RAWSTORY -Backstory: Confirming the Downing Street documents

[Coexist]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html
<snip>
“I was given them last September while still on the 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.

[Atman]

1. I don't like this one bit

Do you smell "Rathergate?"

[Coexist]

2. No - they are authentic - this proves it to me.

[Atman]

4. That isn't the point

They've now sewn all the doubt they need for the Sunday talking heads and right-wing blather-fests to dismiss the whole mess. All this shredding, copying, re-typing...what for? Why not just show the documents? Who re-types stuff in this day of photocopiers. It is just stinky. I hope I'm wrong. I really, really hope I'm wrong. But it seems to cloud the issue, not clarify it.

[indie_voter]

14. They did photocopy

They had to destroy the photocopies to protect the source because of the markings on the paper which would identify the source.

Smith explained the laws are different in the U.K.

emphasis mine

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 situation in Britain is very difficult but with regard to leaked documents the police Special Branch are obliged to investigate such leaks and would have come to the newspaper's office and or my home to confiscate them,” he explained. “We did destroy them because the Police Special Branch were ordered to investigate.”

[LynnTheDem]

16. Photocopying would have shown the originals' "signature";

Ie; if the memos were handwritten, simply photocopying the originals would show the original handwriting and possibly identify the source.

If the memos were typed, simply photocopying the originals would show the typing and possibly identify the source.

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

PM Blair: "And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html#

[indie_voter]

12. No I don't.

Following reasons:

1.The author of the minutes is not dead
2. This isn't a personal memo sent but minutes of a meeting, part of the official record (albeit classified)
3. The originals exist (presumably not just one set, minutes are usually distributed to all attendees of a meeting), photocopies were destroyed.
4. The British Government has acknowledged these are real

[frictionlessO]

3. Yes yes yes, very good idea to just post it like this... the spin they

have been using is defaulted immediately, he destroyed the photocopies! Not the originals, which means his source can always give him the originals again.

So N'yah N'yah!!:spank: silly widdle repubs.

[B Calm]

5. Here we go again... They'll spin this

[Coexist]

6. Okay - here is the rest - y'all need to read this carefully

If I know to use bold on DU, I would bold the LAST PARAGRAPH!!!
<snip>
“The situation in Britain is very difficult but with regard to leaked documents the police Special Branch are obliged to investigate such leaks and would have come to the newspaper's office and or my home to confiscate them,” he explained. “We did destroy them because the Police Special Branch were ordered to investigate.”

The documents, including the original Downing Street minutes, have been vetted by other foreign and domestic news organizations (see Raw Story Timeline).

[evermind]

7. Note also you can see parts of the originals at the original Telegraph

story. Apparently.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

And of course, theres the Guardian story which says: "The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine"

[liam97]

8. Please also note that the Butler Committee

has used them without naming them.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Funny how the real story always gets forgotten.

Bush was still AWOL from TANG. He lied about his desire to invade Iraq. He lied about the causus belli to get his war.

It is incumbent on him to prove none of these statements are incorrect. In all 3 cases, there's overwhelming circumstantial evidence to support our statement...of course, post priori proof exists to support the last statement.

So George and his beta-monkey supporters....show me the money. Show your proof that contradicts those assertions. It'll be a loooong wait, I'm afraid.

[Eagle_Eye]

10. I can see the repugs showing up at Michael Smith's house

with a suitcase full of money saying "You need to add this to your story about the memos or ... "
I find it a little strange that when the evidence starts to implicate Bush, a 'new' revelation about the evidence suddenly surfaces.

[sickem]

11. So let's just put them under oath,

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice, and let them dispute the authenticity and accuracy of the memos. If their asses are as well covered as the claim they shouldn't have any problem TESTIFYING UNDER OATH!

In order to get this ball rolling we need to get the message across to these Congressional lapdogs that we will be headhunting in another year. There is already a bit of evidence of a Congressional COVERUP regarding Iraq weapons intel and we won't forget it at the midterm elections. With public support for the Repugs and for Bush's agenda tanking there is a good chance the Repugs will loose their majority in Congress. Then it will be time for REAL INVESTIGATIONS and any of Bush's butt buddies like John McCain who spent the last year dragging their feet on holding him accountable need to go down the drain with him.

We need to send them the message that the time to get out in front of this scandal and make a stand is now. Not when the campaign ads start.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Will the source of the "original" documents now be "suicided????"

David Kelly anyone? THAT is what concerns me. The list of people who had access to those documents is probably pretty short?? NOW, if Jack Straw would come forward with them, I would feel MUCH better. :)

[Spazito]

15. The BBC used excerpts in their documentary...

Iraq, Tony and the Truth. This documentary was aired AFTER they were forced to 'recant' on the 'sexing up' the intelligence report. There was NO Downing Street request to recant on this documentary using excerpts from the multiple leaked documents.

Link to the documentary:

http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/warofterror/iraqtonytruth.htm

Link to the program site and the transcript of the documentary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4332485.stm

[Just Me]

17. Thank you for the clarification.

The authenticity of the minutes have been well-vetted.