Are These Memos Legitimate? - Page 2

GarzaUK · 06-18-05, 08:41 PM

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 · 06-18-05, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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.

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 · 06-18-05, 09:32 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

GPS_Flex · 06-18-05, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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 · 06-18-05, 11:07 PM

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 · 06-18-05, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

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 · 06-19-05, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

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/Re...asDefenses.pdf

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

drumming up accusations you can’t prove.

I provide sources and facts, you provide insults.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

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 · 06-19-05, 07:05 AM

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.

26 X World Champs · 06-19-05, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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.

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.

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....

ANAV · 06-19-05, 08:50 AM

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/strategy...s/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/worldtri...reaking_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