OK, remember that secret memo that was supposedly lifted from senate democrat computers, and how it said that well timed accusation and demand for a probe would happen in 2004? well, here it is folks! Idiot democrats know that this memo leaked, and they still dont change their tactics! this is why they have no majority in any branch of government, they think the american people are so stupid, that even if we see their "secret" plans, they feel they can just go along with them anyway, becasue we are to stupid to realize it is the plan going into action! man, with these guys running the show, the democrats better look for a new line of work, like Global Crossing or something, oh wait, teh second largest bankruptcy in history that made lots of Democrats rich and lots of employees broke never made it to the news, I guess it was that right wing bias huh?

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381234|top|01-25-2004::20:08|reuters.html

What memo are you referring to Trav?

Originally posted by Travh20
Idiot democrats know that this memo leaked, and they still dont change their tactics! this is why they have no majority in any branch of government, they think the american people are so stupid, that even if we see their "secret" plans, they feel they can just go along with them anyway, becasue we are to stupid to realize it is the plan going into action!
I guess they're still optimistic about chances of those new ethics that Lil' Dumbya said he (and the adults) were bringing to D.C.

You think he might have been lying?????!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Originally posted by Vilepagan
What memo are you referring to Trav?
I think (in conservative-circles) it's called new-ethics hacking . (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0%2C1406%2CKNS_348_2600932%2C00.html) :rolleyes:

yes, conviently the actual memo is now off the news! man that left wing bias in the media comes in handy!

"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

"1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

"For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

"2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

"In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

"The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

"3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

"The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

"A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

"In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

Ok Trav, is your last post a copy of the "memo" you were talking about? If so, what part of that memo do you find objectionable? And is the article posted by Shaman an accurate description of how the republicans got the memo?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Ok Trav, is your last post a copy of the "memo" you were talking about? If so, what part of that memo do you find objectionable? And is the article posted by Shaman an accurate description of how the republicans got the memo? If the information contained in "the memo" is accurate, does it really matter how the information was aquired? We're not trying them in a court of law here on this forum, only the court of public opinion.

Originally posted by HaVoK
If the information contained in "the memo" is accurate, does it really matter how the information was aquired? We're not trying them in a court of law here on this forum, only the court of public opinion.

First of all I don't see anything in the memo even remotely objectionable, and secondly, hell yes it matters. If they accessed someones computer without authorization don't you find that objectionable?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
First of all I don't see anything in the memo even remotely objectionable, and secondly, hell yes it matters. If they accessed someones computer without authorization don't you find that objectionable? Yes i find it objectionable. Am i supposed to disregard what the memo says because of the means by which it was gained? Im not a court of law. It doesnt matter to me how the facts were gained. And in some instances the law even agrees with me. Remember that hacker that found kiddie porn on that guys hard drive and reported it to police? He was commiting a crime when he found that information, but the police used it anyway. So whats the difference here? I mean, besides the fact that the dems were commiting no crime.:D

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yes i find it objectionable. Am i supposed to disregard what the memo says because of the means by which it was gained? Im not a court of law. It doesnt matter to me how the facts were gained. And in some instances the law even agrees with me. Remember that hacker that found kiddie porn on that guys hard drive and reported it to police? He was commiting a crime when he found that information, but the police used it anyway. So whats the difference here? I mean, besides the fact that the dems were commiting no crime.:D

No, I'm not suggesting you disregard the memo, But what does the memo say? I' presuming that the passage in question that Trav, and perhaps you find objectionable is as follows:

"3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

"The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

"A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

This implies that they want to wait to launch an independent investigation because they can do so only once, and they want to wait for certain reports to be done. It further states that they want the request for an independent investigation to attract media attention and have increased credibility, suggesting they are using it for political gain. Now I would like to see these kind of things done for other than political reasons, but that is the nature of politics in this country. It is no worse than Bush using the war in Iraq for political gain, and he certainly has no compunction about that.

the point is that they want to release the investigation at the right time, so as to have the most impact on the election. THey know that the results of the investigation probably wont go the way they want it or it wouldnt matter when they did it. If they could nail bush they would do it now, not wait. So its either they are withholding information from the american public so as to release to the greatest effect for them, or they are waiting to launch a false investigation they know probably wont pan out but could effect election results. I guess you have to not be under the liberal democrat trance to see things how they are.

Originally posted by Travh20
the point is that they want to release the investigation at the right time, so as to have the most impact on the election. THey know that the results of the investigation probably wont go the way they want it or it wouldnt matter when they did it. If they could nail bush they would do it now, not wait. So its either they are withholding information from the american public so as to release to the greatest effect for them, or they are waiting to launch a false investigation they know probably wont pan out but could effect election results. I guess you have to not be under the liberal democrat trance to see things how they are.

It's pretty obvious that there is no intent to launch a "false" investigation by what it says in the excerpt that you posted:

Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

Where in there do you see an indication that they feel their investigation won't pan out? I think the fact that the intelligence estimates on finding WMD's in Iraq were either horribly wrong to begin with, or deliberately ignored, since no WMD's were found, despite Bush's claims that they were there, is a good indication that an investigation is in order here. Where in the memo do they recommend witholding information, or suggest that they are?

Honestly Trav, I'm not the one in a trance here. You post a memo, and then make claims that are not backed up by the memo you posted. Again, yes they suggest in the memo that they want the reports and the call for an investigation to have the most impact on the election. Perhaps this is because they feel Bush is incompetent as President. It's called politics Trav, and Mr. Bush plays the same game when he uses the "war on terrorism" and the people who have died in it, for political gain. Which is more despicable?

OK pagan, answer me this: If they have something on Bush, why hold onto it? why wait? And when you say that bush is using the war on terror as a politial thing, I have to disagree and point out once again how the democrats will play the war on terror to their advantage, they do this by saying Bush isnt doing enough againt the terrorists to average americans, and when they get in fron of the rabid left wing bush haters they say that the war on terror is really just a way for Bush and Ashcroft to steal their rights. Its all a game, like you said, but read nothing into this memo is really stretching it. What does this mean to you?

"Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once"

to me it says they will go along until they dont get thier way, then they will use their one and only trump card at the right time. As I said, if they have it, what are they waiting for?

Originally posted by HaVoK
It doesnt matter to me how the facts were gained.
Lemme guess. You're a Watergate-fan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/front.htm), huh? :eek: