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.
That is not an admission that these memo's are true. in fact, he's saying they are false. Ask Blair if he thinks they are fakes, and he will probably say show me the origional, if you can't, then they are.
lol! I think you're right, I bet she won!
"said that the first Downing Street memos weren't fakes when people on here were saying they were and was proved correct. I don't think these are either. I'll be back to admit my mistake if I turn out to be wrong!"
So, you signed up in March just to 'enlighten' us here at FR?
How generous of you to point us to the 'error of our ways'!
Eh? If you know something never existed you don't say "it was written" and give a time period! He is contesting the interpretation of the memo, not its existence.
This purely seems to be an issue on your side of the pond by the way, I didn't see any suggestion over here that there was even a question as to the authenticity (of the original one, I'll give it a few days for the new ones, but I anticipate the same).
Only in the seriously disturbed mind of a Lefty.
ir·re·gard·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls) adv. Nonstandard Regardless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.] Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
eh?? How was it presented to him? Does it have a date on it? he said 'this was written" (as he looked at the date on it) blah blahblah". I'm sure he didn't give it to inteligence to see if it was legite. besides, it's a memo written by who? It's not official government letterhead you know. Why don't you ski-daddle over to DU? They think just like you, that he admitted they were legit. I don't see where he said that in that statement. All he said was according to the time time memo says it was written, we hadn't even been to the UN yet. He denied the content, not verify the memo written on Hilroy scrap paper.
Anyone know the location of Rather's ex-producer?
I do not use it and have long understood the correct word to use is "regardless", however, you are not quite techically correct that there is "no such word":
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
~snip~
Why you would anticipate flames is beyond me.
RatherGate II!
The MSM is going to have to bury this for the sheeple not to be suprememly POed.
You are hereby awarded the "Bill Safire Wordsmith of the Week Award" Congratulations.
Sure smells like there could be a connection
13. Why would they add any more credibility than Blair ADMITTING THEY ARE TRUE
I don't get this whole line of spin - Blair and other senior British officials ADMIT that these are true copies of documents - you don't need originals when the people it refers to ADMIT they are true!
This is just feeding the doubts that the right wing spin doctors are trying to sow. Don't fall for it
There you go. lefties at DU have the same convaluted thinking as you. Run over there and hold hands with them, you can talk about raising little boys in a gay couples homes there too. They also believe it's ok to warp little boys minds before they can grow up and make up their own.
Wouldn't the intentional and secret destruction of the originals lead you to believe that the copies were less than accurate?
"Further, why would Blair even have thought about whether they were fake or not?
He, like many other people, probably ASSUMED that they were legit memo's written by someone. After all, we do have this "trust" in people to be somewhat honest."
Seriously, you just made me spit coke over my keyboard. I'd just point out that Tony Blair is a qualified barrister and an accomplished politician renowned for his ability to field difficult questions.
The idea that a journalist confronted him with an allegation about a memo from his office he 'assumed' that it must be true is quite funny. And that's before considering that the press conference was over a month after the initial reports. I mean if no-one in Downing Street could remember having read it or could find a record, you'd think they'd have had time to contact the named author, Matthew Rycroft, and check "you did actually write this did you?"!
But one cannot know if the copy is accurate unless the originals remain to compare.
Thus, with no guarantees of accuracy, one cannot accept the copy.
Too bad, so sad. The "Downing Street Memo" is a fraud.
As I have stated, the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the documents.
Deformity. Check.
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.