[Canard]

"This essential irrelevance is actually a powerful argument that the document is accurate, as anybody putting together a fake attack on Bush could certainly come up with something that actually appears to be relevant."

Totally agree, other than to point out (again!) that this issue is nothing at all to do with Bush - it's a British story printed about the British Government in a British newspaper.

Dismissing the documents as fabricated does nothing but make you look silly when they turn out not to be (as happened with the original Downing Street Memo).

Two questions I've been trying to get people to answer all afternoon, but no-one will address:

1. Why would The Times print this if they weren't pretty damn sure they were accurate? Especially bearing in mind the recent CBS thing, the previous reaction of the British Government to inaccurate reporting of Government leaks (see the BBC/David Kelly) and Rupert Murdoch's general disposition for keeping in with the Blair government.

2. If the documents were made up, why doesn't the British Government say so? They'd be outraged surely? Demanding resignations at The Times? No?

[mabelkitty]

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?

[holden]

If the documents were made up, why doesn't the British Government say so?

There is no reason one should be compelled to respond to a liar.

If people would be morally compelled to respond to such things, no good work would get done, as all the liars in the world would be casting about, fishing for all manner of story, taking up time and airwaves with whole cloth fabrications, just to try to bring focus on falsehoods and misleading images, along the line of "just when did you stop beating your wife." "It's great to get denials like that into the news," such liars and their accomplices will say.

It serves the liars' interests, but not justice.

HF

[saleman]

1. Because the left wing Times would say anything to embarrass Bush. Also I don't believe the Times has ever been shy about printing rumor and innuendo as long as there's not facts to prove them wrong.

2. It's very difficult to disprove a lie without sounding like your covering up or lying yourself. I believe Bush and Blair did talk about removing Saddam. At least I hope our president would have plans ahead of time (see North Korea).