person who knows about them "destroyed" them. :)

[Parkbandit]

Sounds like all the other baseless attacks on Bush.

:shrug:

I swear.. for all the people that claim Bush is stupid.. he certainly has fucking pwned all of you SO many times in 5 years.

He's fucking brilliant if he can continue to do all these things and still continue to lead this nation. His ability to destroy all of this evidence is amazing. I bet Bill wishes he had half that ability.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
We dont know if these memo's even exist, the only person who knows about them "destroyed" them. :)

First off Blair has copped to the most of what was in the memo, but contends he did nothing wrong. Secondly the memo was vetted by numerous news organisations before its destruction. Thirdly The Butler Committee (made up of Members of Parliament in the UK) similar to our 9-11 commission, has also accepted its authenticity.

The documents were photocopied as they were Government property. Then they were transcribed. The photocopies were destroyed as per instructions from The London Times lawyers and to protect their source.

Attacking the authenticity at this point is pretty weak.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
He's fucking brilliant if he can continue to do all these things and still continue to lead this nation. His ability to destroy all of this evidence is amazing. Yeah, either he's fucking brilliant or the lot of us are fucking stupid. Either way, as it pertains to this war, the motives will continually be questioned. How can we NOT be surprised that evidence gets destroyed so easily. It happened with military records... :grin:
I bet Bill wishes he had half that ability. Semen stained dresses are exactly a matter of national importance, oh wait, yes they are.[/quote]

"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."


"nobody but smith and the source saw the memos. Why destroy them?
The easiest way to declassify something, or in this case hide the identity of a person who is named in the memo is to take a permanent marker and line through the sensitive parts. Then may a photocopy. But no, he had to type them up himself and then destroy them. Sounds fishy to me.

Let me see the original please.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
"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."


"nobody but smith and the source saw the memos. Why destroy them?
The easiest way to declassify something, or in this case hide the identity of a person who is named in the memo is to take a permanent marker and line through the sensitive parts. Then may a photocopy. But no, he had to type them up himself and then destroy them. Sounds fishy to me.

Let me see the original please.


First off people other than the source and the journalist saw the documents.

“Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter”

“The documents, including the original Downing Street minutes, have been vetted by other foreign and domestic news organizations”

“The documents are transcribed photocopies in PDF format and were acquired from a British source and corroborated by Michael Smith, the journalist who first received the original leaked memos. This site validated them through an independent source and with Smith.”

There were very good reasons for destroying the originals.

“I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them.”
“The copying and re-typing were necessary because markings on the originals might have identified his source”

“The situation in Britain is very difficult but with regard to leaked documents the police Special Branch are obliged to investigate such leaks and would have come to the newspaper's office and or my home to confiscate them,” he explained. “We did destroy them because the Police Special Branch were ordered to investigate.”

If the Butler Committee accepts their authenticity then so should you.

[ElanthianSiren]

Think there's a conspiracy against Bush's administration for Blair not to tell the truth when aknowledging the memos and the information contained therein?


-Melissa

I just take issue with the way he went about it. I having, you could say, a" bit" of knowledge on the subject of the handling of Classified documents (in relation to U.S. laws and military regulations) see something queer in the way they went about it. There are easier and less questionable methods to distributing the documents while keeping the hidden identity of the source safe.

Now to say the memos are real and this gentleman did receive them as stated, he and the person who gave him the memos are criminals and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (no matter what information is within, things are classified for a reason and the integrity of the system should be kept in tact.)

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Dave]

[4a6c1]

God this is so idiotic. Stupid dems have the worst timing. Plz win war first, point fingers later, kthnx. This isnt doing anyone any good right now.

All I'm gonna say. :X

[Warriorbird]

Err... if the "war" is fought on false pretenses, Texas girl, might it theoretically be a reason to stop it? Or, y'know, actually go after Bin Laden if we want to flout international law?

[DeV]

You'd have to also define what constitutes a "win" in the case of this war in Iraq. With no exit strategy in sight, all we can do is either support the war unquestioned or voice opposition. The White House doesn't want to set timetables so...

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
I just take issue with the way he went about it. I having, you could say, a" bit" of knowledge on the subject of the handling of Classified documents (in relation to U.S. laws and military regulations) see something queer in the way they went about it. There are easier and less questionable methods to distributing the documents while keeping the hidden identity of the source safe.

Now to say the memos are real and this gentleman did receive them as stated, he and the person who gave him the memos are criminals and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (no matter what information is within, things are classified for a reason and the integrity of the system should be kept in tact.)

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Dave]

You have answered your own question. You are calling for them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, yet you question why they destroyed the documents. If you connect the dots you will see, had they kept the documents there would be evidence to prosecute them with.

Thanks Dave for proving my point.

[Warriorbird]

Soldier, ask not! Would you be in favor of prosecuting people for showing documents exposing something like Abu Ghraib too, Dave? Damn whistleblowers.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

The originals still exsist. They were given back to avoid legal prosecution.

[Back]

I got an email from Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friend:

Thank you for signing the Downing Street Minutes letter to the president. I personally delivered your letter to the White House last Thursday.

Your participation in this issue has made a difference. The mainstream media has been very slow to report on this British Intelligence document claiming that evidence was being "fixed" to support the lead up to war against Iraq.

Yet, the neither the media nor President Bush could ignore the massive groundswell of interest demonstrated by the more than 560,000 individuals who joined you in signing this letter.

On Thursday, I led a hearing about the Downing Street Minutes to receive testimony from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, and Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq.

Despite desperate attempts by Republicans to disrupt the proceedings, 32 Members of Congress attended this hearing. We were forced to use a cramped room in the basement of the Capitol little bigger than a closet, even though plenty of larger hearing rooms were available. The Republican Leadership also scheduled votes for nearly two straight hours in an unprecedented attempt to limit the ability of Democratic Members of Congress to participate in this hearing.

Thanks to your help, and the more than 560,000 individuals who signed this letter, the mainstream media felt compelled to cover this event. The room was packed with television cameras and there was significant coverage in national newspapers and radio networks. After the hearing I hand delivered the list of signatures along with a letter to the president signed by 122 Members of Congress demanding answers, and led a rally outside the White House.

We still have much more to do to make President Bush answer the questions raised by the Downing Street Minutes. Much work remains for us to bring this issue to the attention of all Americans.

Visit my website at http://johnconyers.com to find out what additional steps we are taking and how you can help on this issue of vital constitutional importance.

Please forward this email to friends who want to sign the letter to the president and help get the truth out.

Sincerely,


Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
The originals still exsist. They were given back to avoid legal prosecution.


Odd, all the news articles I've read since yesterday say the documents were destroyed.

I know, you have them at your house!

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
The originals still exsist. They were given back to avoid legal prosecution.


Odd, all the news articles I've read since yesterday say the documents were destroyed.

I know, you have them at your house!

Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC devoted half their show to the story last night and had Michael Smith, the reporter for the London Times, on for an interview.

In his own words, he received originals, photocopied them, returned the originals, then had them retyped and the photocopies destroyed on the advice of the lawyers involved so as not to implicate the source of the leaked memos or face prosecution themselves [The London Times].

The validity of these documents aren’t in question by the international press or the governments involved. What is in question is what they reveal, and the ramifications of that information.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Err... if the "war" is fought on false pretenses, Texas girl, might it theoretically be a reason to stop it? Or, y'know, actually go after Bin Laden if we want to flout international law?

Warriorbird, you have no idea what we are doing to catch bin laden, so please STFU.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, I do. Not catching him.

And you blame this on president bush?

[Back]

Well, that seems to be one of the big questions there, Dave. I’m willing to wager a lot more people than just WarBird want to know. You want to tell them all to STFU also?

Apparently, Goss knows, but we can’t do anything about it. It probably has to do with the fact that we know the country his is in actually has WMDs.

That makes a certain amount of sense when you consider where we are today. We invade a country we claim has WMDs when we know they don’t, and leave the countries that actually do have them alone.

Bush has said that at least we have all those would be terrorists on foreign soil now... all headed to Iraq to face an occupation and not have to fight on our own soil which is the American way of fighting a war.

so you want us to invade other countries. Dont go using that as an argument, acting as if your upset about it, unless you expect us to.

[Warriorbird]

"And you blame this on president bush?"

He's the Commander and Chief. I could blame his influences, the lower command structure, his parents, or the environment... but that would be too liberal of me.

I mean, I'm dealing with conservatives here.

Or Ignorance. I dont think you know much about what the military does in the first place, let alone the assets they are utilizing to find him

[Warriorbird]

I believe in admitting it when I have a problem or have not met a goal. I believe in claiming responsibility.

The conservative way, or at least that's what I was told.

since you know so much, what is it that we are doing to find him/not doing and you feel we should start?

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Actually, I do. Not catching him.


:lol:

[Warriorbird]

"since you know so much, what is it that we are doing to find him/not doing and you feel we should start? "

I suspect our Commander in Chief would know. It's only been four years. Maybe if we were really commited to flouting international law and "the Geneva Conspiracy didn't apply to this war" we'd do a little better. How many other international fugitives has the US caught this slowly? How many other international fugitives has the US caught this slowly who weren't be backed by the Soviet Union? The answer is not many. That I do know. But, hey, maybe our Commander and Chief could tell us. Alternately, maybe some of the lower in command people that I'm not supposed to blame could.

[Warriorbird]

:snickers: Yeah.

Four years. Still counting.

Conservative to liberals: You should own up to your mistakes?

Why does Bush never?

[Warriorbird]

We sure caught Saddam. He was theoretically in a country with weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not using anything other than simple logic here, Dave. But then again you can never admit you are wrong, either.

Why would someone as low ranking as you have a single clue about the real agenda? About the real efforts? Riddle me that, oh expert of experts.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"since you know so much, what is it that we are doing to find him/not doing and you feel we should start? "

I suspect our Commander in Chief would know. It's only been four years. Maybe if we were really commited to flouting international law and "the Geneva Conspiracy didn't apply to this war" we'd do a little better. How many other international fugitives has the US caught this slowly? How many other international fugitives has the US caught this slowly who weren't be backed by the Soviet Union? The answer is not many. That I do know. But, hey, maybe our Commander and Chief could tell us. Alternately, maybe some of the lower in command people that I'm not supposed to blame could.
Seems I deleted the post. "thank you for proving my point."


that was a very long winded with a few attempts to place the blame "I dont know"
The general public (read that as YOU) dont need to know everything. There is a reason for that.

[Warriorbird]

Yet, there comes a time when things stretch out. There comes a time when people start to wonder. Four years is a very long time. How quick did we roll over Iraq on initial entry? Was it a couple of weeks?

Three days.

[Back]

Three days=2 Years in army time apparently. We sure didn’t capture Dorito King in 3 days of “Operation: Iraqi Freedom.” (I have to add here that the release of the guards personal interactions with Saddam this week is an ingenious ploy to divert attention from Gitmo and Abu. Poor Tucan Sam got the bullet on that one.)

Of course, according to certain sources, we levied an illegal and heavy burden on the Iraqi airforce well before that.

[Warriorbird]

I meant the initial entry. He responded with the number I was looking for.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
You'd have to also define what constitutes a "win" in the case of this war in Iraq. With no exit strategy in sight, all we can do is either support the war unquestioned or voice opposition. The White House doesn't want to set timetables so...

Since most experts say that the troops will be there for at least another year, I think it's premature to be talking about an exit strategy at this time.

Let's win the war first.. then talk about how we get out.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
We sure caught Saddam. He was theoretically in a country with weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not using anything other than simple logic here, Dave. But then again you can never admit you are wrong, either.

Why would someone as low ranking as you have a single clue about the real agenda? About the real efforts? Riddle me that, oh expert of experts.

Saddam was turned in by his own people. We got lucky with him.

Bin Laden is probably in either Iran or Pakistan.. which would make it extremely tough for us to go in and get him. I don't know why that is so difficult to comprehend.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Three days=2 Years in army time apparently. We sure didn’t capture Dorito King in 3 days of “Operation: Iraqi Freedom.” (I have to add here that the release of the guards personal interactions with Saddam this week is an ingenious ploy to divert attention from Gitmo and Abu. Poor Tucan Sam got the bullet on that one.)

Of course, according to certain sources, we levied an illegal and heavy burden on the Iraqi airforce well before that.

Diverting attention. You make me laugh.

George: "We need a diversion Dick. Something to get attention off Gitmo. What can we do?"

Dick: "We could launch some cruise missles into Sudan.. it worked last time for Bill"

George: "No, people would read right through that"

Dick: "I don't know, but the heat on my friends at Haliburton have finally subsided, let's not use them again"

George: "Any stuff from Saddam we can use?"

Dick: "I heard he likes Cheetos"

George: "Use that! God, they'll never see it coming!"

[Warriorbird]

"Bin Laden is probably in either Iran or Pakistan.. which would make it extremely tough for us to go in and get him."

Nonsense. We rolled over a country that supposedly had WMDs in three days. There's also been statements that he's not in Pakistan.

We've even got bases at this point for the effort.

[Warriorbird]

"Let's win the war first.. then talk about how we get out. "

Wasn't the war theoretically won when they had elections?

:snickers:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Of course, according to certain sources (http://www.airamericaradio.com/), we levied an illegal and heavy burden on the Iraqi airforce well before that.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Let's win the war first.. then talk about how we get out. "

Wasn't the war theoretically won when they had elections?

:snickers:

Seriously though.. do you believe we should just up and get out now? I don't get it.

I've never been in war or had anything to do with the reconstruction afterwards.. but from all the people I have heard in the news, it will take at LEAST another year of our full troops being there to get through this transition. And just because our plan isn't detailed out in the Washington Post, doesn't mean we don't have one.

I simply believe that it is too early to pull out of Iraq at this time and that our focus should be on it's new Government , training of it's police and armed forces and the protection of it's lawful citizens.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Bin Laden is probably in either Iran or Pakistan.. which would make it extremely tough for us to go in and get him."

Nonsense. We rolled over a country that supposedly had WMDs in three days. There's also been statements that he's not in Pakistan.

We've even got bases at this point for the effort.

My personal belief is that if we KNOW he is in Iran or Pakistan.. we simply send in the commandos and extract him and explain later. Unfortunately, there are many in this country that would contribute to the shitstorm that would follow such a mission.. so I'm sure they are trying to take the diplomatic route.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Three days=2 Years in army time apparently. We sure didn’t capture Dorito King in 3 days of “Operation: Iraqi Freedom.” (I have to add here that the release of the guards personal interactions with Saddam this week is an ingenious ploy to divert attention from Gitmo and Abu. Poor Tucan Sam got the bullet on that one.)

Of course, according to certain sources, we levied an illegal and heavy burden on the Iraqi airforce well before that.

Diverting attention. You make me laugh.

George: "We need a diversion Dick. Something to get attention off Gitmo. What can we do?"

Dick: "We could launch some cruise missles into Sudan.. it worked last time for Bill"

George: "No, people would read right through that"

Dick: "I don't know, but the heat on my friends at Haliburton have finally subsided, let's not use them again"

George: "Any stuff from Saddam we can use?"

Dick: "I heard he likes Cheetos"

George: "Use that! God, they'll never see it coming!"

:lol2:

Thanks for the laugh this morning PB.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
And just because our plan isn't detailed out in the Washington Post, doesn't mean we don't have one.


I don't see it on Fox News either. I'd like to see a plan.

I'm not talking about releasing sensitive military strategy, I'm talking about an outline of an exit strategy.

[Gan]

I say make up something completely off base to give to the media. So when they broadcast it to the world we'll mislead the remaining insurgents into acting prematurely on wrong information and we'll wrap them all up in one neat package and be done with the bombings and senseless deaths.

The last thing I would expect is for our actual strategy and timeline to be given out to everyone. Thats like telling your chess opponent what you're next move is going to be, before he takes his turn.

[Warriorbird]

"Seriously though.. do you believe we should just up and get out now? I don't get it.

I've never been in war or had anything to do with the reconstruction afterwards.. but from all the people I have heard in the news, it will take at LEAST another year of our full troops being there to get through this transition. And just because our plan isn't detailed out in the Washington Post, doesn't mean we don't have one.

I simply believe that it is too early to pull out of Iraq at this time and that our focus should be on it's new Government , training of it's police and armed forces and the protection of it's lawful citizens. "


I think the shooting war should've been over before elections were held. I think we should've capped Saddam when we had the chance and let them sort things out rather than devoting ourselves to a country that won't lead to any profit and will sell their ungrateful asses out to Iran as soon as they have a chance

I think the Project for a New American Century is deluded domination theology that's not actually paying off on a global level because there's the expectation in it that other people should love us. Fuck loving us, I'd just like proper revenge on our enemies.

I think if we're after a war on terror, we should've taken the war to terrorists rather than taken the war to our propped up dictator. I think religion is not a tool to decide policy with, and if someone believes that they have a divine right to be President that they have a few problems, intelligent or no.

I think that if the government we put in place isn't capable of handling problems, they sure won't be in a year. The rate that the insurgents are "getting on the board" suggests they have not a clue how to handle it or the ability to. The insurgents are having success shooting up the Iraqi government even when our brilliant military is there (and I'm not being sarcastic, we have an awesome military)... how is a year going to make a difference when our military won't be there?

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

Hey Mr terrorist, just wait for two years and we will be out of your country Kthanx Bye!

Fucking morons wanting to know an exit strategy.

WE ARE NOT EXITING IRAQ IN THE NEXT DECADE GET IT THOUGH YOUR FUCKING HEADS. WE ARE THERE FOR A LONG TIME!!!!

PB its going to be a lot longer than a year im afraid.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Dave
Hey Mr terrorist, just wait for two years and we will be out of your country Kthanx Bye!

Fucking morons wanting to know an exit strategy.

WE ARE NOT EXITING IRAQ IN THE NEXT DECADE GET IT THOUGH YOUR FUCKING HEADS. WE ARE THERE FOR A LONG TIME!!!!

PB its going to be a lot longer than a year im afraid.

I agree with you that we shouldn't detail out a timetable for our withdrawal. Seems stupid to tell the enemy exactly what we are doing.

And I don't believe we will have 150,000 troops in Iraq for the next decade. I think we will always have a presence in Iraq, but nothing like it is now. I really do believe that we should be able to stabilize the nation, train it's citizens and start making some sizable troop withdrawals in a year.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
You'd have to also define what constitutes a "win" in the case of this war in Iraq. With no exit strategy in sight, all we can do is either support the war unquestioned or voice opposition. The White House doesn't want to set timetables so...

Since most experts say that the troops will be there for at least another year, I think it's premature to be talking about an exit strategy at this time.

Let's win the war first.. then talk about how we get out. Like I said... define win. What exactly is winning the war in Iraq? And since we haven't won yet, and have spent close to 200 billion dollars already, do you think this is a lost cause? I mean, we got Saddam, still haven't gotten Bin Laden but Democracy is being established. Aren't we already winning...

Dave, I'll give you this. At least you can admit that we will be there for more than a year or two. It will be a while. We know this. The government hasn't always admitted that that would be the case though. Understand that.

June 16th...




Today, a small, bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by a Republican who supported the war, plans to introduce a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq beginning in October 2006.
We aren't the only ones who feel this is an appropriate topic. How many of our dollars must continue supporting a war that you claim hasn't even been won, since you feel this is not the right time to talk exit strategy.

[CrystalTears]

We're winning the war, IMO, however I don't think ALL troops will be exiting next year. There will be lingering troops there for quite a while still, but not with the amount we have right now as it won't be as necessary.

Pulling out entirely is bad, mmkay? (no pun intended.. really :P)

[Gan]

roffle,

CT made a coitus interruptus joke! :lol2:

[Skirmisher]

I'm not pressing for a withdrawl by a certain date at this time as I agree with what Dev said about the need to define exactly what our goals are.

As it is, we are just stumbling around in a darkened room.

How can we win the war when we don't know what winning means. We defeated the Iraqi army, so sure, that was a 'win'. The Taliban has been broken up from it's position of power in Afghanistan, so that was a 'win' as well.

The problem is that we are losing more people per day and spending far more as well than we were before these 'wins' were achieved.

A decision must be made and stated clearly outlining what our goals will be or else we are condemming ourselves to an ongoing fight with no foreseable end.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I'm not pressing for a withdrawl by a certain date at this time as I agree with what Dev said about the need to define exactly what our goals are.


Didn't you read?


Originally posted by Dave
Fucking morons wanting to know an exit strategy.


-Fucking Moron

[Skirmisher]

:moon:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
roffle,

CT made a coitus interruptus joke! :lol2: Everytime you use roffle I can't but think of its alternate meaning. And that makes me :lol:

CT, I don't think having an actual exit strategy-plan means pulling out completely. That's far too general. Also, having an exit strategy doesn't necessarily mean that the "enemies" will know our every step. I mean, seriously, we televised the beginning stages of the invasion for all to see and that was stategized and made known to the American people. I fail to see such a huge difference between that and now.

[CrystalTears]

Okay my pulling out comment WAS a pun. :D When I've heard people mentioning they want an exit strategy, they basically mean that they want to know when all the troops will leave and return home. I agree that it's not realistic and far too general.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Okay my pulling out comment WAS a pun. :D A very good one at that. :yes: (I try hard to restrain my dirty mind, I do.)

[Hulkein]

I think the exit strategy is pretty clear.

While Bush is in office, we'll leave Iraq when [if] the central Iraqi government can take care of itself.

If that doesn't happen under Bush's second term, then the new president will decide to continue with that idea or do something else.

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Hulkein]

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Seriously though.. do you believe we should just up and get out now? I don't get it.



No.

Having easy to get to targets in the middle east is better than targets in the US

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think the exit strategy is pretty clear.
It is? They can't even accurately agree on just how many Iraqi's have been trained. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds haven't even overcome their own differences so as to create a kind of political autonomy let alone a social one. The plan needs to encompass more than just the training of the Iraqi police. But they don't have a plan to begin with so what's the point of debating it right?

It seems that with the way things are going as far as the Iraqi training program, they are becoming more dependant on an American military presence than originally thought. Pure speculation but my thoughts anyway.

You know nothing DEV, so please dont speculate.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Dave
You know nothing DEV, so please dont speculate.

Then please, answer DEV's questions with facts.

How many Iraqis have been trained? Have you seen proof of an exit strategy?

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Wezas]

[CrystalTears]

Don't you have to actually be in somewhere to know the exit? :D

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
You know nothing DEV, so please dont speculate. That was the best response you could come up with? Sad.

Answer my questions since you seem to know more than I do. Prove me wrong and then maybe I'll stop speculating since that's all everyone can do considering...

Example.

It seems that with the way things are going as far as the Iraqi training program, they are becoming more dependant on an American military presence than originally thought. """"Pure speculation"""" but my thoughts anyway.

The IDC conducts its own raids with only QRF support from Americans in many places across iraq.

That means, IDC goes in, and only if a shitstorm comes down do American forces get involved.

Just like any military force, the more you train the better you get. The more experience the IDF gets the better they are.

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Dave
You know nothing DEV, so please dont speculate.

Then please, answer DEV's questions with facts.

How many Iraqis have been trained? Have you seen proof of an exit strategy?

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Wezas]


Originally posted by Dave
Hey Mr terrorist, just wait for two years and we will be out of your country Kthanx Bye!

Fucking morons wanting to know an exit strategy.

WE ARE NOT EXITING IRAQ IN THE NEXT DECADE GET IT THOUGH YOUR FUCKING HEADS. WE ARE THERE FOR A LONG TIME!!!!



[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Dave]

[DeV]

Your comprehension is amazing to say the least. The military presence comment was geared towards the entire country of Iraq and not just the trainees relying on them for freedom and security.

"The plan needs to encompass more than just the training of the Iraqi police."

What about that statement don't you agree with or understand?

[CrystalTears]

Reposting that still doesn't answer any questions that were asked.

Well, one im not talking about police. IDC != police.
Two, a strong military force creates order in the country.
Three, Iraq doing its on anti-terrorism operations and succeeding will being to instill order in the area.
Four. Once order is restored, Americans will not be needed there in large numbers.

"It seems that with the way things are going as far as the Iraqi training program, they are becoming more dependant on an American military presence than originally thought"

What else could you have meant by the Iraqi training program than what I responded to?

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Reposting that still doesn't answer any questions that were asked.

When one creates a exit strategy it more often is because they plan to leave. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

The only exit strategy that matters...

This is from short of a year ago now
posted on 10-11-2004 at 09:28 Post ID: 253253

I just have to put my two cents in.


For people to look at the war in Iraq as a catastrophic failure in my view it is completely wrong. We have lost many service men over there though not anywhere near as many as we could have. We were able to liberate millions of people from oppression (yes I know to some of you that is not good enough. What about the other countries? I know that is a question you will ask, but for a moment leave that out of the equation and just look at Iraq alone.) We are currently in the process of an exit plan, though many of you believe there not to be one. At my time in basic we had quite a few reserve drill sergeants going though the company, all of which were being called to active duty, some 3,800 Army wide are being called back to head over to Iraq to train the Iraqi forces so they will be better able to defend themselves against problems foreign and domestic. We now have made a stepping stone for other such revolutions in the area so that the oppressive regimes surrounding Iraq may one day see the same freedoms that the Iraqi people eventually will. The change of a government is a very difficult thing, especially when you have religious fanatics such as those that practice Whabism<sp?> and people so ingrained with hate against the liberating power from the day they were born against the formation of that new government. I hope though that slowly things will calm down and those people will finally realize that we are trying to help them instead of harm them, but they need to understand that we are there for our own well being first and foremost. The USA comes first. Our government is in place to protect us, not the other people of the world. If in our actions to keep us safe there are side affects that help other countries that is a good thing, and that in my view is what is going on over in Iraq now. "


Now read that again and tell me if you see it


[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Dave]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think the exit strategy is pretty clear.
It is? They can't even accurately agree on just how many Iraqi's have been trained. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds haven't even overcome their own differences so as to create a kind of political autonomy let alone a social one. The plan needs to encompass more than just the training of the Iraqi police. But they don't have a plan to begin with so what's the point of debating it right?

It seems that with the way things are going as far as the Iraqi training program, they are becoming more dependant on an American military presence than originally thought. Pure speculation but my thoughts anyway.

That really doesn't change the fact that their plan is to leave when the Iraqi government can take care of itself.....

wow, just reading that and my predictions in it specifically

We now have made a stepping stone for other such revolutions in the area so that the oppressive regimes surrounding Iraq may one day see the same freedoms that the Iraqi people eventually will

Could I have been anymore right :)

[CrystalTears]

My reading comprehension is ducky, Dave.

Tell me how stating that the troops will be there for another 10 years (which I personally doubt), that people are morons for wanting to know what type of exit strategy is in place, and what type of training has been going on over there answers the questions?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
Well, one im not talking about police. IDC != police.
Two, a strong military force creates order in the country.
Three, Iraq doing its on anti-terrorism operations and succeeding will being to instill order in the area.
Four. Once order is restored, Americans will not be needed there in large numbers.What. the. fuck. Nevermind that I asked. You didn't answer a single question I posed and you ended up doing the same thing I admittedly did in my initial posting, speculating. Congrats.


"It seems that with the way things are going as far as the Iraqi training program, they are becoming more dependant on an American military presence than originally thought"

What else could you have meant by the Iraqi training program than what I responded to? Context... which I take partial fault with. They meaning Iraqi citizens, in addition to the Iraq training force. This is why I said program and not trainees specifically.

My bad on that one, however, your response is still insufficient considering you haven't proven that my speculations are off base.

We will have a presence in Iraq much like we do in Korea (my speculations) and no, they wont be in the same numbers as they are now, but we will be there.

As to training, Join the military and you can find out.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
We will have a presence in Iraq much like we do in Korea (my speculations) and no, they wont be in the same numbers as they are now, but we will be there.
I didn't ask for your speculation, I asked for your facts. Since you could produce none, try to refrain from telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when you seem to know even less than I.



As to training, Join the military and you can find out. No thanks. Actually, I knew you couldn't answer that question. Condi Rice doesn't even know the absolute figures. And I shouldn't have to join the military to find out how my tax dollars are at work. Too bad that you don't understand that is one of the basic principles of being an informed citizen.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Dave
As to training, Join the military and you can find out.

I R ARMY. I R BETTER THEN U. U R NOT KNOW PAIN. U JOIN ARMY. I R SAY "JOIN" WHEN NOT KNOW ANSWER.

[CrystalTears]

I swear, Wezas, you make me laugh like that again while I'm at work, I'm kicking your ass. Somehow.

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Dave
As to training, Join the military and you can find out.

I R ARMY. I R BETTER THEN U. U R NOT KNOW PAIN. U JOIN ARMY. I R SAY "JOIN" WHEN NOT KNOW ANSWER.

The training is very similar to that of the U.S. Army.

Hence joining the army would answer your question.

Originally posted by DeV

As to training, Join the military and you can find out. No thanks. Actually, I knew you couldn't answer that question. Condi Rice doesn't even know the absolute figures. And I shouldn't have to join the military to find out how my tax dollars are at work. Too bad that you don't understand that is one of the basic principles of being an informed citizen. [/quote]

That was not in response to you.
Look at backlashes post preceding mine.

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Dave]

[Warriorbird]

We always need to maintain perspective.


http://movies.crooksandliars.com/dailyshow_porter_goss_binladien_organic_garden_050 620-01.wmv

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/dailyshow_porter_goss_binladien_organic_garden_050 620-01.ram

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/dailyshow_tourists_hate_america_050620-01.wmv

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/dailyshow_tourists_hate_america_050620-01.ram

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Dave
That was not in response to you.
Look at backlashes post preceding mine.


Which post? The one he made on page 8? :?:

[DeV]

I didn't even want to bother with it CT. lol

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Three days=2 Years in army time apparently. We sure didn’t capture Dorito King in 3 days of “Operation: Iraqi Freedom.” (I have to add here that the release of the guards personal interactions with Saddam this week is an ingenious ploy to divert attention from Gitmo and Abu. Poor Tucan Sam got the bullet on that one.)

Of course, according to certain sources, we levied an illegal and heavy burden on the Iraqi airforce well before that.

Diverting attention. You make me laugh.

George: "We need a diversion Dick. Something to get attention off Gitmo. What can we do?"

Dick: "We could launch some cruise missles into Sudan.. it worked last time for Bill"

George: "No, people would read right through that"

Dick: "I don't know, but the heat on my friends at Haliburton have finally subsided, let's not use them again"

George: "Any stuff from Saddam we can use?"

Dick: "I heard he likes Cheetos"

George: "Use that! God, they'll never see it coming!"

Thats just good PR, PB. Think about that for a second. All this shitstorm about abuse [torture], photos of Saddam in his undershorts...

The guys who were guarding him were doing the utmost secret thing, in the utmost secret location. You think GQ infiltrated that information on their own? Fuck no. That was handed to GQ by the DOD. Those guards couldn’t even tell their own mothers what they were doing.

So now we see that the guy we went in there to get is being treated humanely. We even get cute little anecdotes about his grooming and eating habits. Theres no torture going on in American terrorist lock-ups.

A bit more on this since we are waaaaay off-topic anyway. Did you know that the US wants to actually delay Saddam’s trial? WTF? I thought he was the baddest man around?

Originally posted by Wezas


How many Iraqis have been trained?

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Wezas]
To answer this question.
92,883 ministry of interior forces.
75,791 ministry of defence forces.
for a grand total of "168,674"

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dave]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Wezas


How many Iraqis have been trained?

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Wezas]
To answer this question.
92,883 ministry of interior forces.
75,791 ministry of defence forces.
for a grand total of "168,674"

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dave]

Mind throwing out a source?

Oh, and is that the number of "forces" who went through a 2-week course or actual trained troops?

BTW, thx for the U2U pointing towards this thread now that you have an answer.

you're welcome, the source is the State Department "iraq weekly status report" dated 22June2005

As to the amount of time the forces have spent in training, it is unkown to me at this point in time.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

Thats encouraging. I don’t see whats so wrong with telling the American people where we stand and how we are going to resolve this. Transparency is a new buzzword that people talk about but don’t really do.

This does not change my feelings about how we got into it though.

[Back]

An op-ed (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-smith23jun23,0,1838831.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) piece by Michael Smith, the reporter to whom the Downing Street Memos were leaked too.


At the time, I was defense correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and a staunch supporter of the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The source was a friend. He'd given me a few stories before but nothing nearly as interesting as this.

The six leaked documents I took away with me that night were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush.

When does he sign the book deal?

[Back]

After a successful impeachment.

Oh, Dave sent along a good suggestion for those wishing to follow along with the progress being made in Iraq. Export.gov/iraq (http://www.export.gov/iraq/index.html) where you can find the “Iraq Weekly Status Reports” put out by the U.S. State Department.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Backlash]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
After a successful impeachment.
[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Backlash]

Shame he'll never publish then.