Great, Just Great! Downing Street Memos Faked?

[Annie]

Lots of links, natch

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php

June 19, 2005
Did Lucy Ramirez Find The Downing Street Memos?

The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

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.

Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.

Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.

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.

Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam's involvement with terrorist groups in the past -- including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.

Even if these memos could be authenticated, they're still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.

UPDATE and BUMP to top: Welcome to Instapundit and The Corner readers! I'll let this ride to the top all morning today.

UPDATE II: Marc at USS Neverdock says that the story gets even more bizarre at Rawstory:

“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. [...]

“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.”

Why an old-fashioned typewriter? Why not just retype them on a computer, if you've already decided not to work from the originals? It looks like an attempt to fake people into believing that the documents produced by Smith were the originals.

This story gets nuttier and nuttier.

UPDATE III: Despite what Truck says in the comments, a lack of protest from Downing Street after being asked to authenticate retyped copies of alleged minutes of secret meetings doe NOT constitute verification. The same exact argument came up with the Killian memos in Rathergate and the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing report last month. In both cases, the documents or sources turned out to be fakes. It's the reporters' job to provide verification, not simply a demurral by officials to opine on their authenticity. If that isn't obvious, then centuries of evidentiary procedure in American and English common law have gone for naught, as well as traditions of journalistic responsibility and professionalism. After all, this argument just means that reporters can type out anything they like and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused in proving them false -- hardly the process endorsed in libel and slander cases in the US, at least.
Posted by Captain Ed at June 19, 2005 12:00 PM

 

[Gunny]

At which point do we quit with the kneejerk reactions to unauthenticated blather and start holding the media to a higher standard?

When the crap they spew costs in human lives and massive property damage, it is inexcusable that they are not required to provide a source up front, and to Hell with informant confidentiality.

I don't know how it is in Britain, but in the US, disclosure of classified material is a punishable, criminal offense.

 

[Annie]

At which point do we quit with the kneejerk reactions to unauthenticated blather and start holding the media to a higher standard?

When the crap they spew costs in human lives and massive property damage, it is inexcusable that they are not required to provide a source up front, and to Hell with informant confidentiality.

I don't know how it is in Britain, but in the US, disclosure of classified material is a punishable, criminal offense.

You will find that Music Man and myself are just 'this short' of obsessed on this topic. I keep telling myself that there is a need for the resources of the MSM, but I really am beginning to doubt it.

 

[pegwinn]

At which point do we quit with the kneejerk reactions to unauthenticated blather and start holding the media to a higher standard?

When the crap they spew costs in human lives and massive property damage, it is inexcusable that they are not required to provide a source up front, and to Hell with informant confidentiality.

I don't know how it is in Britain, but in the US, disclosure of classified material is a punishable, criminal offense.

Guns, disclosure of classified material via leaks or theft by government official isn't a punishable offence. It's business as usual Just ask Clintons buddy.........

Now if you are a LCpl, in the CMS, and you leave it out overnight......... Your ass is in the brig. It's not how wrong you are, it's how much cash you got and who you know.

 

[Gunny]

Guns, disclosure of classified material via leaks or theft by government official isn't a punishable offence. It's business as usual Just ask Clintons buddy.........

Now if you are a LCpl, in the CMS, and you leave it out overnight......... Your ass is in the brig. It's not how wrong you are, it's how much cash you got and who you know.

LOL ... how'd you know I was thinking about a LCPL?

Sadly, I have to agree.

 

[pegwinn]

LOL ... how'd you know I was thinking about a LCPL?

Sadly, I have to agree.

Phil Gwinn
MSgt USMC (ret)
At your service.

We (the secret society of Top) know all, and what we don't know isn't worth knowing.......
Welcome Aboard

 

[Avatar4321]

You know, i wish i could say i was surprised. but i cant lie. what is it with manufacturing documents lately?

 

[Gunny]

Phil Gwinn
MSgt USMC (ret)
At your service.

We (the secret society of Top) know all, and what we don't know isn't worth knowing.......
Welcome Aboard

The secret society of Top, huh? Sounds like a keg at the staff club to me

 

[Gunny]

You will find that Music Man and myself are just 'this short' of obsessed on this topic. I keep telling myself that there is a need for the resources of the MSM, but I really am beginning to doubt it.

Missed this the first time around. I honestly can admit I do not have an answer that would ensure an uncensored media. Even though I do believe the Constitution guarantees the media freedom from censorship, I think the media has gone far beyond anything envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

When sensationalism supercedes responsible reporting, and there is no accountability for one's actions, events such as the aftermath of the Newsweek Koran abuse are inevitable.

At that point, people need to be held accountable for their actions, IMO, and I don't mean just losing their jobs. I mean some criminal charges for the damage/deaths that were the result of their lies.

 

[pegwinn]

The secret society of Top, huh? Sounds like a keg at the staff club to me

Shhhhhh if you give away the handshake I will have to modify the duty roster for the next five years..........

 

[IControlThePast]

Missed this the first time around. I honestly can admit I do not have an answer that would ensure an uncensored media. Even though I do believe the Constitution guarantees the media freedom from censorship, I think the media has gone far beyond anything envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

When sensationalism supercedes responsible reporting, and there is no accountability for one's actions, events such as the aftermath of the Newsweek Koran abuse are inevitable.

At that point, people need to be held accountable for their actions, IMO, and I don't mean just losing their jobs. I mean some criminal charges for the damage/deaths that were the result of their lies.

The trouble is as soon as I suggested any change, everyone jumped on me because "it would violate the free market." Supposedly the accountability is from decreased viewership because of less credible reporting, but that hasn't been the case in the news media.

On the other hand though, I don't think you can try to hold the media responsible for the actions of Terrorists.

 

[Bonnie]

Great find Kathianne!!

Fake but Accurate??????? LOL

Is that the new media mantra?? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSXXXXXX42US' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_211.gif' alt='Pissed' border=0></a>

 

[Annie]

Great find Kathianne!!

Fake but Accurate??????? LOL

Is that the new media mantra?? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSXXXXXX42US' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_211.gif' alt='Pissed' border=0></a>

It's their new reality.

 

[pegwinn]

Lost the link. But Michael Smith did an online love fest witht eh Washinton Post. No real questions, certainly nothing about this allegation.


Hope we see/hear more in the coming daze

 

[nosarcasm]

I Assume the memos are legit. I assume also they represent
the Brit intelligence view on US intent.

That is just their opinion not the truth.

Even if true, Saddam and his chem warfare and the
messing around with the US asked for trouble.

To make an example of him for the Arab world is the right way to
go imo. Rumsfeld botched the post victory planning as the
Brits predicted shame on him.

Still we are in for the fight. I can even begin to understand the
traitors that call for a timeline to withdraw the troops/

Those of you that can vote against those traitor, and lets ignore
partylines for this vote em out

Cut and run, cowards,

What is needed is what is right now going on. Active supression
of the insurgency, pressure on Syria and Saudi Arabia and building
up a Iraqi force. It needs time. I hope sanity will prevail and
the cowardly congress (that I grudge gave out the war ok without
really discussing it) should shut the fukk up and present a unified
front.

Terry Schiawo also is meaningless in the greater scope of things, Instead
of dividing the country we need to have a determined front against
Islam. Our best path is democratizing them and expose their extremists.

 

[Annie]

Common name, but this is weird. Links at site:

http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/2005/06/michael-smith-strikes-again.html

Michael Smith Strikes Again

Captain's Quarters has the story that the authenticity of the "Downing Street Memos" is being questioned.

Seems that reporter Michael Smith can't authenticate the originals; in fact, it looks like he may have faked the memos.

HEY ! A reporter hired by Mary Mapes as a CBS assistant producer, "Michael Smith," was the guy that BummerDietz fingered as the true culprit of MemoGate. Can there be two "Michael Smiths" who are leftish military stringers?

Rawstory indicates that Michael Smith admits that he "destroyed the original copies" before September 17, 2004. So, this timeline would be that Smith is destroying memos, around September 2004....The faked Killian memos appear to have been forged in mid-August, 2004, and a story was told by Burkett that he had "destroyed the originals."

Now we have Michael Smith (again, same Mapes team guy?) admitting that he was typing up old memo copies the same 30-day period?

Is that the same Michael Smith - the one emailed Mapes in Memogate, trying to arrange a publishing advance/bribe for Burkett, asking if it could be arranged: "What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election?"

One or more Michael Smiths were very busy in August and September 2004 with not one, but TWO SETS of faked memos that were highly critical of George Bush.....

 

[no1tovote4]

Common name, but this is weird. Links at site:

http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/2005/06/michael-smith-strikes-again.html

If this is true and the "memos" were faked I think it would fundamentally effect the "trust" people have in their infotainment sources.

Dang. The same name as the source for the faked CBS stories? What are the odds that it isn't the same guy?

 

[Annie]

If this is true and the "memos" were faked I think it would fundamentally effect the "trust" people have in their infotainment sources.

Dang. The same name as the source for the faked CBS stories? What are the odds that it isn't the same guy?

I don't know. Michael and Smith are both very common names, but it certainly is weird.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't know. Michael and Smith are both very common names, but it certainly is weird.

It seems almost too much of a coincidence that they would also "surface" at about the same time as well as from the same name as other "memos". If it turns out that they are one and the same I would be truly surprised, talk about not learning from the past...

 

[Annie]

It seems almost too much of a coincidence that they would also "surface" at about the same time as well as from the same name as other "memos". If it turns out that they are one and the same I would be truly surprised, talk about not learning from the past...

Well, if it's the same, the time frame probably means he didn't have time to learn the consequences of Rathergate.