Posted on 06/19/2005 6:53:54 AM PDT by mabelkitty
There are six pages not yet seen. Perhaps there is the meat in those documents.
The author of the documents has not been revealed. It would be somewhat impossible for anybody to deny they existed so no name was being attached to them.
I'm just sayin'.
Evidence can be admissible if it can be proven that it has been copied from an original document and there are very strong reasons why the content of the copies is plausible.
He told the AP he destroyed the originals. SO which one is right?
The DUmmies are saying that this reporter is just saying he destroyed them to get a big reaction and denial from the Bush admin. and then "BINGO" he will produce the originals.
Why would he bother with that charade? By the time, he produces the "real memos" no one will give a crap!
Well .. let the children play their little games.
"I very much doubt that the documents are fakes, for two reasons. First, to my knowledge no one in the British government has denied their authenticity."
Just like the NEWSWEEK story on the Koran-flushing was accurate because the Pentagon didn't deny it?
The gents at Powerline are usually spot-on but this time isn't one of them...
This MO is surely has all the marks of another Leftist fraud perpetrated upon Bush and Blair; it is a cornerstone of another political debate that the Left cannot otherwise win, honestly. . .fairly.
Disgusting; but that is the nature of our enemy. . .the Communists round the world are in high gear. . .is there a 'fly on someone's wall' from whom we might just get a kernal of genuine truth here?
Gotta love "retyping" then destroying the originals. Just how stupid do these reporters thing we are???
Late to the thread, but thaks for the ping! Why in the H would someone re-type and destroy the memo? Fishy, Fishy, Fishy!
You are missing the main point.
The burden of proof of the authenticity of such memos is on the journalist and media which makes it news.
There is no way to authenticate these so-called memos, because they don't even have a photocopy of them. It's only the word of the journalist that they ever existed.
So unless they are authenticated, they are worthless and presumed fakes.
Add to all this, that the guy types them on a typewriter?! That appears to me as intent to create the false impression of genuineness. Why NOBODY, but the journalist saw even the copies of the originals?
If the reporter destroyed ORIGINAL British Government documents labled "SECRET" and/or "TOP SECRET"; one would think he would be in prison at this point, awaiting arraignment, at least.
This entire story is B.S. The libs couldn't pull off a good fake document domestically via Dan Rather, so they've tried the same stunt by creating a fake story on documents that they can admit don't exist via an unknown foreign reporter.
They're so arrogant that they believe that they are so intelligent and all of we riff-raff are so stupid that they can shovel us any load of ____ and we'll just swallow it whole. Somehow, even though it continually does not work, they continue to try it.
They're locked into a 1973 world where they think people will believe a story if they come up with some clandestine government leaker to tell it. They haven't yet learned that people no longer have limited news sources, and that it is so easy for people to communicate, that the 'real story' behind the 'leak'comes out in days (or like Dan Rather's debacle, hours) rather than it taking 30+ years to come out such as the identity of Woodward and Bernstein's source...
I won't tell them if you don't...
Reagan80
good to hear
And interesting as well. Is this part of the reason he didn't take it to the floor, in addition to these memos lacking a sinister meaning to most Americans.
LOL, yeah that one is kind of funny too.
Because some people do not like to be corrected. Technically, as the dictionary reference states, it isn't widely regarded as being correct. I was mostly kidding.
Bookmarked for later reading...
That's true, of course.
But why do you suppose the reporter went to the trouble of re-typing them on a typewriter, not on computer?
And why did he then go to the trouble of obtaining a stamp and stamping them "Confidential" and "Top Secret"?
A lot of trouble to go to for what really amounted to nothing more than research notes, no?
Score another victory for the good guys.
If these memos are fake, Karl Rove will be blamed anyway.
So what difference does it really make?
Exactly.
If the originals were authentic, these flourishes (use of typewriter, use of official-looking stamps, etc.) are extremely unorthodox, one would imagine.
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.