Downing Street Memo - Faked Documents?

After all that we have endured for the past year, what journalist would:

1. Copy memos onto plain paper;
2. Destroy or Return (accounts vary) the originals;
3. Re-type the copies using an old typewriter;
4. Destroy even the copies of the originals.

And then use these memos to level accusations against President Bush.

How seriously deranged would that jornalist have to be?

The journalist responsible for braking the story about the Downing Street Memo has admitted to doing just this!  To say that I'm amazed is putting it lightly. 

Why?

The only answer that I can come up with is that the journalist was concerned that someone would test the documents and determine that they were not authentic.  If there is another reason for engaging in these gyrations, someone please enlighten me.

RAW STORY claims that the justification was the protection of sources:

"Six additional UK Iraq documents, acquired by RAW STORY, reveal the depth and breadth of the plan to go to war and the extent of the deceit on the part of the President and his cabinet, in conjunction with the Blair government.

The documents are transcribed photocopies in PDF format and were acquired from a British source and corroborated by Michael Smith, the journalist who first received the original leaked memos. This site validated them through an independent source and with Smith.

“I was given them last September while still on the [Daily] Telegraph,” Smith, who now works for the London Sunday Times, told RAW STORY. “I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them.”

“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. The documents below were leaked last September, prior to the US election. The document known as DSM was published after the below documents."

So did you destroy the originals, return the originals...sheesh.  Here we have documents, typed up by the journalist and the 'content' authenticated by an anonymous source, and we are suppose to believe that these documents are evidence of something?  I can certainly see why American media outlets were cautious about trying to make much of a story about these papers.

UPDATE:

I have just uncovered documents that indicate the President of France Jacques Chirac admits that he is a cheese eating surrender monkey!  I destroyed the originals to protect my source but re-typed them in English on an old typewriter.

I am planning on having them authenticated by a local Monkey expert.

Comments

[Peter Konefal]

With regards to allegations that the Downing Street Memo was fake, the following has been floating around the net this morning in response to yesterday’s conservative blog onslaught on the matter…

“Two senior British government officials today acknowledged as authentic a series of 2002 pre-Iraq war memosstating that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program was “effectively frozen” and that there was “no recent evidence” of Iraqi ties to international terrorism—private conclusions that contradicted two key pillars of the Bush administration’s public case for the invasion in March 2003.” (Source)

None of the blogs that I listed in my last entry on the subject have mentioned this, and that’s rather telling. Having put it out there, it doesn’t matter if it’s true now or not, the seed of doubt has been planted and that’s all you need to dismiss something.

FROM NEWSWEEK/MSN

New leaked memos are raising further questions about whether the Bush administration ‘fixed’ its intel to justify the Iraq war.WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:43 p.m. ET June 17, 2005June 15 - Two senior British government officials today acknowledged as authentic a series of 2002 pre-Iraq war memos stating that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and that there was "no recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to international terrorism—private conclusions that contradicted two key pillars of the Bush administration's public case for the invasion in March 2003.

advertisement

A March 8, 2002, secret "options" paper prepared by Prime Minister Tony Blair's top national-security aides also stated that intelligence on Saddam's purported weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was "poor." While noting that Saddam had used such weapons in the past and could do so again "if his regime were threatened," the options paper concluded "there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD."

The options paper was written just one month before Blair met with President Bush in Crawford, Texas. According to another leaked internal memo, Blair agreed at the meeting to support a U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam’s regime provided that “certain conditions” were met. Those conditions, according to the newly leaked memo, were that efforts be made to “construct a coalition” and “shape” public opinion; that the Israeli-Palestinian crisis was “quiescent,” and that attempts to eliminate Iraqi WMD through the return of United Nations weapons inspectors be exhausted.

ONLINE MAIL CALL
Our readers write on memos raising questions about whether the Bush administration ‘fixed’ its intel on Iraq

The British documents are becoming something of a cause celebre among Capitol Hill Democrats and other critics of the Iraq war who see them as evidence that the Bush administration had privately committed to an invasion far earlier than it has publicly acknowledged—and then “fixed” the intelligence about Iraq to justify the policy.

Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan is planning to convene a rump congressional “hearing” on Thursday designed to give more attention to the documents, which have gotten only sporadic coverage in the U.S. press. No Republicans are expected to participate in the Conyers hearing and White House aides have dismissed the leaked British documents as misleading.

Asked last week at joint press conference with Blair about the memos’ suggestion that he was determined to go to war since early 2002 regardless of what intelligence showed, Bush replied: “There’s nothing farther from the truth. My conversations with the prime minister was [sic], how can we do this peacefully?” Bush noted that the United States and Britain did go to the United Nations, gained passage of a Security Council resolution demanding cooperation with weapons inspectors and that Saddam “ignored the world.” A spokesman said today the White House had nothing to add to what the president has already said about the memos.

[Mahatma]

Peter:

My point is...What journalist would do this? Surely to God you recognize that having documents retyped from copies eliminates the evidentiary value of them!

For a little history lesson: The Pentagon Papers were authenticated and maintained by real journalists who would never in a million years have tried to 'retype and destroy the originals'. They were able to be used to debunk the entire fabricated Vietnam story told by the Nixon administration precisely because they were authenticated and authentic.

This is not only sloppy journalism but you claimed that we should impeach Bush over the contents of these memos...based upon what? Documents typed by a media critic? Or do you recommend that we subpoena the British government and the Iraq critics in the Labor party to authenticate the content of documents? Your opinion is a farce based upon the actual evidence...

We can't even get to the question of whether the contents of the documents are true, if the actual evidence to support the content has been faked. The journalist has already admitted that much therefor the documents are useless...and inadmissable as evidence of anything. That is why the U.S. media has ignored the story...the journalist screwed it up.

If the original documents are made public...I would instantly support Congressional hearings on the contents. We are FAR FAR AWAY from that standard being met here.

[Matt Hurley]

Alright, Peter, I'm going to take your bait...

I haven't covered either side of this story on WMD because I still haven't reached a conclusion, but this story is not convincing me any.

The British determination on WMD and terrorist connections meant about as much as the French evaluation...meaning it didn't matter a whole lot. At least not to the CIA and George "Slam Dunk" Tenent. Which is why I tend to discard the whole Downing Street Memo ("DSM" from here on) as a smoking gun against President Bush.

What is the DSM? It is minutes from a meeting in which George Bush was there, right? Nope. Surely, VP Cheney? Nope. Condi? Nope. Okay, surely "Slam Dunk" was there, right? Nope. NOBODY from the Bush administration was there. All the DSM is somebody's analysis from MI6...this is not proof of anything other than MI6's incompetence and liberals everywhere think they've found the Holy Grail.

Now, let's talk about the weapons. WHile no stockpiles have been found, we learned that Saddam maintained programs whereby he could reconstitute his weapons programs as soon as the scrutiny had been lifted...exactly what France and Russia and Germany and China wanted to have happen. Why? Because they'd get a piece of the military industrial complex pie. Sound like a conspiracy theory? Maybe...but no more so than saying George W. Bush wanted to start a war because it was Tuesday and it rained during a full moon.

Re: Conyers' grandstanding "Hearing" - even the Democrats had to admit that was a bad move when the all the news covered about that was more black helicopter theories and anti-sematism on parade at the hearing. Dumb. Why is it that's all they had to talk about at this "hearing"? Because that's all they had. Why do you think John Kerry, after saying he'd make an issue of the DSM when he got back to DC, has stayed silent on the issue? Because it is another useless endeavor that fails to deliver what the MoveOn crowd promised.

The last paragraph you cited is the real story. Bush and Blair tried to achieve a solution diplomatically, but our "allies" namely France, wouldn't have it. I remember thinking at the time, "Why are we wasting our time with the UN. We're going to go to war, let's get on with it." But the President was right to try to make every diplomatic effort. I'm glad Bush waited, but it didn't really get us anything and it bought Saddam more time to prepare his defenses.

Impeach President Bush with this flimsy evidence? Don't make me laugh that hard, man...

[Peter]

I'll say this. The memos do have credibility for a number of reasons including testimony that they are legitimate by senior members of the British government. That said, the originals would certainly assist what should be always be a solid case if one is going to be impeached on their behalf.

I'll also say this. If one accepts that the memos are legitimate (certainly very reasonable to do so, but not ironclad as you say), then they are SERIOUS evidence of wrongdoing in the Bush administration, and as responsible patriotic citizens, we should take that seriously. That's my argument.

[Matt Hurley]

I think there can be a case made for not taking these memos seriously even if they are authenticated. Again, these memos are nothing more than minutes of a meeting in which some MI6 guy gives his analysis of the situation in Washington. He doesn't know anything. I seriously doubt he spoke with President Bush or anyone else of consequence.

It isn't enough that British people are saying these things. We need actual proof in order to take legal action in this country...

Mahatma is right, until the memos can be authenticated, talking about what is in them is pointless. This journalist screwed up BIG TIME (as VP Cheney might say).

[Mahatma]

Peter:

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think we do. The memos that have been released do raise some troubling allegations. However, I do not see those allegations as being dispositive as it relates to criminal activity. Most of what I have both read and heard would indicate that this is more a foreign policy disagreement that has degenerated into spurious charges of wrong doing.

That said, the evidence that there was serious disagreement as to whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs at all, I have no recollection of hearing from any person in any government. (or anti-war activist when it comes down to it) For me it is this evidence that is most troubling...

What caused two administrations (Clinton and Bush II) to suppress the contrary views, which apparently did exist in our intelligence community, regarding Saddam's WMDs? Was it caution?

Sadly in this charged partisan atmosphere we can not hope to learn the answers to this. It reminds me of the Nixon tapes which, after they were finally released, laid to rest many Watergate related questions. We may be waiting 30 years for the answers to some of these questions.

Not to put too fine a point on it...but someone needs to tell me who lied under oath. Misrepresenting facts in an interview or speech to Congress is not a criminal act. No one has yet demonstrated criminal behavior even if the memos can be taken at their most serious interpretation.

Not even the Pentagon papers which demonstrated clearly a pattern of deliberating misleading reports to Congress on the conduct of the Vietnam War, could be used to support a criminal charge. These memos pale hugely in comparison.

[Peter]

If lying under oath is your litmus test of honesty then you are correct.

I think the American people deserve better than that level of honesty.

They deserved to be told the truth about Saddam in 2002. Bush should have said the following:

Saddam may have WMDs, but we can't prove it (The memos suggest he knew this, leading one not to blame intelligence entirely, if at all, for this error). Nonetheless, we should invade anyhow - to spread peace and democracy in the middle east and as Rice recently aknowledged - to end the US pattern of supporting dictatorships (with their rape rooms, blah blah etc) when they were US friendly.

He should also have said that deposing Saddam was not directly related to the war on terrorism, but rather a secondary activity that might indirectly help that war effort (a democratic Iraq could do a lot of good in the middle east).

Had he said the above, and received the consent of the American people for his invasion, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Unfortunately, that didn't occur, and we as true, patriotic Americans, have to decide whether its ok that it didn't, or whether we deserve(d) better.

[Peter]

I also agree with what you said above. We're closer to agreement than it seems. I'm not blind to the goal of having a peaceful, democratic Iraq, though I reject your view that you have to accept the current White house consensus 100% in order to have such a goal in mind. If you read the DSM website, it also makes clear that point as well.

[Peter]

I still have lingering concerns about the whole WMD issue as well.

Is there definitive proof that the CIA wasn't encouraged to "fix" the facts on WMD, given an assumption that DSM is authentic?

These two dots are so close, its very difficult to believe there is no evidence of a connection, and I have lingering worries about the objectivity of the 911 commission and related reports, not to mention their 'critical' edge.

I still see the US media as so painfully subservient on this whole issue. I want better, honest government and I can't put up with deception.

Any comments?

[Mahatma]

Sorry work caught up with me a bit...

I do not see how anyone can embrace the positive changes that are clearly evident in Iraq and throughout the Middle East but reject the necessity for the painful steps it has taken to get there. That to me seems incredibly disingenuous.

I also find it rather bizarre that the consensus among intelligence experts was that Iraq had WMDs and yet there are allegations of intelligence 'fixing'. Fixed how? If Iraq had WMDs, why would intelligence need to be fixed at all?

One final thought: the minimum standard for impeachment requires a criminal act. The closest anyone can get to such an act in this case is lying about intelligence. That is not enough to support a criminal charge unless the lie was 'under oath'. Clearly that has not happened in this case.

I grant you that if, and it has clearly not been established, the Bush administration lied to support the war justification, it is an egregious violation of the public trust...it is not, however, a crime.

Having ridiculed Clinton and Gore for the 'no controlling legal authority' line, I would feel better if some of the conservatives would show a little bit of squeamishness over the potential that these allegations could be true.

[Matt Hurley]

There is so much in Peter's responses that I should reply to that Icould probably write a book...before I get to that, let me approach one thing that Mahatma said: "Having ridiculed Clinton and Gore for the 'no controlling legal authority' line, I would feel better if some of the conservatives would show a little bit of squeamishness over the potential that these allegations could be true."

My response: If I thought for a minute that there was even the remotest possibility that this fever swamp inspired "Bush lied" rhetoric had even the slimmest of possibilities of being true, I'd be as squeamish as a skilled practioner of the oldest profession at a cathedral on Easter Sunday. They aren't, so I'm not losing sleep over it. Every time Peter's buddies claim they have the smoking gun that proves their fantasy, it turns out to be "fake but accurate" or whatever variation they use as an excuse this week.

Can Peter or those like him admit that MAYBE, just maybe, they are wrong about this? That perhaps they are too caught up in partisan nonsense and Vietnam era nostalgia to see what really happened here? I see an awful lot of people trying to be Woodward and Bernstein in the Lefty Blogosphere.

I guess, in the end, it is just difficult for me to accept that in this day and age a conspiracy of the magnitude that would be required to "sex up" intelligence over multiple administrations (representing both parties) could possibly be executed successfully. Ultimately, the left has to be able to admit that Bill Clinton (and he isn't the only prominent Democrat on this list) also lied about Saddam's WMD in order to make the claim that President Bush did the same. When I hear Kos, and Atrios, and Matt Yglesis say something along those lines, I'll give it its proper consideration; until then...its nothing more than partisan hackery if you ask me.

[Matt Hurley]

Now on to my book refuting Peter... :)

Peter says: "I think the American people deserve better than that level of honesty."

My response: They have it. But the problem is that the left is so far in the fever swamp they don't realize it. If President Bush announced that the sky is blue, some MoveOn-er would scream "Bush Lied, the Sky is Dyed" or some such nonsense. Words have meaning, or at least they should.

Re: Peter's version of what POTUS should have said in 2002 about WMDs - He did say that Peter. What the ^&*% do you think intelligence analysis is? It's nothing more than looking in to a crystal ball and taking a guess (some might say an educated guess, but I wouldn't). Any statement of 'fact' based on intelligence colors said fact until verification. Could the national command authority done a better job of articulating that? Sure, but you see what we have to work with here...public speakign is not one of the man's strong suits.

Re: Peter's version of what POTUS should have said in 2002 about Iraq and the War on Terror - This is just flat out wrong analysis, Peter. Zarqawi, for one, was a guest of Saddam prior to the invasion. Where was he before that and why did he go to Iraq? That's right, he got hurt in Afghanistan fighting the Americans. Ever hear of Abu Abbas, Peter? It's a fascinating read. I'd tell you the story, but I don't want to spoil it for you. Abbas was guest of Saddam. He was killed during major combat operations in Iraq. That's just two guys I can give you, Peter, that represent ORGANIZATIONS OF TERRORISTS. What is this war called again? Oh, yeah, the War on TERROR...draw your own conclusions.

Re: "a democratic Iraq could do a lot of good in the middle east" - This is good analysis, but try using that as a principle rationale in 2002. A LOT of people were (and still are) pissed at the entire Middle East for Islamofascism. The argument had to be framed in such a way where there were American interests to be fought for over there. Yes, POTUS could have done a better job explaining this too...but he has since it became "okay" to talk about such things...and what has it gotten him? More cynicism from the fever swamp left. Question: If a democratic Iraq could do a lot of good in the middle east, why are you so against it?

Re: "Had he said the above, and received the consent of the American people for his invasion, we wouldn't be having this argument." - POTUS got the consent of the American people. What do you think that vote in Congress was all about??? Did the Senate just need something to do that day? This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible.

That's all I can take for now...maybe more later... :)

[Matt Hurley]

Errata: I said Abu Abbas...I meant Abu Nidal.

[Carol]

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
-Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

I’m sure you’ve all read these or similar quotes, and there’s a lot more where these came from. They show that it has long been the prevailing and accepted notion at the highest levels of our government that Saddam had WMD. Should we be surprized that George Bush believed it to be true as well? If there were conflicting intelligence reports, to which side should Bush have erred? Perhaps the fact that he presided over this country at a time when thousands of its citizens were savagely murdered in a matter of minutes prompted Bush to err on the side of caution.

Some of the very same people quoted above, who were privy to the same intelligence information as Bush and who came to the same conclusion about the existence of WMD in Iraq, have become his harshest critics on that subject. If you want to investigate dishonesty, why don't you start there?