Posted on 06/19/2005 6:53:54 AM PDT by mabelkitty
I've seen a little bit on the CBS thing, I get the 'looking at media stories with a critical eye' approach.
Those stories did echo in our media as well. It's another reason why I can't imagine The Times would print this stuff if they weren't convinced of the authenticity. They are aware of the focus on media accuracy coming both from the things you mentioned and the Hutton Enquiry over here. They know what the reaction of the British Government would be if they were found to be printing stories based on a fabrication. They know how that would impact on their readership in a damaging way.
Look for the bottom line: what's in it for The Times or Rupert Murdoch?
It's quite clear that nobody has ever seen these "origional memo's" (if they ever existed) by the repoters own admission! He shown COPIES to this ANNONYMOUS 'official'. who he claimed verified them.
Sure he did. Looks like your going to have another suicide in the UK soon. Alu-crAkbar!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but even if the reporter's story is true, what he has produced to back it up is worthless. Unless one of the people who attended those meetings or wrote those memos comes forward to authenticate what was said at the meetings (remember, what was written about the meetings is relevant only to the extent it memorializes what was said at the meetings) then there is no evidence to substantiate anything, and this is a non-story. How convenient that a British lefty journalist destroyed the originals. How well he learned the lessons of Gunga Dan.
Now, if he had kept the originals, but hidden them in a safe deposit box somewhere in order to produce them at a hearing or provide them to an authentication expert, then you might follow up on this story to some extent, but only on the idea that you would get the originals. With the admission that the originals (which were themselves copies) have been destroyed, this story is a big nothing.
And, notwithstanding all the crap conjectures of the lefties, even if the memos were true, it is a big nothing. What are they saying, the Bush administration early on decided to target Iraq and said that they wanted to make their best case for regime change? Wasn't it Clinton who in 1998 made regime change the policy of the US, because Saddam refused to comply with inspections? Had he complied by 2003? End of story.
The stupidity of leftists and their minions is astonishing to me.
Lets not forget Clintoons regime change policies in Haiti and Bosnia.
Quick someone call JOHN CONYERS!!
Psssst!! The documents are MINUTES OF MEETINGS - NOT MEMOS.
And .. if the originals were destroyed - so is their credibility! Get real.
If this continues, we are going to need a "Fake, But Accurate (FBA) Alert!
^^^^
May I say that you have just invented a new internet word. FBA will now join MSM and others.
;)
Ummm .. doesn't he have a website asking for leads??
I think john the FRAUD sKerry would prefer Abutt Grab to Gitmo. ;*)
Oh my .. it slipped my mind that Kerry was suppose to bring this memo to the Senate Floor ... FOFL!!!
"A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic."
Doesn't this sound familiar? The memos may be fake, but their content is accurate. When will they ever learn? I haven't heard this reported on Fox News yet. I wonder how long it'll take to make its way from the internet.
If anyone has a DSM ping list, I'd love to be added. Thanks.
Their Rube-Goldberg thinking is funny. It's like they're writing a novel and pasting together possible plotlines.
Update from the Captain!
UPDATE II: Marc at USS Neverdock says that the story gets even more bizarre at Rawstory:
“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added. [...]
“It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”
Why an old-fashioned typewriter? Why not just retype them on a computer, if you've already decided not to work from the originals? It looks like an attempt to fake people into believing that the documents produced by Smith were the originals.
This story gets nuttier and nuttier.
UPDATE III: Despite what Truck says in the comments, a lack of protest from Downing Street after being asked to authenticate retyped copies of alleged minutes of secret meetings does NOT constitute verification. The same exact argument came up with the Killian memos in Rathergate and the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing report last month. In both cases, the documents or sources turned out to be fakes. It's the reporters' job to provide verification, not simply a demurral by officials to opine on their authenticity. If that isn't obvious, then centuries of evidentiary procedure in American and English common law have gone for naught, as well as traditions of journalistic responsibility and professionalism. After all, this argument just means that reporters can type out anything they like and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused in proving them false -- hardly the process endorsed in libel and slander cases in the US, at least.
Posted by Captain Ed at June 19, 2005 12:00 PM
"It doesn't mean anything."
"Yeah, it was just a bunch of stuff that happened."Homer and Bart,THE SIMPSONS
I think Rupert Murdoch is probably a little too busy to be editing every paper and media outlet he owns.
Just my hunch, but with all his cash and his new young wife, I'd say he lets his managers do their jobs.
“I was given them last September while still on the [Daily] Telegraph,” Smith, who now works for the London Sunday Times, told RAW STORY. “I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them.”
“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added.
Does it say that? The quote says he returned the originals to the source.
Well it's a while ago that Andrew Neil was editor of The Times but, according to his autobiography, Murdoch liked to take a very close interest in editorial matters, especially when something controversial was likely to be printed.
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.