Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

** DSM's have been authenticated, right? **

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:04 PM
Original message
** DSM's have been authenticated, right? **
Yesterday I received a letter from US Senator Mike Crapo http://crapo.senate.gov (I try hard not to continually make jokes about the fact that my Senator is "Crapo")... Anyway I am constantly writing and calling Crapo, Craig, Otter and receive a non-stop stream of return correspondence from their offices.

This recent letter from Crapo, dated June 9, 2005 is full of misinformation and lies and had me so foaming-at-the-mouth angry that I had to wait until this morning to write this post.

It starts out as one would expect:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding questions into the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). I appreciate knowing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond."

and then the Crapo starts to fly...

"As you know, questions have been raised recently in respect to the justification for OIF, including a British government memo purporting that, prior to military action, the United States fixed intelligence information to fit the case for conflict. White House officials denied the charges and stated the decision-making leading up to OIF was an open process. They emphasized that the decision to invade in March 2003 was taken only after former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to comply with repeated United Nations resolutions and significant pressure from the international community…"

here’s the kicker

"British government officials have not confirmed the authenticity of the memo in question. If credible and substantiated information is found regarding questions into justification for OIF, further investigation may be warranted."

My understanding is that the DSM has been authenticated and that additional “credible and substantiated information” has been found…

Right?

Maybe we need to enlighten him, or at least help him to update his information…

The rest of the letter is full of zingers including the first sentence of the next paragraph:

"I understand your opposition to the decision by President Bush to take steps to eradicate the threats posed by former Iraqi President Hussein…"

and I am in the process of writing a full response to this page-and-a-half of delusionary, disjointed BS which I will post as soon as I have finished.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. This article says, "yes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thats bullshit and he knows it, nice try though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. This has a very good discussion re: authenticity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Crapo is full of Crap-O
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Reporters directly asked both Shrub & Blair about the memos.
NEITHER denied the authenticity of the docs, just that reports were misunderstanding whet they meant. Doesn't Crapo believe, if these 2 guys thought the docs were fake, they would have said so at that press briefing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Send him these articles
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0617/dailyUpdate.html

"Neither Bush nor Blair has disputed the authenticity of the memo, but when they met earlier this month they denied that it 'accurately reflected events.'"

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,1,4096951.story?coll=l&track=mostemailedlink

"Blair's government has not challenged (the memos') authenticity."


http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/06/13/drhousem.htm

"High-ranking current and former members of both in the British and U.S. governments have reportedly confirmed the memo's authenticity."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. The memos have been, in effect, authenticated.
Edited on Fri Jun-24-05 12:23 PM by TahitiNut
The British "Official Secrets Act" has very draconian penalties for discussing classified information in any way. Thus, there's absolutely no way that any UK official can verify any "memo" that's actually legitimate!

Let's pay close attention to that. There would be no such prohibition if the memos weren't legitimate. If they were fake, Blair and his cronies would have no problem proclaiming them as such.

Thus, they're legitimate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks (all) for the links, I'll be sure to forward them to "Crapo"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC