crushing...

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:19 am

uhm...if he gets away with this...theres is no doubt its all rigged...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/inter ... ref=slogin

for the morons...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Ti ... _0326.html

Post by **mjrpes** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:40 am

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Well, this seems pretty damning.

Post by ek » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:43 am

eh it doesnt surprise me.

Post by **4days** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:01 am

Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

Post by **feedback** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:14 am

haha 4days what the fuck

Post by **4days** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:21 am

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3258&

Post by ek » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:25 am

Post by **Grudge** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:35 am

haven't seen that in a while

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:48 pm

4days wrote:http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3258&

ha ha that thread is gold

INTERNET

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:54 pm

Freakaloin wrote:uhm...if he gets away with this...theres is no doubt its all rigged...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/inter ... ref=slogin

the new york times, redefining the word 'old' for the 21st century

this quote made me lol - well. inwardly anyway - though:

"As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

not quite a ringing endorsement of "democracy-building"

Post by **mjrpes** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:10 am

seremtan wrote:
the new york times, redefining the word 'old' for the 21st century

Are you talking about the memo? So the nytimes shouldn't spend the extra time necessary to check its sources and make sure everything stated in the memo is correct?

Post by **seremtan** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:30 pm

well, since the memo is a leaked official document, and therefore someone breached the UK official secrets act to leak it, i don't think that excuse scans. also phillippe sands included excerpts ages ago, as did UK C4. remember the US media was 6 weeks late covering the downing street memo, and probably only did so because of the number of bloggers of fringe journos who were talking about it

crushing...

crushing...

Re: crushing...

Re: crushing...