Lucy, you've got a lot of splainin' to do.
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.
"Burkett's attorney, David Van Os, said Tuesday that a woman who called herself Lucy Ramirez contacted Burkett to tell him about the documents, which were subsequently hand-delivered to him in March by an unidentified man during a trip to Houston.""In order to protect Ramirez from being traced as the source of the memos through DNA on the documents, Burkett then burned the original documents after making copies of them, Van Os said. He later gave the copies to CBS News, identifying someone other rather than Ramirez as the source."
"CNN has not been able confirm Burkett's scenario of how he came to be in possession of the documents. Van Os also said that he did not see the original documents." -- CNN.com, Sept. 22, 2004.
And of course, after they were revealed as forgeries, there were several unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate as "fake but accurate", which, after failing, finally led to a desperate last-second re-trenching to pass them off as merely 'reconstituted' from existing documents (using the seen-discarded-in-a-trash-can BS).
There was more to it than merely probity and chain of custody. It is the outright commission of a state felony in Texas to make or present two or more documents with knowledge of their falsity and with intent that they be taken as a genuine governmental record. Transmission of same over phone lines triggers a federal Intersate Wire Act felony.
This DS BS has all the hallmarks...
Oh bull-hockey!! It is incumbent on the person who puts these documents out to prove their authenticity. Bush and Blair have already dismissed them as not being an accurate representation of what happened.
Using your logic anyone can type anything up and expect to have it believed just by claiming it is a transcript of an original that has been destroyed. Gimme a break, dude, you are expecting those implicated in the memo's to "prove" they are phony. How does one prove a negative?
"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."
Totally agree, other than to point out (again!) that this issue is nothing at all to do with Bush - it's a British story printed about the British Government in a British newspaper.
Dismissing the documents as fabricated does nothing but make you look silly when they turn out not to be (as happened with the original Downing Street Memo).
Two questions I've been trying to get people to answer all afternoon, but no-one will address:
1. Why would The Times print this if they weren't pretty damn sure they were accurate? Especially bearing in mind the recent CBS thing, the previous reaction of the British Government to inaccurate reporting of Government leaks (see the BBC/David Kelly) and Rupert Murdoch's general disposition for keeping in with the Blair government.
2. If the documents were made up, why doesn't the British Government say so? They'd be outraged surely? Demanding resignations at The Times? No?
Just stick to your 'happy homo family' threads, Limeynoob.
And the nutcases on the left want to impeach our President with this????
And, John Fraud Kerry, in the real world would be charged with a felony, because it's he who brought these fake memo's home, it's he who lead this conspircy to commit fraud, among other charges. He really does need to be charged with this. At the very least, a grand jury investigation.
Yep, it's typed just as I typed it; and yep, I'm holding it; so yep, it's authentic.
The scary thing is that this is the "strongest" case they have.
Good analysis of the memos!
"Yes, and you aren't any more correct in this thread than you were elsewhere in your attempt to constitute a 'non-denial' as validation."
If a newspaper claimed to have documents showing that, say, John Kerry had fabricated details of his service in Vietnam, and Kerry made no comment whatsoever, would you not consider that fairly telling?
Lucy, you've got a lot of splainin' to do.
We would have all sorts of people attempting to capitalize (laws suits etc) if all that was needed was a fake memo. heck, if you had a chance of winning after feeling out the waters you can stick with the story, maybe even produce a paid for author of the memo's if the price was right. That's why, even if legit, those memo's are worthless because anyone can write down B.S. on a piece of paper alleging this or that for personal gain.
If so, it's entirely in keeping with current Tories 'leadership' grounded in their masterful grasp of "Dole in '96" election theory, as the election gave the most to the Libs.
As long as Blair pounds the Third Way and the EUCon right up his juxy and retains a hint of Scoop Jacksonism abroad, the Tories need to produce another Thatcher...
I have infiltrated DU several times with several screen names just for laughs. You post anything that isn't hard core left wing anti-Bush garbage and you're outta there. They aren't about truth and never have been. They are about having a big giant hardcore left wing cluster group hug every day.
No. There must be something pedantically Yobbo about the need to chuff every time an allegation of any sort is made. Now back to your 'happy homo family' threads, Limeytrollzot.
The Tories lost because their message was "we are against the Iraq war but would have voted to fight it anyway" so they were talking out of both sides of their mouths and thus lost.
Exactly!
Bob must have lost his concentration with this contestant.
After the CBS debacle the left has really "come out of the closet" - they don't even bother pretending their materials are real.
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.