Are Downing Street memos authentic or elaborate hoax? (Rathergate attempt)

[sabra]

First they ignore, then they mock, now trying to challenge authenticity.... Who saw this coming?

<<SNIP>>
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876

Are Downing Street memos
authentic or elaborate hoax?
Blogs question credibility of reporter who typed copies, destroyed originals

Posted: June 19, 2005
11:59 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


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.

....

"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.

<</SNIP>>

[rawstory]

1. There is a full response at Raw Story and Washington Monthly

Blair confirmed them, as did a UK intelligence panel.

http://rawstory.com

[sabra]

4. They are desperate...

hey even Drudge is trying to push this angle. Desperate. If they want to add exposure to the story, be my guess :-)

[dissent1977]

24. I agree, let them challenge the authenticity all they want.

Obviously we need to fight back when they do, but we have the evidence on our side. This can only bring more attention to the issue, and when all is said and done we will be the ones who have won.

I say bring it on, we are ready to fight.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Evidence?

We don' need no steenkin evidence.

[True_Blue]

34. Blair's response to the memo from the WH transcript.....

Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html#

[radfringe]

47. it's the standard M.O.

whenever something damageing comes out

Step 1: ignorance -- "huh? what memo? what report? don't know anything about it....."

Step 2: denial -- "no, we don't have any knowledge/confirmation about it, so it doesn't exist"

Step 3: pooh pooh -- "ridiculous, absurd, how can you say/print such a thing"

Step 4: reframe the issue/change the subject -- "look over there.... no, no, look over here...."

Step 5: play the victim and/or pass the buck: "it's a partisan attack, playing politics... not our fault, Clinton did it..."

Step 6: discredit the story and/or the source -- "taken out of context, it doesn't mean what it says, ---so'n so --- have their facts wrong....."

[rooboy]

2. WorldNetDaily. Say no more. n/t

[rodeodance]

45. but after the success of Rathergate--people are ready to believe they

might be a hoax. Beware!! We can not dismiss these claims but meet with head on with the facts.

[goclark]

61. IMO Rathergate was not a hoax

Rather it was a set up by Rove.

The Corporate Controlled Media rode it to a dead end. We will not let that happen this time.

The Secretary said that she remembered it being as described, correct?

We all know that it was accurate and they hid the rest.

[aquart]

3. Oh, how they wish.

[bejammin075]

5. here's a good reason...

if Bush, and especially Blair (and people in Blair's government), believed the memos to be fake, they certianly would say so. The memo claims Blair himself was at the meeting. So were many others. The memo was leaked in the last week of the UK elections. It was hot shit in UK press. If something was factually incorrect, or faked, absolutely a candidate running for reelection would address a situation where he's getting FRAMED. Duh. Ask the freepers why Blair an his people have never claimed the docs were inaccurate or forged.

[bejammin075]

7. Obvioulsy Blair would know whether he

was at the meeting or not.

[xxqqqzme]

10. I'm guessing his appointment

calendar will verify where he was on the date in question.

The minutes have never been denied - in fact the brits confirmed their existence....................so sorry, freepers, it's back 2 the drawing board.

[bejammin075]

18. Perhaps we can make this backfire on freepers

[bejammin075]

Cried "fraud" er "wolf" one too many times.

When these memos stand up and deflect all charges of "fakes!", the freepers will not have as much credibility after jumping the gun on this case.

they are playing their hand the same way this time as Rathergate. the difference is, these memos cannot be assaulted. they lose this game of chicken. but they don't know how to do it any differently, because last time they called the docs fakes, they won. this time it's different.

I think we should actually encourage them to get more invested with the idea of calling the docs fakes. More invested in terms of printed words, and more invested in terms of emotion and heat. It will ultimately raise the visibility of the issue, and destroy their credibility and the president's political career at the same time.

[evermind]

42. Quite right. Excellent point. (n/t)

[jojo54]

6. WTF????

These freeps will stop at nothing to keep their esteemed (hack, cough, cough, hack) leader in power, until he screws ALL of us over. Then they'll be screaming in the streets that they never voted for him.

Hey....then we can call THEM flip floppers!!!

[Brundle_Fly]

8. So lets counter

the factual documents that said we lied, by lying.

I can't see this blowing up on them....nope....nothing can go wrong here....

:sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

9. rotflmao!!!!! Poor rightwingnuts; one-trick morans!

LOVIN' it! And laughing my ass off at the stupidest MFers on the planet!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

12. Oh yeah, by the way, MIKE SMITH had them retyped. To protect his sources.

But don't tell the rightwingnuts!

ROTFLMAO!!! OMG they are just sooooo STOOPID!

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

59. "legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_ ...

.......

The Butler Committee, a UK commission looking into WMD, has quoted the documents and accepted their authenticity, along with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Smith said all originals were destroyed in order to both protect the source and the journalist alike. “It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”

The copying and re-typing were necessary because markings on the originals might have identified his source, Smith said.......

[Bravo411]

11. Many of the same blogs that successfully challenged Dan Rather's documents

There were several documents, of which one was a forgery.
Sadly all of them were discredited because of it.

If they can be discredited, then it would have happened by now.
Remember these came out in Britain during Blair's campaign.

[LynnTheDem]

15. These leaked documents are in fact 100% authentic. NONE of them

are forgeries, NONE of them are discredited. :)

[Bravo411]

74. I was talking about the Rather documents.

I know that all of the DSM docs have been authenticated as accurate information. RawStory has complete coverage of it. There's no disputing the DSM docs at all.

[kurtyboy]

22. Dude, Not a single doc from that CBS story was discredited

None has been proven by any credible judge to be a forgery

NOT ONE.

In fact, scholarly analysis (not bloggerly) leans toward authenticity. Quit repeating a GOP talking-point.

Thanks

Kurt

[Bravo411]

73. I was under the impression

That one of the documents in the Dan Rather story about Bush being AWOL was discredited as a forged document.

I could be wrong about that though. I'll have to look into it.
Anybody have any links on it?

And I'm not repeating a GOP talking point. Even if one document was forged, it doesn't mean that the story is false. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't put it past the GOP to have been the ones to get a single forged memo into the story, then go out and try to discredit the entire story based on that one document.

[chalky]

13. Third time I've seen this, yet my response hasn't changed:

HEY FREEPS! MAKE THE CLOWN PRINCE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND WE'LL ALL KNOW THE TRUTH!

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

www.johnconyers.com

I swear to God, I've got this answer on copy paste tonight.

[Old and In the Way]

39. With one caveat. With an independent investigator, under oath.

Soory, they'll simply lie in the court of public opinion.

[indie_voter]

64. self delete

[aquart]

40. "At what point in time"....still atrociously redundant...

But a nice nod to John Dean and Watergate.

[assclown_bush]

14. This attempt to derail DSM is definitely out there.

I've been reading questions about it and obviously it's working to some extent. But Blair did not deny the veracity of the memo when he could have. We will have to see how this story continues to play out. I personally am on the edge of my seat.



:dem:

[LynnTheDem]

21. No it's not "working to some extent". Only total fools would think UK gov

documents which the UK gov has already verified are actually fake or hoax or whatever else stupid crap rightwingnut morans dream up in their tiny little heads.

The documents are fact. And if rightwingnuts bothered to actually research (hah!) they'd find members of blair's own Labour Party talking about these memos & their contents since November 2002.

But then, if the stupidest MFers on the planet didn't prefer being 80% misinformed by Faux Moos, they'd know the UK govt already verified the leaked documents. And they'd know Michael Smith himself had the originals retyped (and handed back the originals) to protect his sources.

Wawkey wakey rightwingnut morans. Stupidest MFers in the whole damn Galaxy.

[assclown_bush]

31. It's "working to some extent" because it is being discussed here. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

35. Being discussed does not equate with "working" to discredit. nt

[assclown_bush]

63. LynnTheDem, "working to some extent" is not the same as....

..."'working' to discredit". Since I did not use the words "working to discredit" I am going to assume that you are not quoting me. I am just as anxious to see the end of the bushCo regime as you are. We both want the DSM, and all documents that can assist in bringing to light the illegal maneuvers that took the United States to war in Iraq, to be taken seriously. We are both striving toward the same objective: to expose the lies by bushCo and thereby effect a regime change.

My original statement was simply intended to state that people were/are discussing the authenticity of the DSM. As you are well aware the non-supported repetition of the mantra that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was drummed until a large percentage of people bought into it. The MSM failed to properly question the truth in that regard. And just yesterday busH was quoted as saying "We went to war because we were attacked...". Repetition of a lie in the minds of some repugs makes it the truth. Unfortunately, lies also work with the MSM, who fail to dig any deeper into a story than their fingernails will allow.

"A good assessment of the implications of the leaked British 'Downing Street documents' can be had by the fervor-ous Wingnut lunge to discredit their authenticity."

http://blony.com/index.php?cat=24

[LynnTheDem]

65. What is "working" then?

The rightwingnuts are trying to DISCREDIT the authentic leaked documents. To which you posted "it's working to some extent".

Anyways, WHATEVER!

As for any rightwingnut idiots who doubt the authenticity;

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

PM Blair: "And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html#

End of story. :)

[assclown_bush]

72. Depends on whether or not the definition of "working" is working. LOL

I feel compelled to clarify this point with you...though I'd prefer not to have to argue semantics. But, as you say, "WHATEVER".

"This attempt to derail DSM is definitely out there. I've been reading questions about it and obviously it's working to some extent. But Blair did not deny the veracity of the memo when he could have. We will have to see how this story continues to play out. I personally am on the edge of my seat."

That is my original post. When I wrote "working to some extent" it is in reference to the previous sentence "attempt to derail DSM...". On Sunday June 19, 2005 you could find an article titled "Are Downing Street memos authentic or elaborate hoax? Blogs question credibility of reporter who typed copies, destroyed originals" WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876

This is all my post was in reference to.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Whoa_Nelly]

16. Originals destroyed?

Did I miss something? In all I've read re: DSMs, I don't remember reading that particular fact.

[kurtyboy]

23. The docs were retyped

And the originals returned to the source.

[LynnTheDem]

25. No they're not destroyed.

Mike Smith had the originals RETYPED to protect his sources, and he handed the originals back to his source(s).

And a whole lot of people have originals, because a whole lot of people were included in on the documents in the first place.

[ngGale]

26. "Originals destroyed" - Don't remember that fact either but...

Smith told AP 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 obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
----snip----

AP obtained six copies and say they were reviewed by a senior British official and appeared authentic.

So, I suppose AP has also backed this up and everything is okay.

[LynnTheDem]

36. He did not destroy any originals. He returned the set of originals given

to him to his source(s).

Several others also have original sets.

[rodeodance]

58. “It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them.."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_...

.......“I was given them last September while still on the Telegraph,” Smith, who now works for the London Sunday Times, told RAW STORY. “I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them.”

“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added.

The Butler Committee, a UK commission looking into WMD, has quoted the documents and accepted their authenticity, along with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Smith said all originals were destroyed in order to both protect the source and the journalist alike. “It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”

The copying and re-typing were necessary because markings on the originals might have identified his source, Smith said.......

[evermind]

41. It's just a reference to the fact that Michael Smith has said he made

photocopies of the original (September 2004) leaks, returned the originals to his source, and then after having fresh copies typed up "on an old fashioned typewriter destroyed his photocopies of the originals.

Though I have heard a few people comment that they were "sure" they have seen (a copy of) the original DSM, it seems very likely the same procedure was followed with the subsequent two leaks we have (the DSM and the "DSMII" briefing paper from Jul 21).

However, the telegraph did publish partial graphics of the originals of two of the "September six" documents, which you can still see, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

Also of note is the fact that the Guardian (UK) reported, "The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine"

Let me repeat that, louder:

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine"

I think it's just FUD.

[Julius Civitatus]

17. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

:rofl:

Freepers are getting desperate!

Now they are trying this pathetic, utterly contemptible attempt to revive their old "glory days" of Rathergate.

It doesn't work with the DSM. The case can't not even be compared, much less applied even same logic. Two different cases and different types of documents here. Apples and oranges.

What a bunch of morons. Their desperation is showing.

[Disturbed]

20. I do not recall the info on the AWOL being challenged only..

the docment's authenticity. That is how the RW operates.

[stanwyck]

50. Reshaping the story

is Rove's genius.
Of course, the real story was whether Bush ever completed his military service. There is no indication that he did.

[Hugin]

71. Hard to teach an old dingbat new tricks.

I waiting to see how many buy it.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

19. Damn conspiracy buffs.

I tell ya.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

30. debunked

"And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations." - Tony Blair, 6-8-5

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/08/fox_big_story_on_downing_street_memo.php

The leader of the country said they were written not forged.

[warrens]

27. Sweating

Blair was asked to refute the memos and refused. This is gonna blow up in their face.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. They'll convince themselves that they're forged...And say they are

"moving on"
We've seen them use this method before, with the swift boat lies, and Buxh's National Guard record. They even accept that WMDs were found in Iraq.

I don't know how stupid one has to be to be able to trick yourself

[assclown_bush]

32. I agree that the core of the bushBots will say this is smoke n mirrors,

and will swear that the documents are forgeries. We need to get enough votes to impeach. That is the big giant hurdle.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

33. Just so long as they talk about them....

Let them claim they're forgeries and see where it takes us.

Meanwhile another claim from Rupert Murdoch's "Times":

June 19, 2005

British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

37. As stupid as a rightwingnut. That's how stupid one has to be to trick

oneself.

Tony Blair has admitted to the authenticity of the DSM. Let the rightwingnut stupidest MFer morans on the planet dupe themselves. It's only themselves they'll dupe, and there has never been any hope they'd decide to go with truth, fact & reality instead.

[magellan]

38. There was only one alleged fake memo

It was a minute dated March 1, 2003, purported to be from British Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith to PM Blair. Only the Scotsman and the Pakistan Tribune carried it. According to the Scotsman, Lord Goldsmith's office called the same day they ran the memo (April 29) and denounced the document as "a complete forgery".

The rest of the secret documents have been out for far longer than a day now...Plenty of time for Blair, Goldsmith and crew to cry foul if they were going to.

[Puzzler]

43. Yeah... well...

... they'd have to be one helluva hoax, since the British government has already confirmed that the "memos" are authentic.

By the way, don't you just love the word "memos" being used to describe official transcripts of government meetings. The word "memo" itself has the meaning of some insignificant scap of paper (maybe a Post-It) with a few words jotted on it.

-P

[rodeodance]

44. nominated--this is serious (expected yes but serious).

[magellan]

49. On top of that, many don't realize these leaks began last September

The Downing Street Minutes is just one of the latest secret documents to surface. So Bush** trying to cast aspersions on it by implying the timing of its release was political...Yeah, what about the OTHER documents, monkey boy?

I notice the British use 'memo' and 'minutes' interchangeably in referring to the DSM. Maybe because it is, in effect, a highly classified "inter-office memorandum" that just happens to contain the minutes from a secret meeting?

I'd like to blame the Brits for the confusion but, you know, they tend to have a rather precise grasp of the English language. The Right on the other hand is well-known for its convenient lack of precision when interpreting things it doesn't want to hear. ;)

[LynnTheDem]

66. Tony the bLiar already confirmed the authenticity

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

PM Blair: "And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html#

[rodeodance]

46. i wonder when this will hit the msm?--or has it already?

[NashVegas]

48. Saw This Coming Days Ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1552276&mesg_id=1552526

[sabra]

52. it was just a matter of time...

nice call!

[Ellen Rose]

51. Hardball

MSNBC is promoting tonight's HARDBALL with a promo: "DSM Separating Fact From Fabrication".

I wonder if Chris Matthews will follow the Rathergate hoax path or actually show the content of the memos and what they mean for this country.

[evermind]

53. If this is the same Chris Matthews that was feeding lines to Rice last

week, I wouldn't get your hopes up..

[evermind]

54. One British MP could kill this debate at a stroke, if he/she were to ask

a simple question in the House of Commons.

I'd expect the answer "cannot comment" - which is sufficient to indicate the the authenticity of the documents, because if they were fake, there would be no difficulty in commenting.

[Ellen Rose]

55. Chris

Unfortunatly, my hopes aren't up. I am afraid that ol Chris will be taking the White House path. The story is growing legs and they are trying to cut them off before it gets running.

[liam97]

56. "Old News" is actually a confirmation

not a denial

[rodeodance]

57. yes--i am skeptical if it will help the cause with tweety bird talking.

[rocktivity]

60. If the memos aren't real, why hasn't Blair or someone on his end said so?

Hands up who DIDN'T see this coming!

:woohoo:
rocknation

[Snivi Yllom]

62. it doesn't matter

Because the DSM story is not going to change anything. I give it another couple of newscycles. Tops.

There is much more potential damage to * with the Guantanamo news coming out.

[dchill]

67. It is my understanding that there are now eight ...

secret documents related to the Downing Street Memo/Minutes, and that the British government does not deny their authenticity.

I guess they have to try, since it worked before - but the difference is that the Bush/TANG docs WERE an elaborate hoax, and the DSM docs are not.

[redqueen]

68. Desperate, aren't they?

I like...

[indie_voter]

69. MHO, the money quote

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?

emphasis mine
So they ADMIT the documents show he lied?

Since the British government has authenticated the minutes, we can now all admit Bush lied?

They can't turn this to Rathergate because this is a reporter from another country.

Rathergate worked because Rather and co backed down.

[drm604]

70. This is SOP.

Raise some doubt, move the discussion away from the contents of the documents and towards their authenticity. It's not about actually proving that they're fake (they can't do that because they're real), it's about changing the subject and controlling the discussion. We can't let them do this. We basically need to ignore this particular argument, assume their authenticity (since they are authentic) and keep discussing the implications of the contents.