Are These Memos Legitimate? (1 Viewer)

[Squawker]

I find the discovery of these memo’s very suspect. The left in this country are trying to make a case to impeach President Bush, and suddenly we have several memo’s that seem to implicate him in the same thing the left is charging him with. Notice the sentence that is bold. Why would a reporter have to destroy the originals to protect his source?

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein
-snip-
The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

Source

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I find the discovery of these memo’s very suspect. The left in this country are trying to make a case to impeach President Bush, and suddenly we have several memo’s that seem to implicate him in the same thing the left is charging him with. Notice the sentence that is bold. Why would a reporter have to destroy the originals to protect his source?

Source

The problem with your "conspiracy theory" is that no one in Tony Blair's government is denying them. I also find it troubling that you slanted this thread so prejudicially. You conveniently left this out from the story:

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

I also suggest that all of you read the material that Squawk linked in his post, it is very, very revealing, and troubling. Spin all you want Bushies, but we're talking smoking gun, and not from Democrats. The memos cite David Manning who is now the UK ambassador to the US, not exactly a person looking to castrate Bush.

Let me ask you something Squawk and all of you Bushniks? If all of these memos are factual then what does that mean? If Clinton was impeached for having sex and lying about it what should happen to the Bush Cabal if they conspired to lie to the world as to the reasons for invading Iraq? How should Comrade Bush be held accountable?

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

The problem with your "conspiracy theory" is that no one in Tony Blair's government is denying them. I also find it troubling that you slanted this thread so prejudicially. You conveniently left this out from the story:

Why must you twist everything Champ? I am sure there is an investigation going on. How could they confirm documents which are not original?

If all of these memos are factual then what does that mean?

It doesn't mean anything to me. I don't care how he took out Saddam, the creep is gone, so have a cow over that one.

How should Comrade Bush be held accountable?

That's President Bush to you Champ. We need to give him the medal of honor and thank God we had him instead of Gore. :sword:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Why must you twist everything Champ? I am sure there is an investigation going on. How could they confirm documents which are not original?

Hmmmm....maybe because they know of them, saw the originals? Are you saying that the current UK ambassador to the UK is a liar? That he is conspiring with Democrats to impeach Bush? Please!

It doesn't mean anything to me. I don't care how he took out Saddam, the creep is gone, so have a cow over that one.

Why am I not surprised that you go ape sh*t over a blow job but bury your head in the sand when Comrade Bush takes our nation into a war on false pretense?

Good going! Smart! Fair and balanced too. You should have your own show on FNC, you can call it "Squawk Talk." Here's your host....SQUAWKER:


Notice the eyes above and the eyes of Squawk's eagle? Family resemblence...

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Why am I not surprised that you go ape sh*t over a blow job but bury your head in the sand when Comrade Bush takes our nation into a war on false pretense?

There ya go saying things I never said again. I wonder if you said that about Clinton when he bombed Iraq in 1998 without UN approval. He continued with the bombings right up to the Bush Administration, so President Bush just finished what Clinton started if you want to get technical.

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Just to refresh your memory Champ,

The US and Britain unleashed air strikes against Iraq last night in a punitive attack aimed at Saddam Hussein's capacity to produce chemical, biological and nuclear arms, after the Iraqi dictator refused to co-operate with UN weapons inspections.
In a televised address last night, President Clinton said he had ordered the assault because of the "clear and present danger" posed by Iraq's weapons-making programme.

Source

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

There ya go saying things I never said again. I wonder if you said that about Clinton when he bombed Iraq in 1998 without UN approval. He continued with the bombings right up to the Bush Administration, so President Bush just finished what Clinton started if you want to get technical.

Clinton was wrong too! I have no problem recognizing when a President screws up, but you, and your Republican comrades do have problems recognizing any mistake Bush has made.

Tell me what mistakes Bush has made since the Iraq War began?

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Clinton was wrong too! I have no problem recognizing when a President screws up, but you, and your Republican comrades do have problems recognizing any mistake Bush has made.

Tell me what mistakes Bush has made since the Iraq War began?

He didn’t react to the left wing criticism strong enough or often enough. He didn’t have enough press conferences to explain the progress made in Iraq. He didn’t exploit those successes enough and he didn’t involve Clinton soon enough.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

He didn’t react to the left wing criticism strong enough or often enough.

What do you mean?

He didn’t have enough press conferences to explain the progress made in Iraq.

Maybe because there are more failures than successes? How else do you explain 63% of America now regretting the war? I know! He LIED to us and the world and he's been caught in his lies.

He didn’t exploit those successes enough and he didn’t involve Clinton soon enough.

Involve Clinton, how? Successes? You mean like his highly successful campaign to reform Social Security?

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Champ whined for the hundredth time.

He LIED to us and the world and he's been caught in his lies.

In a televised address last night, President Clinton said he had ordered the assault because of the "clear and present danger" posed by Iraq's weapons-making programme.

What part of that don't you understand Champ? Let me try to explain it to you again. Bush was the president after Clinton, Bush looked at the evidence Clinton provided, Bush followed Clinton's plan, Bush finished the job Clinton didn't. You know Champ, I am losing patients with you my friend. You lefties really need to start beating a different drum, you're beginning to look pretty silly.

 

[GarzaUK]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Just to claify, the memos are legit. Confirmed by Tony Blair and Deputy Prime Minister Prescott reluctanly just before the British General Election.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Champ whined for the hundredth time.

What part of that don't you understand Champ? Let me try to explain it to you again. Bush was the president after Clinton, Bush looked at the evidence Clinton provided, Bush followed Clinton's plan, Bush finished the job Clinton didn't. You know Champ, I am losing patients with you my friend. You lefties really need to start beating a different drum, you're beginning to look pretty silly.

:2bigcry: Let me try to explain to you so you stop crying.

Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003.....that's 2+ years after Clinton left office. When will rabid rightie Bushniks like you stop pointing the finger at Clinton for everything? It is so pathetic! Clinton did some strategic bombing of Iraq in 1998, 5 full years before Bush INVADED with 120,000 ground forces. Bush has been the commander in chief while more than 3000 Americans died in 9-11, more than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, more than 12,000 American soldiers have been wounded and who knows how many thousand soldiers have been mentally wounded?

Bush did it, not Clinton, stop denying the TRUTH. Bush planned this war starting in 1998 while Clinton was in office! 9-11 gave him the "ammo" to attack combined with his LIES regarding the threat to the USA. Remember George Tenet, the genius head of the CIA who Bush awarded the Freedom Medal to for his great service to America? The same Tenet who Bush quotes as saying it was a SLAM DUNK that Saddam had WMDs?

Instead of constantly writing how you're losing patience with Liberals why don't you get your head out of the Iraqi sand and realize that you too have been used, manipulated, lied to by Comrade Bush! He lied to you so he and his Klan can make a killing (financially) as wartime profiteers (see Haliburton, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, and Bush knows how many other Bush cronies?

You're so BLINDLY loyal (key word BLIND) that you've got no idea that you've been had.

You already know that there are more terrorists today determined to kill us than there were on 9-12-01. You already know that Bush is reviled around the world as a war monger, a black eye, a stain on the great history of our country.

You also know that 63% of Americans think the war sucks. 58% disprove of Bush's overall record. 67% think that Bush's Social Security plan is lame.

So you and the other Bushniks on this board can continue to live in a Fantasea world that Bush's right. He is right, but that only describes his political leanings....you know, Bush has nothing LEFT!

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003.....that's 2+ years after Clinton left office. When will rabid rightie Bushniks like you stop pointing the finger at Clinton for everything? It is so pathetic! Clinton did some strategic bombing of Iraq in 1998, 5 full years before Bush INVADED with 120,000 ground forces. Bush has been the commander in chief while more than 3000 Americans died in 9-11, more than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, more than 12,000 American soldiers have been wounded and who knows how many thousand soldiers have been mentally wounded?

That isn’t what the history of it says.

The U.S and Britain changes tack in response to overwhelming international disapproval of Operation Desert Fox. They abandoned public saber-rattling and began waging a low-profile war of attrition. In Jan. 1999, weekly, sometimes daily, bombings of Iraqi targets within the northern no-fly zone began. The air strikes were incorporated into Operation Northern Watch, a British-U.S. air mission based in Turkey that in 1997 began to monitor the northern no-fly zone.
-snip-
The international community, outraged at Desert Fox—four days of bombing that struck one hundred Iraqi military targets—has remained almost indifferent to Operation Northern Watch—the more than one hundred days of air strikes that have been launched since then. What began as a bang has ended in a whimper, provoking little criticism and much indifference.
-snip-
The U.S. and Britain continued to bomb Iraq for four years on a regular basis, from Jan. 1999 to the beginning of the war with Iraq on March 19, 2003.

Source
I wonder how many people Clinton killed while he was in office, any idea Champ?

Bush did it, not Clinton, stop denying the TRUTH. Bush planned this war starting in 1998 while Clinton was in office! 9-11 gave him the "ammo" to attack combined with his LIES regarding the threat to the USA. Remember George Tenet, the genius head of the CIA who Bush awarded the Freedom Medal to for his great service to America? The same Tenet who Bush quotes as saying it was a SLAM DUNK that Saddam had WMDs?

Bush didn’t plan anything in 1998 Champ. President Bush had very nice things to say about Bill and Hillary Clinton also. That just means he is a nice man, not that he agreed with what they did or didn’t do. Tenet did a lot of things right.
Instead of constantly bashing Republicans and President Bush why don’t you worry about your own unethical party? Global Crossing and Enron anyone? You can twist and spin all day long, and it won’t change the true history Champ. :cowboy:

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Are you saying that the current UK ambassador to the UK is a liar?

If he isn’t a liar, I certainly think he’s a fake. I’m not sure whom this UK guy is representing; He could be conspiring with the UK against the UK for all we know.

Posting the photo of someone with Down syndrome, as a backdrop to your criticism of another person on this board, is deplorable. Have you no class? What a slimy puke you must be.

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I finished reading the memo's and the only one that is the least bit controversial is the one from Peter Rickets to Blair. He warned against using regime change and said Bush should use something else. Since the memo's were to the Blair administration I don't see how they relate to President Bush at all. Wolfowitz was the one to emphasize Saddam's barbarism, while the UK stressed the WMD's. Wolfowitz linked Saddam to terrorism, but dismissed the desirability of a military coup. There isn't anything of substance in any of them, but I am sure the left will twist it to make it into a mountain.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Why am I not surprised that you go ape sh*t over a blow job

If you’re offering and you’ve shaved….I’m looking for a new *** and since you’re all about humiliating Down syndrome children, I think I’ll make you my personal ***** until you apologize for it.

Bush planned this war starting in 1998 while Clinton was in office! 9-11 gave him the "ammo" to attack combined with his LIES regarding the threat to the USA.

Do you realize how idiotic this idea is? A governor plans a war, before he wins election, contingent upon the missing ammo provided three year after he supposedly planned said war and you are still talking about the reasons for going to war being lies?

I fail to see the logic in this. This would be a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen. Perhaps it is you who is the liar and you who have no morality and you who have no respect for the human dignity we call life. Perhaps you are left with nothing more than humiliating innocent people with Down syndrome drumming up accusations you can’t prove.

He lied to you so he and his Klan can make a killing (financially) as wartime profiteers (see Haliburton, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, and Bush knows how many other Bush cronies?

It’s funny now to think you posted that picture. The poor kid you posted the picture of probably has more common sense than you do!

If this issue hasn’t already been argued here, I’d be more than willing to pummel the crap out of my new *** because this is a topic only the most brain dead of people can’t seem to understand.

You're so BLINDLY loyal (key word BLIND) that you've got no idea that you've been had.

Is this why you still think Clinton’s impeachment was about a blowjob? Who are you trying to kid here? You are the last person qualified to lecture on such a subject.

You already know that there are more terrorists today determined to kill us than there were on 9-12-01.

No, there are more people (those that matter) who respect the USA today than under the Clinton era.

You also know that 63% of Americans think the war sucks.

Are you so ignorant as to think that was the question asked in whatever poll you refer to? How shallow can you get? Perhaps 63% would have preferred Donald Duck ran the war if the question was asked in the right way. Your polls mean jack because you can’t provide the exact verbiage used.
(Moderator) Please watch the bad language. It doesn't add anything to the debate.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Do you realize how idiotic this idea is? A governor plans a war, before he wins election, contingent upon the missing ammo provided three year after he supposedly planned said war and you are still talking about the reasons for going to war being lies?

Ever hear of the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY? Perhaps you need to follow this link and do some reading?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Do you have the attention span to read all 90 pages? Have you even heard of the PNAC?

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Di*K Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAC209A.html

I fail to see the logic in this. This would be a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen.

What was that you were saying about a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen?

drumming up accusations you can’t prove.

I provide sources and facts, you provide insults.

If this issue hasn’t already been argued here, I’d be more than willing to pummel the crap out of my new bitch because this is a topic only the most brain dead of people can’t seem to understand.

Are you trying to be a tough guy? Does it turn you on to threaten violence? Only the weak threaten to settle their differences with violence...

Is this why you still think Clinton’s impeachment was about a blowjob? Who are you trying to kid here? You are the last person qualified to lecture on such a subject.

Right, he lied about getting a BJ in the Oval (or is it Oral) Office...that's it pal, nothing else. He was also found NOT GUILTY. Does that register with you? Are you capable of understanding NOT GUILTY.

No, there are more people (those that matter) who respect the USA today than under the Clinton era.

Bullshit! Prove it with facts, not bluster. Your entire post is a rant, not one fact, nothing. Who are "those that matter" anyway?

Are you so ignorant as to think that was the question asked in whatever poll you refer to? How shallow can you get? Perhaps 63% would have preferred Donald Duck ran the war if the question was asked in the right way. Your polls mean jack because you can’t provide the exact verbiage used.

Comrade, you need to read some of my other posts. The fact that you're showing off your illiteracy is cool, but aren't you embarrassed? For example, you would have seen this, posted on FRIDAY....

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Do you believe every bit of information from left wing sources Champ? The left is so angry about losing power they are becoming unglued. I know how the left twists everything to look bad for President Bush and America, so I dismiss your links as more left wing tripe. :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Do you believe every bit of information from left wing sources Champ? The left is so angry about losing power they are becoming unglued. I know how the left twists everything to look bad for President Bush and America, so I dismiss your links as more left wing tripe. :roll:

So you dismiss the link that I provided to PNAC? How do you explain that? The PNAC is the NEOCON site, it's the antithesis of a liberal site.

You also dismiss the NY Times poll? You are really, really jaded IMHO. Why? Because unless a site agrees with your view of the world you "dismiss" it. :rofl

The third site that I cited was simply quoting the PNAC white paper. How is it that you dismiss that too? The words were written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush etc. I didn't make them up!

Want to read something that has no basis in fact? Read your last post!

Listen Squawk, believe what you want, but to simply dismiss my last post because you disagree with it and it upsets you is BS. Prove me wrong, then you can dismiss it. Prove to me that the PNAC didn't write what I linked, prove to me that the things that I highlighted were twisted by us "lefties." Prove to us that the NY Times / CBS Poll conducted last week was biased, was wrong, was a conspiracy.

Squawk, if you can't disprove all the FACTS in my last post then I believe it's safe to say that your opinion is based on blind loyalty, not fact and it can be DISMISSED because your position has been disproved and its blown up in your face.... :boom

 

[ANAV]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

For those who think that Bush should be impeached, they must also believe all Senators and Congressmen who voted for the authorization of force must be removed from office as well. They based there votes on the same intelligence that Bush based his decision on invading.

Here are some quotes from some leading Bush hating Democrats.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer (8 Nov 2002)


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore (2002)

"We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particular grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...and now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit." - John F. Kerry (9 Oct 2002)

"He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Carl Levin (19 Sept 2002)

How can these people say these things and then criticize the President for acting on the same intelligence?

And who says WMDs have not been found? These discoveries clearly prove the Saddam was violating UN resolutions.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040701191420.y8k05i9n.html

http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20031004.asp

The UN has even said that Saddam shipped the bulk of his WMDs out of Iraq before and during the invasion.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Iraq's soldiers thought that Saddam would use WMDs on invading US troops. Why else would they have protective gear and anti-bodies?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3554

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Squawk, if you can't disprove all the FACTS in my last post then I believe it's safe to say that your opinion is based on blind loyalty, not fact and it can be DISMISSED because your position has been disproved and its blown up in your face....

I dismiss the lefts characterization of what occurred, Champ. I have no doubt these things were discussed as any campaign for President would. The left wants to twist it into some evil plot. If the Bush Administration had not discussed the what "ifs" and what they would do about it, they would be remiss in their duties.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I dismiss the lefts characterization of what occurred, Champ. I have no doubt these things were discussed as any campaign for President would. The left wants to twist it into some evil plot. If the Bush Administration had not discussed the what "ifs" and what they would do about it, they would be remiss in their duties.

:applaud :spin: I bow down to you Squawk! Your time spent at the Bushnik Institute of Spinology has not been wasted! :bravo: The problem is that if you read the PNAC documents (have you?) they are exactly the policy that the Bushites are employing. It's not like we're talking about suggestions that were never enacted as policy, we're talking about suggestions that became policy. Big, big difference oh King of Debate Politics Spin...

I did note that you did not provide any proof whatsoever that the points that I cited in my previous post were incorrect or non-factual. You did not disprove anything, you simply spin your Tenets (By George). You too might be deserving of a Presidential Medal of Freedom if you keep this up!

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

I am so afraid. :afraid: That's how they keep folks like you voting for them Champ. Fear :afraid:

What exactly upset you about PNAC? It looks like a well thought out stratagy for the 21st century to me. I thought we were talking about the memos?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

For those who think that Bush should be impeached, they must also believe all Senators and Congressmen who voted for the authorization of force must be removed from office as well. They based there votes on the same intelligence that Bush based his decision on invading.

You fail to remember or you left out that none of those people decided to attack Iraq. That falls squarely into Bush's lap, and, as the Downing Street memos prove they were manipulating the "intelligence" to get Congress to back their conspiracy as detailed at the PNAC site.

Therefore all of your quotes, all of your links are meaningless because everyone was lied to by Bush and his Comrades in his version of the American Kremlin (this is an analogy, not a statement that I believe Bush's government is Communist).

So you can quote away but the truth is that all of those politicians were manipulated by Bush so they would say what they did. Wake up Dude, you've been lied to as well.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

What exactly upset you about PNAC? It looks like a well thought out stratagy for the 21st century to me. I thought we were talking about the memos?

I'm getting dizzy from the spin coming from your posts. You're a whirling dervish! The PNAC were brought into this by a post you made, and a post made by GPS Flex.

You wrote the following:

Bush didn’t plan anything in 1998 Champ.

Source:http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=29298&postcount=13

Then GPS Flex first called the UK Ambassador to the US a liar and a fake, which was quite hilarious, but then he wrote the following:

Do you realize how idiotic this idea is? A governor plans a war, before he wins election, contingent upon the missing ammo provided three year after he supposedly planned said war and you are still talking about the reasons for going to war being lies?

I fail to see the logic in this. This would be a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen.

AND:

Are you so ignorant as to think that was the question asked in whatever poll you refer to? How shallow can you get? Perhaps 63% would have preferred Donald Duck ran the war if the question was asked in the right way. Your polls mean jack because you can’t provide the exact verbiage used.

All of the above came from here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=29316&postcount=16

That is how the PNAC was brought into this discussion. I find it quite amazing that in response to my posts you backpeddle away from your previous posts with a new spin, every time. How come? You wrote:

Do you believe every bit of information from left wing sources Champ? The left is so angry about losing power they are becoming unglued. I know how the left twists everything to look bad for President Bush and America, so I dismiss your links as more left wing tripe.

That comes from this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=29371&postcount=18

Now, you come back again and this time you want us to believe that the PNAC's plan was good all along (though you never wrote that until you had no other way of explaining the plot).

The PNAC Manifesto was written between 1997 and 2000 well before Bush became President, well before 9-11. How can you now write that the war in Iraq was not premeditated?

You know it's true, so please enough spin, it's really transparent to all except the most blind Bushniks.

How many current Bushnik Comrades can you spot? Do you want me to name these conspirators? Even John Bolton is there!