Bush committed to tracking al-Qaida

[GaryC 7]

I have watched various people trot out the DSM as their "big gun" to try and squelch those that do not oppose the war. As most of you know I really don't care what the pretext to the war was. It could have been that Saddam had turned into a flaming faggot and was out to sexually abuse the pope for all I care. But I do wonder about the DSM. If it is the "smoking gun" that you say it is it also begs a few questions. Since this was a Top Secret memo that was leaked then why didn't the leaker get charged? If it is a TS memo then how do we know that it wasn't altered? There is no other evidence that supports the memo that I have seen. The fact that GB and the USA haven't commented on it is not proof of anything. Another question, if it is the smoking gun then why hasn't the US press and the dems in congress latched onto it? They have been hammering Bush with anything else they can find, why not this? It seems that if it is genuine then they would be holding it up as their own proof. To me it's just an isolated memo that may or may not be real and unaltered.

Like I said, I don't care what the pretext for going to war with Saddam was. I am just glad we did.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Spin it all you want - those are the facts in black and white. Quoted statements from the people directly involved - statements which have not been disavowed.

What do you recommend should have been after Sept 11 to capture Al-Qaida?

It is basically guerrilla warfare there; which can last for years and years. It is too easy to condemn someone and their actions while kicking back in the comfort of your home. I would like to see liberals put their ### on the line instead of just whining about anything somebody does. Yet at the same time turn a complete blind eye to the Democrat who was in office prior to Sept 11. That is, during the period the attacks where being planned...

Why do you keep asking these questions that have nothing to do with what I actually said?

I was talking about the Downing Street Memo and the British debate over the Iraq war. How's about a comment or two on that - rather than go off on yet another tangent.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have watched various people trot out the DSM as their "big gun" to try and squelch those that do not oppose the war. As most of you know I really don't care what the pretext to the war was. It could have been that Saddam had turned into a flaming faggot and was out to sexually abuse the pope for all I care. But I do wonder about the DSM. If it is the "smoking gun" that you say it is it also begs a few questions. Since this was a Top Secret memo that was leaked then why didn't the leaker get charged? If it is a TS memo then how do we know that it wasn't altered? There is no other evidence that supports the memo that I have seen. The fact that GB and the USA haven't commented on it is not proof of anything. Another question, if it is the smoking gun then why hasn't the US press and the dems in congress latched onto it? They have been hammering Bush with anything else they can find, why not this? It seems that if it is genuine then they would be holding it up as their own proof. To me it's just an isolated memo that may or may not be real and unaltered.

Like I said, I don't care what the pretext for going to war with Saddam was. I am just glad we did.

What it does do is add yet another piece to a very large puzzle that incorporates numerous unconnected sources in several countries whose stories correlate to a surprising degree. Applying an element of deductive reasoning leads to a very specific conclusion.

[Heracles 417]

Spin it all you want - those are the facts in black and white. Quoted statements from the people directly involved - statements which have not been disavowed.

What do you recommend should have been after Sept 11 to capture Al-Qaida?

It is basically guerrilla warfare there; which can last for years and years. It is too easy to condemn someone and their actions while kicking back in the comfort of your home. I would like to see liberals put their ### on the line instead of just whining about anything somebody does. Yet at the same time turn a complete blind eye to the Democrat who was in office prior to Sept 11. That is, during the period the attacks where being planned...

Why do you keep asking these questions that have nothing to do with what I actually said?

I was talking about the Downing Street Memo and the British debate over the Iraq war. How's about a comment or two on that - rather than go off on yet another tangent.

Yes I know what you where talking but I asked in relation to the 'Original Post'. The people who oppose and criticize everything GWB does fail to give any real world workable solutions or alternatives. I do not care about some freakin stupid office space style memo.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Spin it all you want - those are the facts in black and white. Quoted statements from the people directly involved - statements which have not been disavowed.

What do you recommend should have been after Sept 11 to capture Al-Qaida?

It is basically guerrilla warfare there; which can last for years and years. It is too easy to condemn someone and their actions while kicking back in the comfort of your home. I would like to see liberals put their ### on the line instead of just whining about anything somebody does. Yet at the same time turn a complete blind eye to the Democrat who was in office prior to Sept 11. That is, during the period the attacks where being planned...

Why do you keep asking these questions that have nothing to do with what I actually said?

I was talking about the Downing Street Memo and the British debate over the Iraq war. How's about a comment or two on that - rather than go off on yet another tangent.

Yes I know what you where talking but I asked in relation to the 'Original Post'. The people who oppose and criticize everything GWB does fail to give any real world workable solutions or alternatives. I do not care about some freakin stupid office space style memo.

Well the conversation has moved on since the 'original post' - and I don't feel like derailing the issue by going down a detour route just to please you. While you may not care about the memo - a lot of people in the UK did (as did others in the US who actually saw the story), and it (and subsequent revelations - like the Intelligence Dossiers) were a part of the UK debate - that didn't get a broad hearing in the US.

Moreover, its already been established that Iraq had little, if anything, to do with 9/11. So asking "what should America have done" would seem rather irrelevant here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Spin it all you want - those are the facts in black and white. Quoted statements from the people directly involved - statements which have not been disavowed.

What do you recommend should have been after Sept 11 to capture Al-Qaida?

It is basically guerrilla warfare there; which can last for years and years. It is too easy to condemn someone and their actions while kicking back in the comfort of your home. I would like to see liberals put their ### on the line instead of just whining about anything somebody does. Yet at the same time turn a complete blind eye to the Democrat who was in office prior to Sept 11. That is, during the period the attacks where being planned...

Why do you keep asking these questions that have nothing to do with what I actually said?

I was talking about the Downing Street Memo and the British debate over the Iraq war. How's about a comment or two on that - rather than go off on yet another tangent.

Yes I know what you where talking but I asked in relation to the 'Original Post'. The people who oppose and criticize everything GWB does fail to give any real world workable solutions or alternatives. I do not care about some freakin stupid office space style memo.

From this day forward, I shall call you Wild Tangent.

[Mirorgate 0]

From this day forward, I shall call you Wild Tangent.

"I am not a number! I am a free man!"

"HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

From this day forward, I shall call you Wild Tangent.

That is the funniest thing I have read all week

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have watched various people trot out the DSM as their "big gun" to try and squelch those that do not oppose the war. As most of you know I really don't care what the pretext to the war was. It could have been that Saddam had turned into a flaming faggot and was out to sexually abuse the pope for all I care. But I do wonder about the DSM. If it is the "smoking gun" that you say it is it also begs a few questions. Since this was a Top Secret memo that was leaked then why didn't the leaker get charged? If it is a TS memo then how do we know that it wasn't altered? There is no other evidence that supports the memo that I have seen. The fact that GB and the USA haven't commented on it is not proof of anything. Another question, if it is the smoking gun then why hasn't the US press and the dems in congress latched onto it? They have been hammering Bush with anything else they can find, why not this? It seems that if it is genuine then they would be holding it up as their own proof. To me it's just an isolated memo that may or may not be real and unaltered.

Like I said, I don't care what the pretext for going to war with Saddam was. I am just glad we did.

What it does do is add yet another piece to a very large puzzle that incorporates numerous unconnected sources in several countries whose stories correlate to a surprising degree. Applying an element of deductive reasoning leads to a very specific conclusion.

It's not just the DSM. There is other very damning evidence that this illegal war was pushed on exaggerations, lies and deceptions. Again, I mention Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi - the very crook whose word was more valuable to the President of the USA than that of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Those who still believe and claim that this war was entered into in good faith are seriously kidding themselves.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have watched various people trot out the DSM as their "big gun" to try and squelch those that do not oppose the war. As most of you know I really don't care what the pretext to the war was. It could have been that Saddam had turned into a flaming faggot and was out to sexually abuse the pope for all I care. But I do wonder about the DSM. If it is the "smoking gun" that you say it is it also begs a few questions. Since this was a Top Secret memo that was leaked then why didn't the leaker get charged? If it is a TS memo then how do we know that it wasn't altered? There is no other evidence that supports the memo that I have seen. The fact that GB and the USA haven't commented on it is not proof of anything. Another question, if it is the smoking gun then why hasn't the US press and the dems in congress latched onto it? They have been hammering Bush with anything else they can find, why not this? It seems that if it is genuine then they would be holding it up as their own proof. To me it's just an isolated memo that may or may not be real and unaltered.

Like I said, I don't care what the pretext for going to war with Saddam was. I am just glad we did.

What it does do is add yet another piece to a very large puzzle that incorporates numerous unconnected sources in several countries whose stories correlate to a surprising degree. Applying an element of deductive reasoning leads to a very specific conclusion.

It's not just the DSM. There is other very damning evidence that this illegal war was pushed on exaggerations, lies and deceptions. Again, I mention Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi - the very crook whose word was more valuable to the President of the USA than that of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Those who still believe and claim that this war was entered into in good faith are seriously kidding themselves.

The DSM is part of the puzzle (one which didn't get much of an airing over here) - but certainly when taken with all the other revelations (including Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi) - it points towards a very specific interpretation of the events. The way its presented by some people - the suggestion seems to be that these things are fabricated or exaggerated just to attack GWB. Problem is - there are so many of these things, and from so many different sources - that you can't escape the conclusion that there was wrongdoing - and that the Bush administration, as architects of the policy (regardless of who voted for it) are primarily to blame.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have watched various people trot out the DSM as their "big gun" to try and squelch those that do not oppose the war. As most of you know I really don't care what the pretext to the war was. It could have been that Saddam had turned into a flaming faggot and was out to sexually abuse the pope for all I care. But I do wonder about the DSM. If it is the "smoking gun" that you say it is it also begs a few questions. Since this was a Top Secret memo that was leaked then why didn't the leaker get charged? If it is a TS memo then how do we know that it wasn't altered? There is no other evidence that supports the memo that I have seen. The fact that GB and the USA haven't commented on it is not proof of anything. Another question, if it is the smoking gun then why hasn't the US press and the dems in congress latched onto it? They have been hammering Bush with anything else they can find, why not this? It seems that if it is genuine then they would be holding it up as their own proof. To me it's just an isolated memo that may or may not be real and unaltered.

Like I said, I don't care what the pretext for going to war with Saddam was. I am just glad we did.

What it does do is add yet another piece to a very large puzzle that incorporates numerous unconnected sources in several countries whose stories correlate to a surprising degree. Applying an element of deductive reasoning leads to a very specific conclusion.

It's not just the DSM. There is other very damning evidence that this illegal war was pushed on exaggerations, lies and deceptions. Again, I mention Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi - the very crook whose word was more valuable to the President of the USA than that of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Those who still believe and claim that this war was entered into in good faith are seriously kidding themselves.

The DSM is part of the puzzle (one which didn't get much of an airing over here) - but certainly when taken with all the other revelations (including Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi) - it points towards a very specific interpretation of the events. The way its presented by some people - the suggestion seems to be that these things are fabricated or exaggerated just to attack GWB. Problem is - there are so many of these things, and from so many different sources - that you can't escape the conclusion that there was wrongdoing - and that the Bush administration, as architects of the policy (regardless of who voted for it) are primarily to blame.

Exactly. Anyone who doesn't just thoughtlessly sing this administration's song ought to have some very serious questions as to how this nation was led into this war. If it quacks like a duck...

[almaty 19]

From this day forward, I shall call you Wild Tangent.

"I am not a number! I am a free man!"

"HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

brother mirror, the smack was laid down...