Posted on 06/19/2005 6:53:54 AM PDT by mabelkitty
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Where did they get them?
Too many unanswered questions....
"You guys do know that the Conservatives in the UK leaked the memos right?"
I think that's probably 'allegedly' and was a theory over how the original 'Downing Street Memo' found it's way into the press in such a co-ordinated way just before the election.
No thanks.
Fake buy accurate is not a legal definition.
This is a very dangerous precedent, and should be quashed.
Now if they real memos show up, then I would agree with you competely.
"The so-called "original memo" was allegedly a recap of what some British guy agent sitting in the room allegedly heard."
That's the second time I've seen Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 at the time, described on this board as 'some British agent'! Quite funny really.
Perhaps fine for the grand illusions of a few nut jobs - but there is never going to even be the inklings of any impeachment regarding GWB. Comments even suggesting such are utterly silly and ridiculous.
And give these few nut jobs way to much power / credit then they deserve.
HA!~ Not according to what MSM is saying. It's a bad thing that we have no right imposing on people who had their own system of government that worked for them thousands of years longer than our "capitalist" system, which is crap, blah blah blah, crumbling [insert more Anti- American rhetoric here] is working. Our communist leftist media and democrat lunatics attack the nation on all fronts. Of course they ignore all the bloodshed that the 'peaceful' Islamic cult is responsible for, and the terorist dictators it produces. it's always OUR fault that 70% of the population in the ME is illiterate and poor.
I thought I saw them out on the golf course with OJ just last week. Do you suppose Lucy Ramirez killed OJ's wife?
The most disturbing part of that link was someone saying "I trust Conyers". Conyers, the man who steals holiday turkeys from poor people.
Yes. And Robert Blake's too!
Alert to Kerry and Kennedy: You dopes were dupped again!!!! You ran all over with this story, calling for Bush's impeachment, etc. all based on some re-typed memos on plain paper, with no original documentation to prove they really existed. Duh!
Hey, Kerry...you know that 180 form you said you have now signed? Let's see the original. And, no...we won't accept a faxed copy that Danny Rather might be holding.
for reasons we can't understand but they have been authenticated by several sources, so the question of their authenticity is moot.
I'm sure the typed memo of the copy of the photograph copy is authenticate
Well I was trying to be sarcastic, because this DSM brouhaha is a load of horse poop, plus I didn't know the guy's 'agents' name and don't have the time to find out.
That being said, I kind of wish I did - Sir Richard DEARLOVE is a funny name.
As to the authenticity of the memos, I suspect that the original memos were probably real. However, there are enough typos in the memos to give rise to the possibilty that the addition of a "but" here or a typo there could lend a slightly more sinister tone to them. As a body of material covering the decision making processes of the Cabinet - I think we would do well to take them at face value - put them in front of the public, call the libs bluff and remove the "lie" that they some how indicate that invasion of Iraq was unwarranted.
Well said and exactly right! - Some on here need to stop the hyper-worrying over these copied documents! - The truth is on our side. Believe in it!
To unseat Blair in his election by the Tories. Or at most to keep the Labour victory low.
The bubble I was referring to was many posts claiming that the document was "fake." I merely pointed out that the original no longer being available does not necessarily invalidate the information contained in the memo.
I agree with you as to the relevance of the document, whether original or not. This essential irrelevance is actually a powerful argument that the document is accurate, as anybody putting together a fake attack on Bush could certainly come up with something that actually appears to be relevant.
it's also a little to convenient for the DemocRATS, and thier frothing at the mouth followers. Just as they wrap up their mock convention in LA and have all these "alleged" signatures ready to go, John Fraud Kerry comes stumbling off the unleading ramp from his visit to the UK ( a visit for no apparent reason) with these memo's clenched in his fists, and of course the MSM is right there asking, Gee Senator, what are those?
However, the lady of the house on a job Friday was just ecstatic about these memos. According to her, there was a massive movement in Congress to impeach the Pres, based on them.
Of course, she had most of her facts wrong. Among others, she said the memos predated 9/11, thus implying that GWB may have been involved in 9/11 himself. Fact is they were almost a year after 9/11.
Being the gentleman I am, and also not wanting to PO a good customer, I did not dispute her facts or intelligence.
BTW, why do people like her assume that whoever they are spouting off will share their political views? She just took it for granted that I would agree with her. Isn't such aggressive infliction of one's own views rude?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.