Another Intercept, but this time it's different

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
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".

Authentic but full of ****. Right up there with "Fake but accurate".

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

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

Matt, you need to READ-THE-MEMO before commenting. The memo is
actually minutes of a meeting at which Tony Blair was present and
there's nothing false about it. During the meeting "C" commented on
his recent trip to Washington where he was briefed by his U.S.
intelligence counterparts. "C" is Sir Richard Dearlove who is the
head of MI6.

Since Dearlove was in Washington as the head of MI6 in order to be
briefed, it's hardly necessary for him to be a mind reader. He has to
listen to what he's told and render this information accurately to
Tony Blair.

No person in the British government is denying the accuracy of the
memo.

Frankly, I too wish it weren't so.

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.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

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

Matt, you need to READ-THE-MEMO before commenting. The memo is
actually minutes of a meeting at which Tony Blair was present and
there's nothing false about it. During the meeting "C" commented on
his recent trip to Washington where he was briefed by his U.S.
intelligence counterparts. "C" is Sir Richard Dearlove who is the
head of MI6.

Sounds like hearsay to me.


Since Dearlove was in Washington as the head of MI6 in order to be
briefed, it's hardly necessary for him to be a mind reader. He has to
listen to what he's told and render this information accurately to
Tony Blair.

No person in the British government is denying the accuracy of the
memo.

Frankly, I too wish it weren't so.

Odd, isn't it, that it's not getting any traction here, even in the left
wing press.

"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.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

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

Matt, you need to READ-THE-MEMO before commenting. The memo is
actually minutes of a meeting at which Tony Blair was present and
there's nothing false about it. During the meeting "C" commented on
his recent trip to Washington where he was briefed by his U.S.
intelligence counterparts. "C" is Sir Richard Dearlove who is the
head of MI6.

Sounds like hearsay to me.


Since Dearlove was in Washington as the head of MI6 in order to be
briefed, it's hardly necessary for him to be a mind reader. He has to
listen to what he's told and render this information accurately to
Tony Blair.

No person in the British government is denying the accuracy of the
memo.

Frankly, I too wish it weren't so.

Odd, isn't it, that it's not getting any traction here, even in the left
wing press.

One last thing: this all sounds very much like the Joe Clark episode.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:13:32 -0400, "Mike W."
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

Is creating oversized restricted areas a knee-jerk reaction to something
they can't control? Agreed.

On the other hand, why is it such a big deal?

Because acceptance of these lethal shoot-down pseudo-security policies
by airmen can appear as tacit endorsement, it sends the wrong message
to the TSA. Unless we want to seem more of this lethal, but
ineffective, philosophy directed toward airmen by their government, we
should protest loudly and often, IMO.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

He did at one time, until he used them all against the Iranian's and
the Kurds.


What evidence is there that he used them all against the Iranians and the
Kurds?



The GW Bush claim was that he had them (at the time of the
invasion) so we had to invade him to take them away from him. This
assertion appears to be untrue, based on the memo leaked to "The
Times".


That assumes the assertions in the memo are true, there's no reason to
believe that's the case.



So my original statement "he never had them" was incorrect.


No question about that.



At the
time of the invasion, he no longer had them because they had been used
up back in '88. I should have written "did not currently possess
them".


Much to question about that. We know for certain that Saddam had WMD and
that he was willing to use them. We don't know when or how he got rid of
them. If he was rid of them in 1988 he certainly made an effort to appear
that he still had them.