"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?
Why? The content wasn't odd or unusual enough to set off "alarm bells".
Just the same old.
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)
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".