"Fake, but accurate" is the same in American English and Queen's English, you know.

Yes, but the substance of the story is true...

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Yes, but the substance of the story is true...

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Um, I clicked that link, and it doesn't say that's the copy Michael Smith used, or even a copy that was ever in his possession.

Also, Reuters didn't break the story. The London Times did.

Any bets on how quickly these will be regarded as the 'The Smoking Gun' on the Bush admin, to 'Rovian Plants' by the Bush admin as far as the moonbats are concerned?

Dan Rather is probably kicking himself about now.

None of the PDF's you linked to match the memo in the picture.

What I meant by that was, the text in the pictured memo does not match any of the PDF's.

This just shows they are on a learning curve after Rathergate. The validity and accuracy of the first document is questioned, so a more "official" document magically appears. If this one is questioned, another one will magically appear complete with the original signatures of Tony Blair, George Bush, Ho Chi Minh, and Fred Astaire.

It could be that they want a loud commotion from the right blogosphere centered on the legitimacy of the document, but not the content. Then, when the documents turn out legitimate, we've wasted half our legitimacy.

Follow up on it Kevin, but always mention that the content means nothing anyway; I believe that to be the truth.

Hmmm.

I think Reuters pulled a document out of file and called it the DSM. This document clearly references UN Resolution 1441.

Hmmmmm.

Ok. PDF is here. Reuters just pulled it out of their hind end.

Doesn't absolve Michael Smith of anything. But it does show Reuters as a bunch of twits.

Have tried this one out on some political forums, and every loon scampered away. LOL

Michael Smith's re-typed documents weren't written on official British stock. Ergo, why would one expect to find a logo on them? He simply re-typed the content in order to protect the identity of his source.

I think what Reuter's is showing the image you link at the top is the original actual document, _not_ the re-typed version which is widely circulating in .pdf format around the 'net.

*is* the image...

Justin---supposedly the only person to get a hold of the originals (or copies thereof) have since returned and/or destroyed them. If that is correct then there is no way Reuters could have taken a picture of it.

But I think that this simply isn't the Downing Street Memo. At least, it doesn't compare textually to any of the documents we can see firsthand ourselves.

Hmmm.

Let me be more specific. I link to the document that Reuters used for their photo. It is NOT any copy of, nor any page of, the DSM.

Click on the link I provided and then compare the Reuters picture and the PDF. They are one and the same.

It's just Reuters being an ass.

You guys are reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaching now. Desperation in the air, eh? LOL

There's a hefty list of individuals who received and read the first memo: Jack Straw,David Manning,Francis Richards,Richard Wilson, Alistair Campbell..to name a few. Not a single individual has come forward to say the memos are not authentic.

Further, some extremely prominent Brits have in fact said that the content of the memos is exactly how it went down.

This horse is dead, boys.

Hmmm.

"This horse is dead, boys."

In more ways than one since it wasn't anything to begin with.

Hmm, I do believe that it would be a violation of their security clearances to discuss the document, if it exists, in public.

Furthermore, let's look at the Reuters caption:

A copy of the so-called 'Downing Street Memo', produced in July 2002 for Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the invasion of Iraq. Photo by Stephen Hird/Reuters

Reuters is stating that this is the Smith copy. Bamm!

I agree with both Carla and Ed. These memos were squat to begin with. But Michael Smith made it clear in his interview in The Raw Story that he acquired the originals and then made photocopies of them before returning the memos.

The picture is obviously of one of the photocopies. The seal was merely duplicated along with the rest of the original.

But what puzzles me is what Ed found, namely the copy, on the Guardian's web site. It is a word-processed document, not Smith's typed finished product. So where did the Guardian get it? Smith said he destroyed his copies.

Probably no big deal, just like the seal and the memos' contents. These memos aren't even a smoking cap gun.

For the love of GOD!

Read my newest blog post!

You guys are way off course!

The Reuters picture doesn't even have anything to do with the Downing Street Memo at all!!!

www.seixon.com

Read it. Get back on the right track.
I almost feel like ripping my eyes out!

Never mind my question -- the Guardian papers are not the memos that Smith acquired. The four hours of sleep I got last night are really beginning to show.

Hey! There's an ostrich running in Africa! I think it rained in Australia (once recently, at least) and that there are children in Japan who are orphaned and in need of good homes. Also, there's a Chevrolet Cavalier for sale somewhere in Michigan, there are ticks in New Mexico and I believe that PostItNotes sell really well at your local OfficeDepot.

Developing....

So then, what you are saying Seixon, is that Reuters is trying to pull a fast one on the world public, by publishing a fake picture and calling it the DSM? Thanks. More confirmation of how the left operates.

Or more confirmation of how lazy news organizations operates?

It's a fun conspiracy, but at this point, ain't nothin' there.

Reuters just mislabeled the photo.

Usually, I would agree with you C.C., however, we have seen how the MSM's operate.

OK, if I got this right. The Reuter's photo is another document. Which amplifies on a point I don't think anyone has made. The Reuter's document is stamped "secret". The DSM was also classified. I'm not totally familiar with British procedures, but will assume that both documents have not been declassified. That may answer why the Blair administration has not dived into verifying or denying the authenticity of the document(s). They have a person that is passing out classified documents to the media like they were Haloween candy. That is a serious crime, and one that should be taken seriously. I will bet the Brits are much more concerned with having a real life actual traitor in their midst and a lot less concerned with what the meaning of "is" (fixed) is.

Hmmmm.

" is that Reuters is trying to pull a fast one on the world public, by publishing a fake picture and calling it the DSM?"

Exactly. Let's face it, the actual DSM memos aren't exactly photogenic. They're frankly pretty ugly. So I expect some Reuters dweeb decided to sex things up a bit with something, anything, with a logo on it.

"The Reuter's document is stamped "secret"."

The document used by Reuters is located on The Guardian's website, so I assume it has been declassified. The DSM on the other hand hasn't been declassified so YMMV.

"I will bet the Brits are much more concerned with having a real life actual traitor"

I doubt "traitor" but I'm sure they're very interested in finding out who is responsible.

What -S- said, but it is not really a Cavalier for sale (as we've seen on the news here in Michigan), but a Pinto that has been taken apart and put back together with parts from an old AMC Pacer and a Citation.

Ugly.

Just curious, but do members of the press have the right to protect sources who also are committing crimes (by passing out secret documents).

Shoot should any reporter be able to protect a source in a situation like this for that matter?

Oh, and I agree with the contention that this is just Reuter's pulling a fast one and making stuff up. I actually believe the DSM's are real copies of the real documents.