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.
"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, two British newspapers.
Smith told the AP he protected the identity of the source from whom he had obtained the documents by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."
The left wing moonbats think Bush will now be impeached over copies of "destroyed originals"...
There is excitement in the fumes being inhaled by the "Bush stole the election", Bush hating rabid libs.
Off with his head they say!
Sorry..I just climbed out of majority left wing swamp..forum
Ah, breathing fresh air of FR.
Well, a memo appears that contains the opinions of the agent (Oh---the bigwig whatever you think we all should know who the hell he is, I mean). Why would Blair not accept the representation at face value. He is not in a position to know what memos in the world really and truly exist or not.
Whether the memo is authentic or not, the content containing an opinion was not damning anyway. However, the authenticity with these latest revelations most certainly is now in doubt. Blair would have no reason to have doubted their authenticity before.
Bump for later. Thanks!
For the love of pete! it's F(*&^$%KING MEMO! He commented on the CONTENT, and said it's BULLCRAP! What's that got to do with being a frigging lawyer? WHAT was so DIFFICULT about saying that the information on a MEMO was B.S.? HOW does that translate into saying it was legite? Go bang your head against a brick wall or something.
No problem.
2 things...Downing, being a British memo, uses the word "fix" in referrence to making a case...the liberals in America are misconstruing how the Brits are applying that word...all they are saying is that the case is being made to remove Saddam and, like a court case, the facts are being "arranged i.e. fixed" around those facts that support the case...
2. Notice the memo cites Saddam's WMD capability. Thus, liberal enemies of this country are cherry picking. They cite the "fixed" aspect, ignore the WMD assessment.
Nothing here, move along.
"He is not in a position to know what memos in the world really and truly exist or not."
Presumably if he'd never seen it before, that would set some alarm bells ringing.
As I said before, the press conferance in the US was over a month after the initial story was printed. Are you seriously suggesting that Blair didn't know whether this was an authentic memo or not and hadn't bothered, in the course of a month, to find out!? And then decided to just assume that it was authentic in a press conferance and answer questions on that basis?
"He commented on the CONTENT, and said it's BULLCRAP!"
Yes he did. That's what I was saying. Other people were saying that the memo never existed. I'm not sure what you're saying anymore...
LOL
;)
You must have had one stuck on your shoe, because it's here.
He thinks destroyed fake ( this "I destroyed them" story is true because this "reporter" gave the Cub Scout sign) doccuments are going to now resurface. And regardless, copies of fake doccuments are legit because Blair, who denied the content somehow validated them by doing that.
I guess this "origional source" of the doccument will surface and make new origional Memo's, and they will be legit bewcause he allegedly made the origion fakes inthe first place.
How does that sound, that's rationallefty thinking isn't it?
Why? The content wasn't odd or unusual enough to set off "alarm bells".
Just the same old.
Ok, I'll try one more time. Do you have proof that the origional memo ever existed?
tell me, what does an authentic memo look like?
Who's "memo" was it? (think now) I'll give you a HINT. (it was someones personal scrap of paper)
"Blair, who denied the content somehow validated them by doing that"
Am I not making myself clear? He denied a certain interpretation of the content with reference to events that had happened after the content was written.
It takes a special kind of ability to use that to construct an argument that the memo did not ever exist!
How does attacking a socialist Prime Minister get you labelled a 'leftie' by the way?
How can I seriously suggest something I never even remotely suggested?
I suggest you take you self-described open (actually empty) mind and not use it to make outlandish leaps like you evidently expect the rest of us, including Blair, to make.
Rational people don't make unwarranted and baseless assumptions.
You attach far too much significance to this nothing memo if you think Blair would have obsessively ordered a search into its authenticity. It's really nothing and since you appear slow I'll spell it out: I have not said I think the memo is fake. I'm interested in the story that it might be but I've said even if real it was always a big "so what". I'm guessing that's what Blair thought, too; "So what".
1. To sell newspapers?
2. You are basically following the Democrats demands that Bush denounce the TANG memos, as well as Terry McAuliffe's line that Bush didn't say they weren't true, so in effect, they are "fake but accurate". You see?
The handling of the TANG documents by the victim of the slaner was perfect. Silence, allowing the accusers to push it further and further until it blew up in their face. It worked so well this past September, why would Bush and Blair play it differently?
"Why? The content wasn't odd or unusual enough to set off "alarm bells"."
And no-one had checked in the intervening month?
John Kerry seems to head these fake memos to destroy a sitting President. This makes him guilty twice.
Are we going to wait until the third time is the magic charge to throw him in Gitmo?
I asked "why" anyone would have done that.
I see you have no answer.
It is an opinion memo. Are you demanding leaders track down the authors of opinion memos in order to intimidate, harrass and force a recantation or what?
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.