Proof positive that the USMC wreaks with criminals

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, it's precisely the point, [that the forged documents in the yellowcake allegations were purchase letters] since that's the accusation you made, but now that your misrepresentation has been highlighted for all to see, you've got to redirect the accusation in another direction>>

No the point is that fake documents [they happened to be purchase letters but might just as well have been invoices or even voice recordings] were used to back up an allegation that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake. 

You, when confronted with the fact of the forgeries, stated that it didn't matter that they were forgeries because in fact Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake.  That argument that you made did not depend on the forgeries being purchase letters.  Your argument would have applied equally well had the forgeries been of invoices or any other kind of document.  So whether or not you realized what the forgeries actually were, you claimed that the truth of the allegations was what really mattered, not the fact that the proof of the allegations was forged.

I'm not "redirecting the accusation" in any direction.  In fact, I made no accusation.  I merely stated to Ami the interesting fact that a line of reasoning that he (falsely) claimed I had used with regard to the CBS memos was in fact very similar to the same line of reasoning that you yourself had used regarding Bush's use of forged evidence in the yellowcake matter.  If I claim that an argument that you made is similar to an argument that Ami says I made, that's not an accusation of anything.  In fact, you should feel flattered that I made the comparison.  Except that you probably don't realize that's what happened.

[Michael Tee]

<<No, the point I made is that the conclusions made by Bush were corroborated by the British intel.  >>

That's only half your point. The other was that Bush's use of forged evidence was irrelevant because the conclusion would have been the same despite the forgery.  THAT'S the argument that I said was similar to what Ami was accusing me of arguing with regard to the CBS memos.

<<I'm still waiting to see the evidence that debunks the Brits.  You planning on showing it anytime soon??>>

I don't have to debunk the Brits.  They made their case with fake evidence.   There IS no evidence that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake ore from Niger.  None.  Zip.   I don't need evidence of a negative.  That's just like asking me to produce evidence that I don't fuck hamsters.  If you want to prove that Saddam DID try to buy yellowcake ore from Niger, YOU are the one that needs to produce the evidence that he did.  (HINT:  forgeries don't count as evidence!)

[Michael Tee]

<<Ahhhh, so now Tee is hypothesizing that the Bristish actually consluded something different, and simply trying to dupe Bush & Co, into believing something else.  >>

The alternative would be to believe that everything that British intelligence tells U.S. intelligence is what they sincerely believe and that they never would lie to the Americans even were it in Britain's advantage to do so.  With all due respect, I cannot accept that.

<<All without 1 shred of proof, and in this case, lacking even a shred of logic. >>

There is no proof they believed what they said and there is no proof that they did not believe what they said.  Proof  of belief is always hard to come by..... but logic says that few people or institutions always tell the truth even to their friends, and that that is particularly true of intelligence organizations. 

<<.....which again demonstrates how pourous in common sense, logic, and FACTS Tee's position is on this, as so many other positions. >>

Actually, it makes a lot of sense.  Which you have failed to debunk with either fact or logic.  (Merely calling an argument "porous in common sense, logic and facts" is not a logical argument - - it's just more of your usual right-wing lunatic babble.  As is "fantasy world" etc. )   Get back to me when you have some fact and logic to "prove" that British Intelligence always levels with the Americans, always tells them what it sincerely, truly believes.  BWAHAHAHAHAHAH.  I am patiently waiting.

<< But you keep playing in that fantasy world, and ignore any & everything that continues to debunk accusation after accusation on your part . . . . >>

Such as . . . ?

<<yet pull out completely illogcal & non-proven claims. >>

It's illogical, unproven and unproveable that British intelligence never would lie to the Americans.  But don't let illogic, lack of proof and even lack of proveabilty stand in the way of good right-wing lunatic rant.

<<It's good to stay consistent.>>

You should know.  Consistently idiotic.

[sirs]

Actually, the alternate is to believe facts on the ground and common sense vs trying to make up completely unsubstantiated lunatic notions when one's POV has been thoroughly debunked by those same facts & logic, and that this is all some British-led conspiracy to dupe Bush. 

But feel free to continue....it does have entertainment qualities associated with the rantings   

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, the alternate is to believe facts on the ground and common sense vs trying to make up completely unsubstantiated lunatic notions when one's POV has been thoroughly debunked by those same facts & logic, and that this is all some British-led conspiracy to dupe Bush.   >>

Not exactly.  Try thinking outside your 1-nanometre conservative box once in awhile.  S-T-R-E-T-C-H that atrophied brain of yours.  Take your head out of your own ass and look around.  Try this on for size:

The alternative is the British intelligence service and the Establishment which it serves doing Bush a favour, possibly requested under the table, possibly gratuitously, knowing he'd appreciate it, by fabricating some ridiculous bullshit similar to the ridiculous BS that the Bushmeister and his neocon handlers were themselves fabricating, so that Bush could say, and you too, his most faithful supporter could say, "See?  It couldn't have all been an obvious crock of shit because the Brits came to the same conclusion!  That proves it was a simple mistake made in good faith."

And apart from placating the Big Tiger Across the Pond, what other motive could British intelligence have for fabricating the same kind of BS that Bush needed to support the invasion?  Well, isn't it all just one big coincidence that Great Britain, being the former colonial power in Iraq, was once the beneficiary of all that nice oil?  Stranger than strange, huh, that the former colonial power, independently looking into things and coming to the same erroneous conclusions as the Americans did - - now how big of a coincidence is that, they even make the same mistakes?? - - then joined forces with their American senior partners and launched a joint attack on Saddam?  Wow, powerful and amazing coincidences, aren't they sirs?

[sirs]

<<Actually, the alternate is to believe facts on the ground and common sense vs trying to make up completely unsubstantiated lunatic notions when one's POV has been thoroughly debunked by those same facts & logic, and that this is all some British-led conspiracy to dupe Bush.   >>

Not exactly.  Try thinking outside your 1-nanometre conservative box once in awhile.  S-T-R-E-T-C-H that atrophied brain of yours.  

Translated; make up up stuff out of thin air and call it reasonable, sensible, & rational, even if current facts & logic completely contradict one's made up mind of how evil Bush and America is supposed to be.  That may work in your section of the universe, but here on earth, I'll keep sticking with the facts, as they currently have manifested themselves

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . but here on earth, I'll keep sticking with the facts, as they currently have manifested themselves>>

Sure, go on believing that the British intelligence agencies will never ever lie to their U.S. counterparts and go on believing that they could never collude with one another in fabricating the same BS for a common purpose. 

That sounds very realistic and commonsensical to me.  Not.

[sirs]

<< . . . but here on earth, I'll keep sticking with the facts, as they currently have manifested themselves>>

Sure, go on believing that the British intelligence agencies will never ever lie to their U.S. counterparts and go on believing that they could never collude with one another in fabricating the same BS for a common purpose.

When you can demonstrate some proof or evidence of such, I'li look forward to reading it.  Your reference that it's simply plausible is hardly definative or compelling in this particular in this

That sounds very realistic and commonsensical to me. 

Of course it would......to you and like minds