Posted on 06/20/2005 1:25:27 AM PDT by auzerais
Are Downing Street memos authentic or elaborate hoax?
Blogs question credibility of reporter who typed copies, destroyed originals
Are the highly publicized Downing Street memos authentic government documents that show the Bush administration lied about pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction?
Or are they part of an elaborate hoax – akin to CBS's infamous National Guard memos on George W. Bush's military service?
Many of the same blogs that successfully challenged Dan Rather's documents are now questioning whether the Downing Street memos are for real.
With Times of London reporter Michael Smith admitting the memos he used in his stories are not originals, but copies he retyped, the controversy seems to be reaching a fever pitch.
"Until tonight ... no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London," said CaptainsQuartersBlog, one of the sites behind the Rather scandal. "That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies.
The eight memos – all labeled "secret" or "confidential" – were first obtained by Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told the Associated Press 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 showed the documents to an unnamed senior British official who said they "appeared authentic."
"Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year," reported CaptainsQuartersBlog. "The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source."
The blog asked: Why would a reporter do such a thing?
While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible.
"This, in fact, could very well be another case of 'fake but accurate.' where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past," said the blog. "One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything."
The blog goes on to suggest that even if the memos could be authenticated, "they're still meaningless." That they simply do not contain any smoking-gun evidence of lies by the Bush administration or the British government of Tony Blair.
True. It is irrelevent whether the memo is real or a fake. I don't know why the idiots over there think it says anything particularly damning. It is an opinion of someone based on his observations. There are no facts in it at all.
Of course, if it is another TANG memo, it would be a little more delicious.
Even so, the tactic isn't likely to be effective in protecting the journalist or his sources.
bookmk ping and thanks
I don't think the journo ever really needed protection.
Then you don't understand British Law. He could spend years in the slammer if someone has the courage to go after him.
How much did Sen.Conyers little "it`s all Israels fault" make believe hearing cost the taxpayer.
It wasn't even a memo, it was an email.
Reporters, who never served in the military, and whose attitudes toward the services are colored by their pot-smoking college days have no sense of history.
The Pentagon, I am quite certain, has war plans against every nation on earth. It's not like we are about to start bombing Paris (although that might not be a bad idea), but imagine if some sort of seismic event occurred requiring action against France, and we didn't have plans for it. The same with the other 200 nations on earth.
With World War II looming the US had plans for war against Japan: Code Ornage. But, guess what, we also had plans for war against Great Britain: Code Red (and for dozens of other countries).
Having plans for war against Iraq was prudent and necessary. It is the reporter's lack of historical precedent and hatred for Bush that are driving this story.
Excellent points. What I do not understand though is what Michael Smith is trying to do - he supposedly has been in the military and is a long time defense correspondent. He has written a book on the breaking of the Japanese code in WWII. Is he simply looking for a payday? Or does he have T. E. Lawrence delusions? We clearly understood where Dan Rather was coming from. Where is Michael Smith coming from?
If my memory serves me somebody was passing off forged documents to prevent the US from dethroning old Saddam from the git go. Didn't the liberals the world over attempt to lay at the feet of the President using fake documents as premise for going to war????
If they were fake, they'd point more heavily toward "guilt" (Bush's guilt, of course). As they are, the memos reveal nothing.
Well, well, well.
It's getting air time because the Dems and their allies in the MSM need an "issue". My guess is that they regularly makeup stuff. The good news is that they have no credibility left.
I'm sure the definitive answer will be found here on FR.
Hear, hear!Worst problem we have is people's acceptance of journalism's fatuous claim of objectivit. Accept that, and you are conned into accepting a burden of proof which rightly belongs to them.
CBS's "independent investigation" concluding that the "TANG memos" could not be proved or disproved is really a "meaning of 'is'" defense. The story line should be that CBS published as true "memos" whose provenance it could not prove. And which are presumptively fraudulent.
Disturbing News.
The 2008 Democratic Nominee for president was
convicted for domestic violence, but got it hushed up.
Since I don't want to reveal my source, I had to
burn the original transcript of the confession,
however, I will eventually post my re-typed
copy of the confession.
Watch this space, for furthur developements.
Hey everyone, try this on your liberal friends/co-workers:
Tell them that if they can produce a copy of the ORIGINAL DSM then you will believe them and that Bush should be impeached.
But if they can't, then they have to admit that the DSM is fake and that they have to admit they were wrong about Bush.
Give them a day or two, then spring it on them that the ORIGINAL COPIES WERE DESTROYED (if they don't know it already).
It's like shooting fish in a barrel!
In short, it doesn't matter if these memos are fake or not. Their authenticity has nothing to do with the fact that the case for war was based on lies.
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.