Question about Downing Street Memo

[garybeck]

In regards to the authenticity, I know we've heard the Brits and the Americans indirectly confirm the contents, by "not disputing" them.

Then in the press conference yesterday when Bush and Blair were asked about the memo, they seemed to do a 180, saying it was innaccurate.

I find this "not disputing" to be a disturbing means of confirming the authenticity.

Why has no one questioned the author Matthew Rycroft directly about it? Has he been interviewed or questioned? It seems to me that the horse's mouth is the place to verify the contents. Plus he could elaborate on some of the questions that it raises.

I'm a little nervous that until this thing is verified by the author, that it could be another karl rove tactic like what happened with Bush's military records that were "faked". I hope we're not being set up again.

[DURHAM D]

1. Have you been in a coma - "minutes" not "memo. eom

[garybeck]

2. is that related to my question? no.

maybe you should tell the DowningStreetMemo.com folks to change their URL.

does it really matter what we call it?

[louis-t]

8. Actually, sadly, it probably does.

nt

[Karenina]

14. It DOES MATTER.

Blair took a BIG HIT in the British election due to the disclosure of the MINUTES. Do you believe the Brits incapable of discernment? Damn, you Yanks have been SO FUCKING ABUSED by the CONSTANT BRAINWASHING!!!

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING - distributed to U.K. EYES ONLY in the form of a memorandum...

[libertypirate]

13. Actually they have both names

DowningStreetMinutes.com

works too!

[Spazito]

3. Blair's response did authenticate the DSM

"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. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action."

To isolate a key part of the above:



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

Link to the transcript:

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

[MGKrebs]

5. Tony's lying.

They're 'minutes', not a 'memorandum'.

:evilgrin:

[garybeck]

6. still I think his response is back tracking

in essence yesterday he denied the accuracy of the memo (minutes) saying it is not true. that's the way I took it anyway. Saying it was written before the UN meetings is moot; if you read what he said yesterday he denies that the facts were being fixed in any way, which in essence is denying the accuracy of the memo.

I wish someone would just get some answers from Matthew Rycroft.

[sabra]

4. Check out this thread about the Blair - Iraq BBC video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3808547

About 20 minutes in they specifically talk about DSM contents...

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I have a sort of confirmation of the memo from a Conservative MP

He served on the Butler committee that looked at how WMD intelligence had changed, and I sent him a letter asking if they'd seen the memo (their report did mention the meeting in July 2002, but didn't give specifics). He said:

The Butler Review was about weapons of mass destruction and, although we saw various documents, we confined our report to matters related to wmd. The memo you mention was concerned with the political arguments and thus outside our remit. That is why no comment was made.

While that's a complete cop-out as an excuse (fixing the intelligence and facts about WMD is precisely what their remit was about), that does imply they were aware of the memo and its contents.

[garybeck]

9. playing devil's advocate...

all this could still be true and the memo could be fake, unless the author confirms its authenticity.

I wouldn't put ANYTHING past Karl Rove.

[Spazito]

16. Downing Street would have had to submit the original to the inquiry

as part of the investigation and in order for Lord Butler to determine whether the area of Weapons of Mass Destruction, under the VERY narrow criteria set out, was part of that memo.

Were the Minutes false, Downing Street would not have submitted them to the inquiry.

[forgethell]

10. I think you're right,

and that this will bite us in the ass in the end. But why blame Karl Rove? Maybe he dangled the bait, maybe not, but why are we fools enough to bite?

[garybeck]

11. it should be easy enough to verify,

when the author is still alive, as was not the case with Bush's military records.

Someone should interview him before his body is found floating in the English Channel

[forgethell]

12. Then why isn't it being done? n/t

[garybeck]

15. that's my question :)