Righwing Now Trying to Claim DSM Fake

[Douglas Carpenter]

"Right Now Trying to Claim DSM Fake

by bonddad from the Daily Kos

Sun Jun 19th, 2005 at 11:27:57 PDT

This is great. Although Powerline has regrettably not come on board, several other conservative bloggers are starting to raise the argument that the Downing Street Memos are fake.

(From Captain's Quarters:

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. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.)"

The link to the rest of the article is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/19/142757/931


____________________________________________-

:bounce:

Just a reminder of some very, very important links:

To sign Congressman Conyers’ letter


http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com





To put and keep pressure on the Mainstream Media:


http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Peace

O8)

Here is my standard letter to the Media:

Dear Sir/Madam:

As you know, on May 1 of this year a document now commonly referred to as “The Downing Street Memo” was released into the British Press. This document raises serious question about how the administration was handling intelligence related to Iraq and appears to suggest that the Bush Administration had already decided on war when publicly it was claiming that no such decision had been made. Now further documents have been released in the British media which cast even further doubts.

These documents and other documents suggest that the Bush administration was determined to “fix intelligence” around a predetermined policy. Some of these documents make it clear that the administration had no credible plan for dealing with the post-war occupation.

It is most disturbing that there has been minimal coverage regarding “The Downing Street Minutes” and other disturbing documents.

Even more disturbing is the lack or absence in much of the America media of credible in-depth follow-up discussion or coverage regarding strong, credible and independent evidence that the Bush Administration intentionally mislead the U.S. Congress, the media and the American people.

I do hope you will accept the responsibility to address this issue and provide serious investigative journalism into this matter

Sincerely,

[Karenina]

1. That lipsticked pig

ain't locating no truffles.

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

[Cerridwen]

2. But, but, I thought it was "old" news. I'm so confused!

:sarcasm:

[acmavm]

3. Of course they are. They don't have any other defense but to do a

Dan Rather on these MEETING MINUTES.

But people are hip to their shit now. And they'll have to get the British to go along with it. And I doubt that they have the power to pull that one off. I mean, people have been eating up this KKKarl is an all powerful genius for soooooo long but let me assure you, he's not all that powerful.

Anyway, we won't let them get away with it this time. There is no frigging way that should have worked before, because the bottom line is those papers about AWOL's National Guard service were never proven to be frauds. Never.

[killbotfactory]

4. FUD FUD FUD FUD

they've already been authenticated by the british governement, you fucking idiots. Wake up and smell the lies your hero ubermench leader told you.

[wuushew]

5. They can easily be tested for validity

the minutes were conversations in a high level British cabinet meeting.

To verify them simply have the British officials involved recall their conversations with American officials most notably the CIA during and prior to 2002.

[NewJeffCT]

8. I thought they were already authenticated that way?

maybe not by Blair himself, but by others in the meetings?

[LightningFlash]

9. They WERE authenticated that way.

This is more of the desperation showing and absolute fermenting idiocy. Not even the far-right dispute the minutes, because they know they happened.

[farmbo]

6. First, they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they attack you...

...then you win!

[dr.zoidberg]

7. Of course.

Of course they'll say it's fake. then they'll say it's real but what it's saying is exaggerated. Then they'll say it true. It'll all run according to SOP.

[Carolab]

10. I like this person's comment.

The telling thing (I think) is that these people can't refute that the memo isn't true so they try to question the authenticity of the actual document.

Hell, can anyone really prove absolutely conclusively the authentication of any document?

Even the holy bible can't be authenticated but that doesn't stop millions of people from revering its every word.

[indie_voter]

11. Raw Story has the backstory

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html

“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.

[BrotherBuzz]

12. Of course they're fake - Rove typed them on his vintage...

IBM Selectra...

:sarcasm:

[Carolab]

13. Walter Pincus apparently saw "proof"

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/downing-street-memos-and-revenge-of.html

The cabinet briefing paper leaked on Sunday is instructive. This time a companion piece was written by Walter Pincus for the Washington Post, and it received front-page treatment.

Pincus writes,


"That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter."


This passage is worded in such a way as to suggest that Smith himself made the documents and some British contacts available to Pincus. If so, it was both remarkably generous and also very smart of him. He solved some of the main problems that the US press had had in covering the story, at least with regard to the Post, and ensured that it reverberated on this side of the pond. I don't mean to take anything away from the prowess of Pincus, a first-rate reporter, who may well have in the meantime developed his own sources in London. I'm just going by the diction, which admits that Smith first obtained the new briefing paper and then goes into the passive mood, saying that excerpts "were made available" to the Post.

[Carolab]

14. Come ON, people do you think AP, etc. would have printed it without?

They saw what happened to Rather, and to Newsweek.

Think they DON'T KNOW that these ARE AUTHENTIC?

Of COURSE they do.

And another thing, with the AWOL memos, it was a setup from the get-go, the evidence of which was the rapidity with which the "doubting" began.

No, if they weren't real, that particular dog would have been sent to hunt LONG ago.

Now, they are trying to downplay it--like that asshat Hinderocker at PowerWHINE.

[chalky]

15. Looks like they should get behind having * answer the 5 questions, then.

That would clear up any doubts, wouldn't it?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

16. Repukes = concerted, on-point message re: DSM. Dems = scattered message.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I HAVE BEEN HARPING FOR DAYS FOR DEM LEADERS TO SPEAK OFTEN AND FORCEFULLY ABOUT THE DSM. Unfortunately, the Repukes will heed this advice when trying to discredit the DSM, but Dems will take a "slow, careful and thoughtful" approach.

JB