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.
Who's to say that these are the last set of leaks? There will very likely be more.
Another case of fake but accurate? When were the fake ones accurate? What did I miss here?
** My ex-girlfriend's breasts were fake but accurate **
What if the original indicated who leaked it...? So you give a copy out that can't be traced. Maybe to protect someone ?
June 19, 2005
Did Lucy Ramirez Find The Downing Street Memos?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php
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.