Another Intercept, but this time it's different

On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
WMD's" as well?

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:

*** Begin Quote ***

The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
recently met with Bush administration officials.

Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."

*** End Quote ***

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
the White House has of course claimed it's false.

See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
WMD's" as well?

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:

*** Begin Quote ***

The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
recently met with Bush administration officials.

Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."

*** End Quote ***

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
the White House has of course claimed it's false.

See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".


First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:17:23 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

Right, except we aren't in court (although perhaps we should be) and
the Blair government has not denied the authenticity of the memo and
an unnamed "Senior American Official" has characterized it as
"absolutely accurate".

Truthout.com is just reporting what the memo said, not making it up.
It was originally printed in "The Times of London" to which it was
leaked. In effect, when protesting Truthout.com, you are shooting the
messenger. In addition, that website was merely the first I picked,
there were dozens more I could have posted.

The text of the memo (it isn't very long) is also available, simply
google "downing street memo". The first site when you do this search
is the "Times online", and the memo is printed in it's entirety
without editorial comment.

Corky Scott

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:Ol_me.19406$DC2.10426@okepread01...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
WMD's" as well?

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:

*** Begin Quote ***

The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
recently met with Bush administration officials.

Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."

*** End Quote ***

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
the White House has of course claimed it's false.

See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".


First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

It was also a memo about one persons take on what other people were
thinking. Unless the guy's a mindreader....

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago.


So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
k.net::


"Corky Scott" wrote in message
.. .

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago.


So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?



What dates did those poisonings occur?

Chronology is everything in this issue:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
However, a commission appointed by the president to investigate
intelligence gathering that led to the invasion concluded that all
of the intelligence community's information about the existence of
biological or any other weapons of mass destruction was "deeply
flawed."

"The intelligence community was absolutely uniform, and uniformly
wrong, about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And
they pushed that position," said Judge Laurence Silberman,
co-chairman of the commission.

Critics of the Bush administration have long argued that Bush
appeared intent on invading Iraq long before Congress voted to
authorize military action in October 2002 if Hussein didn't
abandon his alleged illegal weapons programs.

Former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who was chairman of the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee when Democrats ruled, has written in
his book, "Intelligence Matters," about his visit to MacDill Air
Force Base, home of the U.S. Central Command, on Feb. 19, 2002. He
was going for a status report on Afghanistan, Graham wrote, but
CENTCOM'S Gen. Tommy Franks called him aside to tell him,
"Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan."

"Excuse me?"' Graham replied.

"Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to
prepare for an action in Iraq," Graham quoted Franks as saying.

Graham wrote: "I was stunned. This was the first time I had been
informed that the decision to go to war with Iraq had not only
been made but was being implemented, to the substantial
disadvantage of the war in Afghanistan."

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?

Sorry, did you not know where Saddam got that gas? I honestly thought
everyone knew by now. The Reagan administration sent it to him to
assist him in his war against Iran. Please, tell me you aren't
surprised by this old news.

There's some world class irony working he We gave him the nerve gas
and then complained to the world that he used it. In addition, we
invaded his country on the pretext that he had WMD (Rumsfeld even had
the cheek to pinpoint where they were during a news conference). But
none were ever found and the search for them has officially ended.
But Rumsfeld knew that he had them at one time, because we had the
receipts for them, so to speak, having given them to him.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo"...

Which means nothing except that they don't have compelling evidence that it's
false and probably don't have evidence that it's accurate.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kp4ne.6316$zb.6088@trndny02...
Corky Scott wrote:

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo"...

Which means nothing except that they don't have compelling evidence that
it's
false and probably don't have evidence that it's accurate.

Yes, it's a real memo. The content, though, is noting more than hearsay.