Unfortunately for the targets, the memo does not have to be true, at least not initially. As long as enemies of Bush and Blair have something that looks true, they can use it to rip B&B new assholes. They know that the average left-leaning American will believe them and even those not left-leaning will have doubts about B&B, and some will continue to believe them long after the memo has been debunked. Perhaps in the long run it will come back to bite them in the ass, but on a short-term basis it is damaging to their enemies. Perhaps they think the trade-off is worth it, especially if they are gamblers betting on not getting caught.

dont be so frikken stupid...even your friends at powerline had this to say:

"Nevertheless, I very much doubt that the documents are fakes, for two reasons. First, to my knowledge no one in the British government has denied their authenticity. The "Downing Street memos" are much different from the CBS National Guard documents in this important respect: the CBS documents were ostensibly authored by Jerry Killian, who had been dead for twenty years. The Downing Street documents, on the other hand, were allegedly authored by, and relate to meetings recently conducted by, a group of men who are very much alive and well. I can't conceive of a reason why they would fail to attack the documents' genuineness if there were a basis for doing so.

Second, if the Downing Street memos were fakes, they would say more. "

you must be worried about the implications of these minutes to dredge up the ridiculous notion that they are fake

Good one Paul, but you forgot to file it under humor.

"That's a fine letter, Jamison, that's an epic. That's dandy. Now, I want you to make two carbon copies of that letter and throw the original away. And when you get through with that, throw the carbon copies away. Just send a stamp, airmail, that's all."

Seriously. What Neil and Mantis said.

"The memo's are so easily debunked."

I also have to ask what you mean by "debunked."

To suggest that the London Times is some liberal tablod rag, like say, that, say, Rupert Murdoch's conservative tabloid rag the Sun. The London Times is a highly respected CONSERVATIVE British paper. And as Neil notes, no one in the British government has denied the accuracy of the minutes. Thoughout the enitre controversy in Britain, which began in May, neither Blair nor Dearlove nor anyone involved in the meeting said anything to suggest that they beleived the minutes were faked. Not in anyway whatsoever. Blair has challenged the interpretation of minutes but the way so many "lovers of language" on the American right have. No amount of semantic slight of hand can change the fact that the British press and public understood exactly what "fixed around" meant in the context of the minutes. Go read the original British coverage if you don't believe it.

Secondly, Blair's only defense when he was asked about at the press conference with Bush was, "Inteligence was not being fixed around the policy" (a pretty good indication he understands what 'fixed around' means) but also that, hey, we went to the UN after the meeting so it proves we did try every option. Of course, how is that a defense when the minutes clearly document a discussion about how to use the UN to justify war?

So please, tell me again what you mean by debunked.

Oh, I smell a turd in the newsroom. Did Dan Rather and his crackerjacks come in? No, just more of the same ole shit.

Continuing on with Powerline:

"Second, if the Downing Street memos were fakes, they would say more. As we have noted before, the memo that has been most widely trumpeted on the left says little or nothing of significance. What it does do, however, is confirm the sincere worry at the highest level of the British government about the possibility that Saddam would use his weapons of mass destruction either against coalition troops, or against Kuwait or Israel."

And yet this isn't what the minutes record. The minutes record is since worry at the highest levle of the British government that US war plans MADE NO MENTION of the possibility of a Hussein using WMDs.

From the Downing Street minutes:

"On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

They are real Kos has piece on it. Just accept it.

'Just accept it'?

You gotta be kidding.

We learned a thing or two after Rathergate.

I think the powerline guys make a lot of good points on this.

Also, if you were a liberal trying to bring down Bush/Blair et al, with a fake memo, you would have at least made it consistent with the whole "Bush lied about WMD's" meme, but one of the big contradictions I have seen in the memos for the liberals is that it totally lays waste to their idea that Bush and Blair knew there weren't WMD's and just lied about it to go to war.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006537.php

DOWNING STREET DELUSIONS....The wingnuts are getting desperate. Captain's Quarters, in a nostalgic attempt to recreate the glories of Rathergate, suggests that the Downing Street Memos aren't real. Why? Because Michael Smith, the reporter who got hold of them, had them retyped to protect his source and then returned the originals. Jonah Goldberg feverishly calls CQ's revelations a "must read."

Now, unlike the Killian memos that were at the center of Rathergate, there are quite a few principals in this case who either wrote or received these memos and therefore have absolute knowledge of whether or not they're genuine. The first memo, for example, was written by Matthew Rycroft and distributed at the time to David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell. So far, not a single one of these people has claimed they're fake.

In fact, just the opposite. Here's Tony Blair himself on May 1, the day the first memo was published:

In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that "subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route," seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm.

Here's Knight Ridder on May 5:

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

Here's the Washington Post on June 12:

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.

Give it up, guys. They're real.

Nevertheless, I very much doubt that the documents are fakes, for two reasons. First, to my knowledge no one in the British government has denied their authenticity.

Bush never denied the authenticity of the TANG memos. He had no way of knowing. All he could do is stick to the facts -- that he fulfilled his commitment and, to his knowledge, did not receive favorable treatment because of his family.

We need to distinguish between authenticity and accuracy. In other words (as Dan says) a fake memo might be accurate, and an authentic memo might be false. Like when a bureaucrat sends a memo with his own spin on something in order to cover his ass or otherwise further his own agenda. Happens all the time.

Paul, the phrase you are thinking of from the law of evidence is actually "chain of custody."

Hey everyone! I've got a memo from an anonymous source that proves that Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and Osama Bin Laden were smoking crack & drinking Jesus Juice with Jacko at an orgy full on under-aged children where they were plotting the overthrow of the US Government! As they have yet to deny it, it clearly must be true! Spread the word!

If the 'memos' are not accurate recreations down to the very word from the originals, they are utterly worthless.

In this age of Rathergate, we are supposed to trust the veracity of one reporter who cannot provide originals?

Weak, very weak.

Finally, someone listened to me!

Now the world will know we are serious about attacking these supposed memos and destroying their author.Their content is irrelevant if we can marshall our forces as we have done before.

We must send the unambiguous message that we will stop at nothing to crush anyone who attempts to question our President!

"If the 'memos' are not accurate recreations down to the very word from the originals, they are utterly worthless.

In this age of Rathergate, we are supposed to trust the veracity of one reporter who cannot provide originals?

Weak, very weak."

Guys, these are not "memos" as in "While You Were Out the Bush Administration called to let you know they were fixing intelligence." They are the official minutes of a high ranking British cabinet meeting. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever to support the idea that these minutes are not real, credible and an entirely accurate account of what was said during the meeting. NO ONE in the British government has even remotely suggested that the meeting didn't take place or that Downing Street minutes aren't an accurate record of what was said. NO ONE. Don't you think that if the minutes were "faked" or not accurate that Blair woudl have said something to that effect by now? He was in the middle of a campaign at the time for crying out loud and he attneded the meeting! Why wouldn't he or his aides have said something? Oh no, it's only right wing bloggers who can separate fact from fiction in the era of Rathergate. Not even eye witnesses can know the truth like right wing bloggers can!

I'm not even sure what you mean by the age of Rathergate unless it means that whenever someone reports on something the right wing doesn't like it marshalls its thuggish minions to beat the press into submission with ludicrous assertions of fraud and conspiracy. Seriously, is it a vast conspiracy of left wing American and right wing British reporters out to destroy America, or is that every time the right wing hears news they don't like they go ape shit to deny reality? Which sounds more likely?

Face it, you all are now suggesting that a British reporter at the conservative London Times faked official minutes to bring down Blair and Bush knowing full that everyone who attended the meeting, including the Prim Minister himself and the person who actually kept the minutes, were alive and well and able to refute anything that was inaccurate or false? That's what you believe?

Minnie, don't be such a prat. Think long & hard about the standards of evidence here. An unverified memo from an unnamed third hand source, and no original document to check. The folks who have vouched for its authenticity are likewise anonymous. Run that by any lawyer in the US & you'd be laughed out of his office. If you went after someone who wasn't a public figure on that basis, you'd be smacked with a libel suit for fast your eyes would pop out from the centrigufal force of your head spinning. The Downing Street Memos are like unto a tale told by an idiot; Full of sound & fury, yet signifing nothing. You've got gornisht.

Paul,

I think you're latest scribe after the updates says it all, whatever the authenticity of these re-typed documents, what the left is attempting to portray them as is bunk. They say nothing, they are secondhand interpretations of someone's feelings about a meeting. The left will stop at nothing to try and find some reason to impeach Bush. For them it has become some sort of vendetta. It's sad really.

And of course, if when this story came out everyone knew that the reporter had re-typed these memos and destroyed the originals, I think people would be singing a different tune. I think it can be said that we will never be able to trust the honesty and integrity of one reporter!

FirFirst of all the memos do not prove that President Bush lied before going to war or was determined to declare war no matter what.

Secondly, since the memos cannot be verified (by showing an original), then even the irrelevant information in the memos has no meaning.

It is on the accusers to PROVE that that the memos are authentic, not Bush and Blair to confirm or deny that they are.

Answering a reporters question about something in the memo is not the same as verifying that it is authentic and accurate. (Such as done by Bush and Blair at a news conference.)

It doesn't matter WHY these memos were printed or what the motives of the reporter was. Because the reporter and newspaper are reported to have more of a conservative bias does not mean that the memos are more likely to be true and accurate.

What does matter is that there is no way to verify these memos, unless the British Government releases the documents. As such the memos cannot be trusted, even with the irrelevant information that it does provide.

Frameone: you are agreeing with Powerline who thinks the memos are probably not fakes. I'm sure you agree with them that the memos do not mean anything because they do not give any new information, nor prove that President Bush lied to take us to war, or was set on declaring war no matter what. Right?

Also, you say the memos are "real". There's no proof they are. And even if they are they are not the "smoking gun" that's going to "get Bush". The memos do not prove what the liberals say they do.

THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT UNLESS THE MEMOS CAN BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE AND ACCURATE THEY ARE MEANINGLESS. You need an original to do that.

Having an anonymous British official say that the memos are "consistent with what we thought and believed" is not good enough.

Michael Smith- You mean the Michael Smith who conspired with Marla Mapes on the C-BS Memogate?

Again with the anoymous sources and "copies"....sheesh

Ok.

You are just wrong. True and accurate is irrelevant except to reality-based moonbats. It didn't matter with Rather or Kerry or Dean or O'Neill or Ritter or anyone else we have brought down and it doesn't matter now as long as we are loud enough and dominate with our message.

What matters is we smear them and smear them hard because they hate America. Then we win. That is what matters.

"Also, you say the memos are "real". There's no proof they are."

I'm sorry but you guys have blinders on. A reporter asked Blair specifically aout the contents of the Downing Street Memo at his recent press conference with Bush.

The question and the answer:

Q 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. 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.

What part of Blair's answer "THE MEMORANDUM WAS WRITTEN BEFORE WE THEN WENT TO THE UNITED NATIONS" suggests to you that the memo/minutes might not be real?

Now, I happen to believe that Blair is simply covering his ass in this answer (look at how fast he drops the question fo fixed intelligence -- no language parsing here, old chap, he just drops the whole matter). But at no point does he ever REFUTE THE EXISTENCE OF AND ACCURACY OF THE MINUTES as reported by the London Times. Never, not once. He even refers to the memo and the date it was written. AND HE WAS AT THE FREAKING MEETING!!!!!! How on earth coudl you now insist that the memos as recported by the London Time "might be real"?

OK, Frameone. You converted me. Probably the memos are real and accurate.

They still don't prove anything.

Hmmm.

You know. I'm looking back at that fake "impeachment trial" and just having a good laugh.

It's GannonGate all over again.

I have a copy of the Pentagon Papers here on my desk. But they're not the originals! I guess they must be fake.

What I find particularly disturbing is that the Democrats have already held a meeting about this memo, even though it is even less authenticated than the Killian memos were to begin with. By that I mean that at least CBS had the copies of the supposedly original Killian memos for everyone to see. Michael Smith and the Democrats have nothing, not even a copy, hell, not even a re-typed copy.

George Galloway exclaimed some time ago that the documents the Daily Telegraph found about him in the Foreign Ministry were fake.

The Daily Telegraph published the copies of these documents for all to see. The Downing Street Memo Brigade has nothing to show for this entire story.

Yet still, they get away with calling the Galloway memos fake, and having meetings on their own intangible documents.

How does that work?

Frameone,
What part of Blair's answer "THE MEMORANDUM WAS WRITTEN BEFORE WE THEN WENT TO THE UNITED NATIONS" suggests to you that the memo/minutes might not be real?
maybe this can be deduced from the date of the memo.

And, you gloss over this
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..

are you going to believe him part way or not.

Sorry to burst your guy's bubble trying to discredit these memos, but if you actually did your research you would find that this is the normal procedure in the UK for leaked documents.

The govt then has an opportunity to respond, and if it doesn't it is regarded as authentic. This has been going on for years.

Research, guys, research instead of linking to some rumours and you could save everybody time!!

Hmmmm.

"Sorry to burst your guy's bubble trying to discredit these memos, but if you actually did your research you would find that this is the normal procedure in the UK for leaked documents."

Really? They actually make it a practice to re-type documents on an "old-fashioned typewriter"?

What on earth for?

It doesn't matter what the "normal procedure" in Britan is. We're not in Britan. If you want to prove that a document is authentic you have to have the original. "Normal procedure" is proof of nothing.
It really doesn't matter anyway though because even if the documents are accurate and verified by an original they don't prove what the Dems say they do.

Documents are returned to leaker so as
1.not to raise suspicion from missing memo
2.Original document would show source of leak
3. Document is property of British govt.

Just reporting the facts Ed, trying to keep it reality based.
Lyn, its a BRITISH document. If you don't like the way they do things, maybe its time to overthrow them.