Classic. I think your response may be longer than the memo, which is why this is amusing:

Although the Left will desperately analyze this down to the subatomic level, and I have seen some spectacular efforts so far,

Substitute "the Brosz" for "the Left" and your effort could be called "spectacular" too! You've been waiting hours for the chance to write that, haven't you?

I can't hope to match your analysis letter-by-letter, and I'd rather not get into that because that excessively-hairsplitting technique and the claim that people were expecting a memo "that flags the 9/11 attacks and methodology" are red herrings designed to deflect attention from the real issues. Sheesh, man, if anybody knew the precise details of the attacks then they could have stopped them. Obviously they didn't, and it's only conspiracy theory nut cases that expected the memo to reveal otherwise.

Speaking of conspiracy theories:

Note also that the information is uncorroborated. You know, the kind of intelligence that has pissed so many people off in connection with Iraq? The kind everyone says Bush should never ever listen to?

Seemed like a good point, until I thought about it. For the analogy to hold up, Bush would have to have wanted 9/11 as much as he wanted to invade Iraq, and in both cases cherry-picked the intelligence he acted upon and disclosed to the public. You're not trying to say that, are you?

Admittedly the memo is a bit passive and flaccid, yet it does state clearly (in the simplified sixth-grade vocabulary that's evidently expected of Bush Presidential briefings) that something was afoot. In context of previous warnings and meetings such as the one reported that June, in which officials, notably Tenet, pounded the table and did everything short of scream to get the attention of the White House, it does establish that the alarm was raised. Was nobody in the White House engaged enough to ask about the FBI's 70 ongoing investigations? Wouldn't that raise one hell of a big red flag with you?

Speaking of those 70 investigations, we come back to the issue I raised in my post originally, Rice's testimony under oath (which, by the way, is all I had to say on the matter; I knew you wanted somebody to give you a chance to post...;-) ):

And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information

Bullshit. No wonder the White House considers her such a great spokesperson, she seems to have very few scruples about spinning the truth right up to the edge of outright lying, and occasionally beyond. This is the woman who accounted for 80% of the out-and-out lies tabulated by the House Reform Committee in its investigation of misleading statements about Iraq. Is she cleverly setting herself up to be the scapegoat out of loyalty to Bush?

Back to you...