[Seixon]’s a typical know-it-all who actually knows nothing because he’s too lazy to learn anything.

You’re being far too charitable. Seixon is about as ‘lazy’ as our administration is ‘incompetent’.

Actually, Seixon and our administration have quite a few things in common:

– they are competent at wht they do (which is completely different from what they say they do).
– they work tirelessly to distort the facts.
– they personally attack anyone who opposes them.
– they repeat lies endlessly until they are perceived as truth.
– (etc. etc. etc.. You get the point.)

There’s an old adage: never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. But in the case of this administration and its shills, the opposite is unfortunately true.

As I said, there is still no proof that the memo exists

Direct quote from Blair:

And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.

Sounds to me like that was a tacit acknowledgement of the memo’s existence.

Oh, but wait! There’s more to what you said!

As I said, there is still no proof that the memo exists in the form presented by Michael Smith.

Yes, of course…just keep scootching those goalposts further and further back, all the time crowing about how you’ve been correct all along.

By the way, please don’t embarass yourself further by pretending that your qualifier ‘in the form presented by Michael Smith’ was present in your arguments all along, because it wasn’t until almost 200 posts into the original thread. (Sorry.)

there’s still no proof that the memo as described by Michael Smith is actually the one in existence. I’m not saying that to avoid the contents of it….

From where I (and everyone else) stands, that’s sure what it looks like….otherwise, why bring it up at all?

Cheney didn’t lie, he misspoke. He corrected himself.

Your defense of Cheney:

March 16, 3 days before the war, and Cheney corrected himself for saying this as he meant their nuclear weapons program, not nuclear weapons.

So Cheney substituted one lie with another, and this is a defense?

Keep up the bad work, Seixon.

‘there is no proof the downing street memo exists’

‘its obvious that a memo of some sort must have been…’

Did you ‘misspeak’? Cheney’s ‘misspeak’ took him 8 months to correct – after the midterms after the scaremongering had got public opinion where he needed it. I don’t hold with the ‘dumb as a donkey’ theory – I know many liars who are very clever with the careful parsing of their lies. Dick Cheney and George Bush are two of them – you sir are a third. Pity you got nailed here and on the deficit thread eh?

As I said, there is still no proof that the memo exists in the form presented by Michael Smith. Blair’s non-denials don’t really help that at all. Remember, the Bush administration never denied the contents or the authenticity of the CBS memos either, and those were forged as hell.

It’s obvious that a memo of some sort must have been made for that meeting, but there’s still no proof that the memo as described by Michael Smith is actually the one in existence. I’m not saying that to avoid the contents of it, I’m just saying it as a matter of fact.

#235,

Cheney didn’t lie, he misspoke. He corrected himself. I love how everyone pretends that no one ever says stuff wrong. Bush is supposed to be dumb as a donkey but at the same time he is supposed to say everything correctly. It’s the schizophrenic mind of the Left in action.

Good job turtle. You just took non-denials and refusals to address something as proof that something exists. Ask Dan Rather how that sort of logic works out.

But he will be back! With conviction! As if he has never been proven an out right imbecile …

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/11/where-theres-a-will/

He then indicated that I was the dishonest one for stating other admin obfuscations and distortions prior to the invasion…

Comment by Si Byl — July 11, 2006 @ 2:10 am

Yeah, let’s see if S__x_n has anything to say. And let’s see if it’s something with a substance or simply spin.

# 231. T.t.C.b.T.P.T. aka. T.t.T.; has a point here.

What say you ?

Yes, that there is no proof the Downing Street Memo exists. There isn’t. You can scream as loud as you want, but there still is no proof that the document actually exists in the form presented by the journalist Michael Smith.
Comment by Seixon — July 10, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

Well let’s see: in a White House press conference on 7th June 2005, Tony Blair conceded the existence of the DSM.

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.

Oh, but that does not confirm the content of the memo and the Michael Smith translation, says you. Au contraire, mon capitan. On June 29th, Paid Cymru MP Adam Price questioned Tony Blair about the authenticity of the DSM in the House Of Parliament, Prime Minister’s questions. Here’s the ‘money shot’ quote from Price:

“I challenged the Prime Minister on whether Sir Richard Dearlove was a reliable intelligence source, and if so, could he confirm whether his statement was an accurate assessment of the Bush administration’s intentions and actions. In his answer, the Prime Minister refuses to distance himself from the assessment made by the former head of MI6 and simply goes on to say resolution 1441 changed the position. I fail to see how this is relevant to my question.”

So Seixon, shall you call the fire brigade or shall I – I think your pants are at least giving us a two-alarmer right now. Thanks for playing ’spot the whopper’.

TerrytheCensoredbyThinkProgressTurtle

Speaking of your blog; I think I’ll go right over there,get me some learnin’,and then click on a advert or three.

$$$$ CaChing.

You have gotten to the point that people know you are a nasty little brat that they don’t bother in rational dialog with you. It’s impossible. So, until you grow up, don’t you dare act all innocent and victim-like. You’re the biggest part of the problem.

And I only know what you said from what was in jonser’s post. I’m sure that was just the tip of the iceberg of your hypocrisy.

I guess you gotta make us the bad guys if you need to be the good guys. So much for you condoning a President that is the antithesis to your Christian morals?

I’ve never seen you debate on issues for more than one or two posts before you resort to patronization and holier-than-thou mantras. So, you’re hardly one to criticize. Always like the pot to fail to notice he is black..

It’s in vegetative state territory by now, Chase.
This is one of the few things we will agree on, my dear, so CHEERS!

Then I would ask you to tell your fellow liberal commenters to refrain from making me the issue. Just let them know every time they go after me, slander me, lie about me, etc, etc. Just tell them to stop and they probably will. I’m not interested in talking about me, I’m interested in debating these issues on here.