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.
"You attach far too much significance to this nothing memo if you think Blair would have obsessively ordered a search into its authenticity"
Obsessively ordered a search? It has the name of the person who sent it and who they sent it to on it! It would hardly take that much checking.
No. It's called the 5th Amendment.
You weren't here, but everyone wanted Kerry to prove his service. We're weird that way. That's what it means when we demanded he sign his 180.
It was proof as stored in American archives.
I have an 'offical' stack of post-it memo paper that I use to stick all over the place around my desk here.
Is there any way you can tell me if one of them isn't "official"?
Again, what does an official memo look like? I want to take down any that may be "unofficial" around here.
What do your official memos look like cyncooper?
No flames from me. It makes me crazy.
What about "past history"? That sends me over the edge.
My answer is that, if there was any doubt as to the existence of the memo as reported, that would have been the first focus of the internal investigation that undoubtedly took place in Downing Street after the story was printed.
I suggest you have a look into the David Kelly/BBC affair to see how Downing Street reacts when journalists make allegations against them using dubious evidence and compare to the reaction in this case.
This memo was sent? I was under the impression these were personal "memo's this annonymous person kept for HIMSELF, who then later gave them to this 'reporter, who then retyped them and burned the origionals. So, Tony blair has never seen the origional "note to self" memos.
Of course it does. Are you under yet another in your long list of false assumptions that I didn't know that?
That's why it would strike me as obsessive of Blair if he sought out the (purported) author.
I guess you missed (or are deliberately ignoring) my comment that I have not concluded the memo is fake. I'll continue to assume it's real but I do find the reporter's "I destroyed the original" fascinating.
It really is no big deal if even Ellis Henican thinks it isn't a smoking gun.
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/nyc-hen0619,0,295479.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
Don't get too excited over Downing Street memos
I think thqt if you had an official British Government memo on your desk, you'd realise. Especially a secret 'eyes only' one.
I suggest you quit making your outlandish and insane presumptions.
I am most thoroughly versed in the David Kelly story and how he betrayed his country (and subsequently was overwhelmed with guilt, hence his suicide).
I am guessing there might have been some looking into the memo, too, because this reporter felt enough pressure to admit he "destroyed the originals".
So again, what does an official memo look like?
Why would this reporter burn them? (unless they never existed in the first place, which we can now say didn't, because he burnt them! so he says)
If The brits were too stupid to realize that these memo's were fake, and had a big investigation over them, then all I have to say is
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! no wonder the Uk is so screwed up!
Soon it will be Muhammad land anyways. Good Job mate! Not only did you colonialists travel around the world and screw up every colony you founded ( because they never thought far enough a head) you've finaly screwed up your own too!
"I guess you missed (or are deliberately ignoring) my comment that I have not concluded the memo is fake"
Yes I did miss that, am having trouble keeping up with who is saying what to be honest! I'd just re-iterate to you that my only point in this thread was that the original memo leaked before the election was definately authentic and these very likely are too. In terms of implications, I continue to think that there are some for the Blair Government that they will shrug off fairly easily, not so many that implicate Bush.
"I'll continue to assume it's real but I do find the reporter's "I destroyed the original" fascinating."
I agree. Strange that he would do that rather than just hide them someplace. My assumption is that there would be more than one copy however (I don't know this for a fact) so I doubt it was the only copy that ever existed.
News flash! this guy was not an official British Government desk sitter, and there was no official British government memo.
It was just crap retyped on plain paper.
So where do you get "official British Government memo" from? Obviously, you are imagining it; Too many James Bond movies?
Thanks for your last measured reply.
I apologize for being a bit irritated earlier.
Here's where the Lefties are freaking out.
They are desperately scared the memos story will be about the authenticity and not the subject.
Therefore, they are desperately trying to show they HAD to be real at some point because somebody in government may have answered a question that may have addressed the content at some time in or around a month ago or a year after 9/11.
Make no mistake. More and more memos were planned to be released and were planned to address questions after the first two were released.
I will bet anybody dollars to donuts the next six memos will have actual quotes by someone in the Bush Administration.
And I also will bet dollars to donuts the whole scam is a fraud, and Lefties are now left with egg on their face because nobody but nobody can produce actual evidence to prove Bush committed crimes and should be impeached.
However, I want to know what Homeland Security is doing about this? At what point will terrorist attacks (and make no mistake - removing the power structure of a free country through any means necessary is a terrorist attack) by our elected officials warrant time in Gitmo?
I suggest you research and study our reactions to false information from our media.
You can start with the TANG memos by Dan Rather, follow-up with Jayson Blair, and you should pretty much "get" American voters.
The money-makers aren't going to be suckered again.
Dana Milbanks kicked their butts, as well.
" Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paperdestroying the originals."
Obviously what was presented to Blair was just crap printed on plain paper
"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."
key words "their content". of course, this "official" is annonymous (they always are when they don't exist) No "official" would say content written on plain paper was authentic. This story stems from where? AP. It's not as if they never fabricated a story before, no siree!
What we have here is FRAUD on a grand scale, which warrants a grand jury investigation here, because it was used in an attmpt to discreadit a government during a time of war.
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.