White House Memo leaked

[xtc]

A new memo which was leaked says Bush and Blair were determined to go to war in Iraq with or without a UN resolution. It also shows that they knew they might not find Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush even wanted to paint a US military U2 reconnaissance aircraft in UN colours and fly it over Iraq to goad Saddam into firing on it and breaching UN resolutions by firing on a "UN" plane.

Now who was it who was talking about what a moral man Bush was? I guess that old coke head still is a lying bag of shit. What do you get if you sober up a horse thief? A sober horse thief.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10807

[Stanley Burrell]

Bush even wanted to paint a US military U2 reconnaissance aircraft in UN colours and fly it over Iraq to goad Saddam into firing on it and breaching UN resolutions by firing on a "UN" plane.

That would be rather pimp :wasntme:

Also, today's politics, especially those varieties monikered ever-so-creatively a la Al Gorian internet, give me a serious case of teh cerebrumz aneurismz.

[Back]

This is in addition to the Downing Street memo. Bush lied to the American people about trying to seek diplomatic routes, that he didn't want to go to war, that there were WMDs, and that Iraq was involved with 9/11 somehow.

It is so glaringly obvious we've all been manipulated by the oil barrens and there really isn't much we can do about it because of fixed elections.

[Hulkein]

Please shut the fuck up with the fixed elections.

People like you, Backlash, hurt the own cause you're fighting for.

[Drew]

President Bush was commited to disarming Saddam BEFORE the actual resolution passed Congress? WOW I'M SO SHOCKED AND APPALLED.

[xtc]

President Bush was commited to disarming Saddam BEFORE the actual resolution passed Congress? WOW I'M SO SHOCKED AND APPALLED.

He didn't think he had arms and he was prepared to make a fake UN plane. How is that honourable?

[Apathy]

Wait a minute... a president is representing self interest in office?!? Who would ever think such a thing?

/sarcasm.

[Back]

Please shut the fuck up with the fixed elections.

People like you, Backlash, hurt the own cause you're fighting for.

People like me like to tell the truth. Why do people like you get so upset over it?

[xtc]

I followed the 2000 election closely, and as much as I dislike Bush I don't believe it was a fixed election.

[Back]

2000 was the second time in American history that the electorial college went against public opinion.

I didn't ever think it was right way back when it happened the first time, and I do not think it was right in 2000.

As for 2004, that is more debatable. From where I sit, its very debatable.

[Hulkein]

People like me like to tell the truth. Why do people like you get so upset over it?

Conspiracy theories aren't truth...

Again, you do more harm to your own cause than good, congrats!

[Latrinsorm]

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

Yeah, he clearly didn't think Saddam had weapons!!!

Also:

President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

Anyone who can't say what "internecine" means without looking it up can't call President Bush dumb anymore.

Backlash is right, this is very much like the Downing Street Memo in that it says (really) nothing much at all. The only shady thing is the UN colors bit.

[Parkbandit]

People like me like to tell the truth. Why do people like you get so upset over it?


HHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAA AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAA AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA.

Sorry..that could just be the funniest thing I heard all day... as well as being the biggest steaming pile of bullshit.

At the same time.

[Parkbandit]

2000 was the second time in American history that the electorial college went against public opinion.

I didn't ever think it was right way back when it happened the first time, and I do not think it was right in 2000.

As for 2004, that is more debatable. From where I sit, its very debatable.

Thinking it wasn't right and it being fixed are two totally different things.

Thinking it wasn't right is an opinion that is simply not based upon the facts and laws that govern the US. Being fixed is not an opinion.. it's an accusation... again, not based upon the facts and laws that govern the US.

Thinking it wasn't right is fine. It's an opinion.

Claiming it was fixed is retarded at best since it's an accusation.

[Skirmisher]

Claiming it was fixed is retarded at best since it's an accusation.

I may or may not think the election was fixed, but must point out that simply because an accusation has not been proven correct at some point does not automatically make it retarded.

Each accusation must stand on it's own and even if your personal opinion is that this accusation in question is laughable that still is only as potent as his own opinion that it is not.

[Parkbandit]

I may or may not think the election was fixed, but must point out that simply because an accusation has not been proven correct at some point does not automatically make it retarded.

Each accusation must stand on it's own and even if your personal opinion is that this accusation in question is laughable that still is only as potent as his own opinion that it is not.

I know you still want me bad Skirmy... and yes, I miss you too. :)

[Sean of the Thread]

I may or may not think the election was fixed, but must point out that simply because an accusation has not been proven correct at some point does not automatically make it retarded.

Each accusation must stand on it's own and even if your personal opinion is that this accusation in question is laughable that still is only as potent as his own opinion that it is not.

It simply takes common sense to to make that accusation RETARDED.

Blacklash has no street cred because he is that dude with a backhoe diggin up leprechauns gold.

[Back]

Back to the fix. If the idea was such a fantasy, I doubt people would get so upset over it.

But the truth is, our American President lied to us. You can scream conspiracy all you want, the facts remain.

[Fission]

Back to the fix. If the idea was such a fantasy, I doubt people would get so upset over it.

A lot of people are so anti-Bush or anti-Republican they'll happily latch onto anything that supports their belief, no matter how far-fetched, and get themselves upset just as easily over it.

Of course, you can say this for pretty much any president, party, religion, what have you.

What boggles me is with so many concrete examples of misdoings available, people still latch onto the conspiracy theories like the fixed elections. Tacking assumptions and speculations onto a valid argument only weakens the whole thing overall.

[Apathy]

If this is true why isn't it all over the news?

[DeV]

Most Americans already believe what they want regarding the war and nothing new, let alone a memo out of the UK will change their mind about the morality and justifications of going to war. I believe this story first came out last year so it's not new, but it has been gaining headway in recent months.

[Skirmisher]

I know you still want me bad Skirmy... and yes, I miss you too. :)
Pish, of course you missed me.

[Ebondale]

I followed the 2000 election closely, and as much as I dislike Bush I don't believe it was a fixed election.

Course it wasn't. Jeb Bush had nothing at all to do with the questionable way that voting turned out in Florida.

[TheRoseLady]

If this is true why isn't it all over the news?

I take it you believe that the media is impartial and that they are still in the business of reporting the news as it happens. You only need to ask yourself why did the NYTimes sit on the surveillance of US citizens story for over a year and why did Bush call the editor and other top ranking people in the NY Times organization to the White House to prevent the story from running.

People live in denial. Honestly it's a much simpler way to go about your life, you don't have to think about things that are hard to change, or that you have very little control over.

Generally, how many lies and omissions of the truth will there have to be before it is considered serious enough?

[Warriorbird]

"If this is true why isn't it all over the news?"

Because clearly something has to be all over the news to be true.

[Hulkein]

I take it you believe that the media is impartial and that they are still in the business of reporting the news as it happens. You only need to ask yourself why did the NYTimes sit on the surveillance of US citizens story for over a year and why did Bush call the editor and other top ranking people in the NY Times organization to the White House to prevent the story from running.

Being in a class that discussed that at length, I can tell you that has to do a lot less with the NYT's being in the administration's pocket, and more to do with the fact that every news station does this (and has for a long time) when the story may affect national security.

Editor's often speak with the people whom they have news about and tell them, "Hey, we're running this, care to comment or come clean?" etc. If it's a national security issue, then a lot of times it will be delayed.

[Landrion]

Perhaps the media is a litle gun-shy with this story/document after the fake one that they embraced hook line and sinker a while back.

That was my initial impression. Lets see how legit this doc turns out before I give it any credibility.

[xtc]

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

Yeah, he clearly didn't think Saddam had weapons!!!

"The memo also indicated that Bush and Blair acknowledged that it was possible that no unconventional weapons could be found in Iraq before the invasion, The Times said."

Also:


President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

Anyone who can't say what "internecine" means without looking it up can't call President Bush dumb anymore.

The ability to use three dollar words doesn't make someone smart. The fact he made that statement shows how dumb he is.


Backlash is right, this is very much like the Downing Street Memo in that it says (really) nothing much at all. The only shady thing is the UN colors bit.

I think discussing/planning to paint a US Army plane in UN colours and fly it over Iraq to try to goad Saddam into firing on it, is quite damning. This second memo only confirms the first and provides further evidence that these two were prepared to engage in whatever deception was necessary to invade Iraq.

[xtc]

Course it wasn't. Jeb Bush had nothing at all to do with the questionable way that voting turned out in Florida.

I didn't see anything substantiated and despite Gore's claims all the ballots were counted. You can't devine voter intent.

The Election Supervisor in the disputed counties were both Democrats who approved the butterfly ballot.

The residents of those counties were mailed out booklets on how to use the butterfly ballot weeks before the election. The booklets had a 1-800 number on it for people who had questions. At the voting stations election staff were on hand to answer questions about the ballot.

The Miami Dade Herald spent 6 months counting all the ballots in the disputed counties and they concluded Bush win.

[ElanthianSiren]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/


(CNN) -- A state court judge in Florida ordered Thursday that the board of elections immediately release a list of nearly 50,000 suspected felons to CNN and other news organizations that last month sued the state for access to copies of the list.

The list is used to determine who will be eligible to vote in November's presidential election in the state.

In a statement issued shortly after the ruling was announced, Secretary of State Glenda Hood accepted the ruling as final.

"Now that the court has ruled that statute to be unconstitutional, we will make these records accessible to all interested parties," she said.

Florida bars people convicted of felonies in that state from voting.

In 2000, a similar list was the center of controversy when state officials acknowledged after the election that it contained thousands of names in error, thus barring eligible people from voting.

Many of the barred voters were African-Americans, who traditionally tend to vote Democratic.

Bush won the state by a 537-vote margin and, with it, the presidency.

The lawsuit, filed by CNN and joined by other news organizations, challenged a 2001 statute passed by the Republican-controlled legislature that limited the public's access to the list.

News organizations were allowed to inspect the list, but not make copies of it or take notes from it. (CNN asks Florida court for ineligible voters list)

"The right to inspect without the right to copy is an empty right indeed," said Leon County Circuit Judge Nikki Clark, in her six-page order.

"Whether the public chooses to inspect or copy [the list] is not the choice of the governmental agency which has custody of the record. It is the choice of the person who has requested access."

The judge went on to declare the statute unconstitutional because it failed to comply with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing public access to the state's public records.

The state has a right to an automatic 48-hour stay, if its lawyers appeal.

They would have to show cause why the information should continue to be withheld, said Tampa attorney Gregg D. Thomas of the law firm Holland & Knight, which is representing the news organizations.

"I think the long-term impact is that the citizens of Florida will have access to the interactions of their government to make sure that the government, particularly with regard to the right to vote, is conducting itself appropriately."

The list contains the names of 47,763 suspected felons.

The voter-exclusion list was compiled from state clemency reports, lists of felons and other databases, Thomas said.

The ACLU applauded the decision.

"This is good news for voters because now these records will be open and available for public inspection to help protect the right of every eligible voter in Florida," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which also joined the case. "Our interest in this case is to analyze the information on the list to prevent eligible voters from being wrongfully purged from the rolls."

Miami lawyer Joseph Klock Jr., representing the state, did not return a call Thursday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
560 some odd votes vs. 50,000 names barred in error (95% inaccurate), primarily african american and/or democrat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm


Katherine Harris then went on to http://harris.house.gov/


-M

[xtc]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/

-M

Sorry to cut your article short but it is rather lengthy. Convicted felons can't vote in Florida and some other states. This article just says that News organizations want and have been granted access to the list.

[Latrinsorm]

no unconventional weapons could be found.It's impossible to find an electron. Me saying that doesn't imply that I don't believe electrons exist.
I think discussing/planning to paint a US Army plane in UN colours and fly it over Iraq to try to goad Saddam into firing on it, is quite damning.Is it ok to lie to a bad guy? No. Did Bush lie to the bad guy? No.

[xtc]

It's impossible to find an electron. Me saying that doesn't imply that I don't believe electrons exist.

lol here come your b.s examples that have no relevancy.


Is it ok to lie to a bad guy? No. Did Bush lie to the bad guy? No.

He only became a "bad guy" when he stopped doing our bidding, before that Rumsfield and co. thought he was fab-u-lous.

A lie, painting a US plane to look like a UN plane and flying it over Iraq in the hopes of starting a war is evil. Certainly as a Christian you can appreciate this? It is much greater than a simple lie. It is a horrific deception and one that would be perpetrated on the Iraqi people, the United Nations, the citizens of America and the American soldiers who have died in the war.

Compound this memo with the Downing Street Memo, and the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq the day after 9-11, even after being told that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, shows a man obsessed with invading Iraq and willing to manufacture whatever he needed to justify it.

[Warriorbird]

Things are only wrong when he says they're wrong, xtc.

[ElanthianSiren]

I know that convicted felons can't vote. You have to scroll down to the second article to find that people with the last names as convicted felons were barred from voting and that the felons list was 95% inaccurate, meaning that about 50,000 eligable people were barred from voting.

That's where the debate comes in. Nobody can say how they would have voted, but it would still have been nice if they'd been able to exercise their constitutional right to vote; since those lists were private up until the article that I posted, even the registered voters weren't aware if they were barred from voting.

-M

edit to add: The second article that I linked to, which I didn't post because it was nearly as long as the first, is an interview with state officials who admit that the non-voter list was 95% inaccurate. Perhaps I simply should have linked to both with a synopsis of what they stated.

[Latrinsorm]

It is much greater than a simple lie.You (vastly) underestimate my contempt for lies.
lol here come your b.s examples that have no relevancy.Is "no relevancy" a Canadian term for "proven me wrong, therefore I'll pretend they're ridiculous"?

Here's how the form of your argument goes:
A person says that X exists.
The person then says that he or she might not be able to find X.
You conclude that the person doesn't, in fact, believe that X exists.

President Bush and PM Blair said Iraq had WMD.
President Bush and PM Blair then "acknowledged that it was possible that no unconventional weapons could be found in Iraq before the invasion"
You conclude that President Bush and PM Blair didn't, in fact, believe that Iraq had WMD.

I say that electrons exist.
Electrons move really fast, so I'm not confident I can find one.
You conclude that I don't, in fact, believe in electrons.

I can't guarantee you that PM Blair did, in fact, believe that Iraq had WMD. I can unequivocably tell you that the argument you are using to claim that he didn't is invalid, because I do (in fact) believe in electrons.

[xtc]

You (vastly) underestimate my contempt for lies.

Perhaps I do but "lie to bad guy" sounds like rationalization to me.


Is "no relevancy" a Canadian term for "proven me wrong, therefore I'll pretend they're ridiculous"?

Here's how the form of your argument goes:
A person says that X exists.
The person then says that he or she might not be able to find X.
You conclude that the person doesn't, in fact, believe that X exists.

Not quite.

A Man with tremendous power says X exist and it could cause us all to die and threatens the stability of our nation. Man sends his number One guy to the world leaders to convince them X exists and that the world needs to immediately start a war and invade another nation risking 1000's of lives because X exists and is a clear and present danger.
Then Man says privately they may not find X
Compound this with Man's desire for invading this nation even when being told by his top advisers on 9-12 that he had no reason to invade and man's scheme to fake a UN plane, I question man's motives and ask myself whether or nor he ever believed X existed


I say that electrons exist.
Electrons move really fast, so I'm not confident I can find one.
You conclude that I don't, in fact, believe in electrons.

Bad example, weapons of mass destruction move much slower on the back of a truck then electrons.


I can't guarantee you that PM Blair did, in fact, believe that Iraq had WMD. I can unequivocably tell you that the argument you are using to claim that he didn't is invalid, because I do (in fact) believe in electrons.

You have seen proof electrons exist and I am guessing you have seen an electron. We have no proof and no WMD.

I am saying I question if they actually believed WMD existed. Bush seems to have been gung ho to invade Iraq after 9-11 even after he was told Al Qaeda wasn't there. Then he came up with all this "evidence" that has proven to be false. He was willing to construct a fake UN plane, it is like tampering in a criminal case. When he couldn't convince the world, he went in anyway. The army's first action wasn't to hunt for WMD, it was to secure the oil wells and the shipping ports.

[Warriorbird]

Lies to bad people don't count, xtc. Just like killing bad people. Because Jesus said, "Kill your enemies.", y'know?

[xtc]

Lies to bad people don't count, xtc. Just like killing bad people. Because Jesus said, "Kill your enemies.", y'know?

I think that was Genghis Khan......or Dick Cheney.

[DeV]

Lies to bad people don't count, xtc. Just like killing bad people. Because Jesus said, "Kill your enemies.", y'know? So fitting it's almost painful to read.

[Apathy]

"If this is true why isn't it all over the news?"

Because clearly something has to be all over the news to be true.

You missed my point entirely. True not in context of a fact i.e. a real occurance, but rather in the context of not fiction. Make more sense?

I don't understand why if this is non-fiction (see: TheOnion) why it is not more widespread.


I take it you believe that the media is impartial and that they are still in the business of reporting the news as it happens. You only need to ask yourself why did the NYTimes sit on the surveillance of US citizens story for over a year and why did Bush call the editor and other top ranking people in the NY Times organization to the White House to prevent the story from running.

People live in denial. Honestly it's a much simpler way to go about your life, you don't have to think about things that are hard to change, or that you have very little control over.

Generally, how many lies and omissions of the truth will there have to be before it is considered serious enough?


Do yourself a favor and don't assume what another person thinks.

[Sean of the Thread]

Do yourself a favor and don't assume what another person thinks.

That dumb bitch TRL does it all the time. Your best option is to put the whore on ignore.

[TheRoseLady]

Do yourself a favor and don't assume what another person thinks.

:lol: I can't stop laughing at the hilarity of your statement. You make a broad one liner in a political topic and you expect that no one would make any assumptions?

Here's a tip. Try IMing yourself the next time, you'll find that exchange to much more fulfilling. No one will assume anything and you won't be expected to engage in any discourse.

[Apathy]

Brevity : The quality or state of being brief in duration.


:lol: I can't stop laughing at the hilarity of your statement. You make a broad one liner in a political topic and you expect that no one would make any assumptions?

Here's a tip. Try IMing yourself the next time, you'll find that exchange to much more fulfilling. No one will assume anything and you won't be expected to engage in any discourse.

Haughty : Scornfully and condescendingly proud.

[Sean of the Thread]

:lol: I can't stop laughing at the hilarity of your statement. You make a broad one liner in a political topic and you expect that no one would make any assumptions?

Here's a tip. Try IMing yourself the next time, you'll find that exchange to much more fulfilling. No one will assume anything and you won't be expected to engage in any discourse.

Here's a tip. Shut your fat face in poltical threads before you reach backlash status. Besides don't you have some big macs to chomp on or can you post stupid shit in political threads at the same time you have your face in the trough?

[Skirmisher]

Lets try to keep the comments about the issues people.

Thanks!

[Warriorbird]

Xyelin, of course, who always avoids fat women and is very skinny himself.

[TheRoseLady]

Xyelin, of course, who always avoids fat women and is very skinny himself.

I have that drunk on ignore. Anyone who can't even take care of his kids, pay his child support and attempt to stay sober enough to make himself a good role model gets very little of my attention. I don't feel too badly, he makes it his job to be as disruptive as possible around here. I almost have to pity someone who is that miserable.

[xtc]

I know that convicted felons can't vote. You have to scroll down to the second article to find that people with the last names as convicted felons were barred from voting and that the felons list was 95% inaccurate, meaning that about 50,000 eligable people were barred from voting.

That's where the debate comes in. Nobody can say how they would have voted, but it would still have been nice if they'd been able to exercise their constitutional right to vote; since those lists were private up until the article that I posted, even the registered voters weren't aware if they were barred from voting.

-M

edit to add: The second article that I linked to, which I didn't post because it was nearly as long as the first, is an interview with state officials who admit that the non-voter list was 95% inaccurate. Perhaps I simply should have linked to both with a synopsis of what they stated.

I read both articles and officials never said the list was 95% wrong. It was an accusation made and it was unproven. Every voter list has errors, had this list been wrong by 95%, we never would have heard the end of it. In Florida felons can't vote and the votes were counted and in some counties recounted and recounted.

I have worked on a few campaigns in the US and in Canada, no list is perfect Liberals up here and Democrats in the US are reknown for doctoring the list with ineligible voters and dead people.

Bush won, we may not be happy about it but is fact.

[Sean of the Thread]

The felon list was 175,000 with 57,000 of those being wrong..(and in the process of being removed up to election day) and in the end even fewer.

Where do you get your 95% crazy numbers?

[Tsa`ah]

33% error rate is horrid in any situation and unacceptable THE DAY of the election.

How many voters would return considering the wait, work and everything else after they had already been turned away?

It's great that the corrections were made, but the "desired" effect was already attained. You can claim the 2001 election in Florida wasn't fixed ... but you have no real basis to found that opinion on.

Mistakes on that scale don't just happen and escape detection until it's too late.

[Sean of the Thread]

Later when I have time to go thru the 2000 election files to get caught up again I'll post the actual numbers. Most of the people were not removed because they had not updated their registrations with address/telephone changes and did not respond to attempts to verify their identity. When you have 10 james brown with the same birth date and the shitty felony records from alabama were lacking correct information the problem compounds.

You guys need to pick a conspiracy theory and stick to it.

Mistakes of that scale DO happen as seen in the media raped FL in 2000.. it actually happens everywhere but the only place the media could hold water in 2000 was in Florida. Much like they tried to hold water in Ohio.



It is a mistake until proven otherwise.

[ElanthianSiren]

There is no conspiracy, Xyelin. An immense number of valid voters were prohibited from doing so. That's fact. As far as I'm aware, government's fix to this problem was provisional balloting.

A conspiracy would be to say, "Gore would have won if Bush hadn't fixed the election!!!!!!!"

As I stated initially -- we can't know how those people would have voted. They may have all voted for Bush or Buchanan (I heard he was popular in your state that year). It's simply sad that said persons were denied the constitutional right to vote.

-M

[xtc]

33% error rate is horrid in any situation and unacceptable THE DAY of the election.

How many voters would return considering the wait, work and everything else after they had already been turned away?

It's great that the corrections were made, but the "desired" effect was already attained. You can claim the 2001 election in Florida wasn't fixed ... but you have no real basis to found that opinion on.

Mistakes on that scale don't just happen and escape detection until it's too late.

I think Xyelin's numbers are very high. The St .Petersburg Times conducted a study and found that only 4% of the voting list couldn't be totally reconciled meaning that the names appear to be matched to records that are incomplete or lacking clear felony conviction information.

That means 96% of the voting list is accurate. That is a pretty good number in my estimation.

The other problem is that those people who have been granted clemency must register to vote again.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/03/State/Clarity_hard_to_find_.shtml