Lemme see, Tin FOIL Hat.

Naw. }=[]B^T)
We use Magnetic Flat Film Loops phased 180deg to block the thoughts of such Cocker Doodle Dupes as O’Liely.
Latent Racist Re-enforcement Media.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Woodward Speaking To CFRelations
(Live Transcript)
June 9, 2004

blah blah

….and since Bob is sort of coming out of book tour mode, where you kind of retell what’s in the book,

let’s do a little bit of that. And the W I’d like to start with is “when.” Our nation’s esteemed former

Treasury secretary [Paul O’Neill], in his relatively new book [“The Price of Loyalty”], or Ron Suskind’s book about him, says the war in Iraq was a done deal on Inauguration day, without offering a lot of proof. The president of this very organization [Richard Haass], who’s not here today because of a death in the family, wrote an op-ed piece in
***The Washington Post, I think, last summer, in which he recounted a conversation with [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice in, I think, June 2002***, in which he went to her, an old friend from a previous turn on the [President George H.W.] Bush National Security Council [NSC], and said, “I’ve got some reservations about the idea of a war in Iraq I’d like to share with you.” And she said, “Save your breath,” as he tells the story, “the decision’s been made.” So I ask you, Bob, to start: when did the president decide to invade Iraq?*** (emphasis’s by poster)

WOODWARD: It’s like all decisions. It’s incremental. In a way, the book is an effort to take the 16-month period and show how incremental it was. And to a certain extent, it started when Bush took [Defense Secretary] Don Rumsfeld aside after an NSC meeting, and they went into a little cubbyhole office, and President Bush said to Rumsfeld, “What are the war plans for Iraq? I want to know. I want to know what the options are. Update me now.” Of course, if you give Rumsfeld a bone, he will take it and convert it into a war plan. [Laughter.] And that’s exactly what he did. And the book charts how it looked like attacking, invading Iraq would be— would take a long time and be very expensive, and the Rumsfeld war plan kept getting better. And by getting better, it looked much, much easier, down to the point where [Deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz thought the war would last seven days. Of course, I think it’s now 440 days. He was off a little bit, as he tends to be. [Laughter.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laughter?
Jerks. –AJ

Oh, but the Whitehouse is doing something about nuclear weapons proliferation – it is outing and destroying their own intelligence operations who were responsible for worldwide counterproliferation activities. That was Brewster & Jennings’s business.

Anyone who wants to say that the Plame affair was a benign leak with no national security implications is either a damn fool or a bloody liar.

Check out http://www.waynemadsenreport.com for more info.

The sooner we stop talking about the output and start examining the ways in which intelligence was blatantly politicized by this Administration, the sooner we will get some accountability for this disasterous war.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14418339.htm

We can expect the White House to try to blame the Democrats, the French, etc. for the own failure to pursue a real non-proliferation policy.

When intelligence later proves to be invalid, for whatever reasons, the decisions become bad ones. But he cannot admit that, and the only way to deal with the aftermath is to change original rationale, and to insist on staying the course. And no matter how we look at the mess in Iraq and the problems Iraq has created to the American people and American image and world peace, it seems to me there are only two options here: one to stay the course and find a way, by a future president most likely, to get out in honor, and two, cut and leave to minimize losses from a bad decision.

You FOOL. That report was not chartered with doing or even investigating what you say it reports on. You’re a retard. And as I pointed out, it in fact PROVES that evidence from a known LIAR was included against the experts that said it shouldn’t be. The Robb-Silverman report actually proves the misuse of evidence despite your claims to the contrary. Is english a second language for you, because you clearly have reading comprehension issues.

Comment by progressive and proud

I think he’d agree with me when I say; there is no other place to go. America is it, it’s all that’s left of the New World and we’re sticking around to make sure you Left Wing Losers don’t muck it up.

But I know what you meant. You just can’t stand an opposing opinion can you? How tolerant of you.

This is a false statement.

The Downing Street Memos news was first publicized by the Sunday Times, the 1st of May, 2005. Here is a link to the original transcript:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

There is now also a very handy PDF version of the scanned memos here (the original is at the top of the page – click on “PDF”):
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

The additional documents and memos are at the bottom of the page. Same thing: click on “PDF scanned documents”

“Oh, and the Downing Street memo is as authentic as the Niger documents were when Cheney got wind of them in February 2002.”
Comment by Seixon — November 14, 2005 @ 2:18 pm

That is another false statement.

At the beginning, PM Blair claimed that the memos contained “nothing new” –without questioning their authenticity:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html

Until PM Blair admitted the memos were authentic, but said they “paint a distorted picture” and have been “taken out of context”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8402894/

Pres. George Bush has tried to explain the memos by stating something similar: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/07/iraq.uk.memo/

Nobody in the White House or the PM’s office has ever challenged the authenticity of the documents. Instead, they have explained the memos by saying the documents don’t say what they say –tacit admission of the authenticity of the memos.

Wasn’t it a bipartisan report? Yes, I realize that they didn’t look into how the administration was using intelligence, but I don’t think that’s what I was talking about, either.

What I was talking about is that the White House and Congress were receiving the same intelligence. The Robb-Silverman report shows this quite well. That’s what we were talking about, so don’t try to derail the discussion as if we were talking about something else.

Oh, and the Downing Street memo is as authentic as the Niger documents were when Cheney got wind of them in February 2002. The Downing Street memo has never been shown, and has only been transcribed. If that is your threshold for evidence, you are a dunce.

So, I suppose by the same reasoning, you would be upset that I would call your parents absentee and neglectful because I find you were raised by people who had better things to do than teach you ethics and consideration of others?

If the answer is yes than you are weak and actually listen to strangers. If the answer is no, then you just type for fun and really have no meaning to your posts at all and you simply like to argue.

Comment by Guardian of Indifference

That makes sense. Ryan always wanted to be a “Susan”. I blame his dyke mother and absent father.

Many persons pull out the Founding Fathers when they need to manipulate or revise history, but it is very clear that the system we have today in place was not what they envisioned. Sadly, such a realizations leads to the understanding and recognition that we have a poor education system as well as that we are marketed beyond the retail environment to our very politicial, and social iand religious views.

When a nation’s government leaders preach what is or isn’t patriotism, we have already lost it. Just like Christainity a lot of folks talk about it, but when one looks about one can find very few who practice it.