Are These Memos Legitimate?

Squawker · 06-18-05, 01:49 PM

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?

Quote:

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 · 06-18-05, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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:

Quote:

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 · 06-18-05, 02:34 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

26 X World Champs · 06-18-05, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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 · 06-18-05, 03:03 PM

Quote:

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 · 06-18-05, 03:28 PM

Just to refresh your memory Champ,

Quote:

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 · 06-18-05, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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 · 06-18-05, 04:14 PM

Quote:

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 · 06-18-05, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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

What do you mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

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 · 06-18-05, 06:36 PM

Champ whined for the hundredth time.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.