It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by astroblade
i don't know if anyone has noticed, but goose continues to source little more then this shady democracynow.com website. only on this thread have i seen a citing of other sources.kinda funny how those that yell "Sheep!" at other can in fact be sheeps themselves.
Originally posted by Bout Time
So, by virtue of this post, you're stating that a war void of reasonable, or hell, real clear & present dangers is justified because, historically, American presidents have a long & august history of misleading their citizenry?
Originally posted by goose
This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.
Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.
Originally posted by cjf
Originally posted by goose
This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.
Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.
I hear what you are saying but….
Failing to dispute creditability of any item is never an overt admission to creditability nor can one imply by inaction by one party to be construed validation upon another party as to facts contained in a hearsay document. Not moving to discredit an ‘alleged factual document’ means nothing, the responsibility of validity falls upon the shoulders of the author first. Validity will come only from actual members privy to the specific conversations which produced such a summation. The statements remain hearsay until proven otherwise.
.
Originally posted by goose
Actually that is directly from the website and is their answer to your question not mine. I posted ti to show that the question had already been raised and what their answer was. Sorry I did not mean to make you think I was criticizing you for asking the question and pointing it out that it was a third party memo.
I agree completely with you whether a document is for real or not should be questioned, and only through investigation can we be sure of that one way or the other.
Originally posted by Lecky
Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.
Originally posted by cjf
Originally posted by Lecky
Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.
Etc....
Please post exactly, without any inferences or speculation, how precisely you know this information to be true and accurate. I’m intrigued.
[edit on 8-6-2005 by cjf]
Originally posted by deltaboy
news.yahoo.com...
Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says.
USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."
if the Democrats are trying to push this story more aggressive people will assume its tainted and. political instead of trying to just make it as fact
The Associated Press errantly revised a question asked by a Reuters reporter about the Downing Street minutes, RAW STORY has discovered.
The AP transcript says the reporter asked a question which included the phrase, "intelligence and facts remain fixed" around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein. The official White House transcript and audio file confirmed by RAW STORY found that the reporter in fact had said "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action."
Remarkably, the Washington Post's full transcript disagreed with an article by its own reporter, Dana Milbank. Milbank's version included the correct quotation.