This quote about DSM really troubles me

[Catch22Dem]

Are they gonna try to get us on this?

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.

Article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050619/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

[Nickster]

1. I was just thinking the same thing as well.

This sounds exactly like how they got Rather.

[TruthIsAll]

33. HE PHOTOCOPIED THEM AND RETURNED THE ORIGINALS

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html

SNIP
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 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


MORE..

[Just Me]

34. Whew, brother,...what's up with AP?

:eyes:

[Karenina]

35. The MINUTES are just icing on the yellowcake

Connect the dots, all ye who fear mechanical reproductions. This timeline from Paul Thompson will assist you! ;-) :hi: TIA!!! :loveya:

[Nickster]

36. Oh good, I'm glad you brought that up, I haven't seen that

described before you mentioned that. I just kept thinking they haven't denied them and then I saw a few mentions that he had copied them and I was waiting for the MSM to start blasting away at the Rather-ness of the situation if it started to get to be too sticky of a situation. This is really good to hear.

[abluelady]

2. Only If We Let Them

Enough of shooting the messenger. When is our party going to focus on the message and force the repugs to do the same?

[terip64]

3. I thought the same thing...

[Maraya1969]

4. Well the British didn't deny it and a top level official in US affirms it

[Igel]

21. They affirmed that the content seemed correct.

I don't think anybody went on record to say that each word and punctuation point were correct.

That allows far too much wriggle room.

[Vickers]

5. Show me the originals of Bush's medical exams from 1972 and 1973

Show me the original letter removing him from flight status.

Show me the original paperwork for his original driver's license with his original driver's license number.

Show me the original flight manifests for all planes that were allowed to take off from US airports in the 5 days following 9/11.

Show me the original notes taken from his meetings with Blair in 2002 regarding Iraq.

etc.

etc.

[Last Lemming]

6. Sorry Charlie

already had a chance to deny and didn't--nobody but a few freepers thinks they're fake.

[FloridaPat]

7. He might have meant the originals he got, not the ones in the

British government. I'm sure if they had disappeared, they could figure out who got them

[Catch22Dem]

18. Now that makes sense (n/t)

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

8. I read that earlier

this morning. While it still can be used I think it's now worthless in any impeachment process. For a reporter to admit to destroying the original puts a big cloud over the whole thing. It's like someone just pulled the rug right our from under us. I'm not sure how effective the memo was going to be anyway without any direct quotes.

[kentuck]

9. If Dan Rather had done that...

they would have had to deal with the facts, rather than the "document" separately....

[Just Me]

10. Perhaps, they were faxed or emailed and he had to destroy them,...

,...to protect his source. :shrug:

[Coexist]

11. Rawstory had an article about this - La la - are you here?

I can't find it on their site now. It explained that the originals would tell who the leaker was, so they were photocopied, then typed up and the original copies destroyed - or something - my memory fails me. But there was a good reason and they are authentic.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karmakaze]

13. Why would they add any more credibility than Blair ADMITTING THEY ARE TRUE

I don't get this whole line of spin - Blair and other senior British officials ADMIT that these are true copies of documents - you don't need originals when the people it refers to ADMIT they are true!

This is just feeding the doubts that the right wing spin doctors are trying to sow. Don't fall for it.

[Coexist]

14. for reasons we can't understand

but they have been authenticated by several sources, so the question of their authenticity is moot.

[seemslikeadream]

16. I trust Conyers

n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. I think you explained that correctly..I had seen that same description

the originals are still in existence, it's just the photocopies that were destroyed after being transcribed. MKJ

[Spazito]

17. The leaked documents were NOT leaked to take down bush..

the target was blair. If they take down bush as well, that would be a 'by-product' not the main intent,imo. It is interesting that many are thinking they were leaked to hurt bush and they were not. The key leaked documents were leaked prior to the British election not at a key point that would hurt bush.

This fact, alone, makes any 'Rovian' plan rubbish. The Downing Street Minutes were leaked well AFTER the 6 documents leaked in Sept 04 so any contention that the 6 documents were planted in order to discredit the Downing Street Minutes is ludicrous, imo.

[indie_voter]

19. If this was the cowed American press I would be worried

However this is the British press, Rove and his minions can't do what they did to Rather.


Besides, the memos have already been acknowledged as true by U.K. officials.

[The Straight Story]

20. So how would they stand up in a court of law

or in congress in hearings, et al?

Wanting to believe something to be real does not make anything that comes out about it real. I understand we can have people authenticate the substance (or not deny it) and so on, etc, but I don't think it hurts to take a step back and think how we would react if someone pulled out a memo like this and was trying to say something in relation to conyers using it (ie, someone on the right leaks a conyer memo but no one has the original, is anonymous, and was typed up by someone else, etc).

Something does not seem totally right in all this, maybe I am just too careful.

[Igel]

23. They probably wound't stand up very well.

A photocopy--a mechanical reproduction--is as good as an original.

Basically we're seeing the work of a scribe. It didn't go through a machine that presumably just transferred information cleanly and unbiasedly. It went through a person's mind: scribal errors include altering words and sentences and leaving out passages or sentence portions (esp. between repeated words and constructions).

Copying by typing I personally think is a bit better than by hand, esp. by hand in a scriptorium, but still isn't a wonderful thing.

[salin]

24. The originals still exist

it is the copies that are zapping around - I venture to guess that if it came down to hearings (eg the truth behind them were accepted) the source would then have enough "cover" to come out and have the originals be used.

[The Straight Story]

25. Not according to the quote in the original post

but if so, then you could well be correct.

[indie_voter]

28. The wording IS confusing

"he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."

Do the originals mean original minutes or the original documents the source gave him?

I read this as the original documents the source gave him, not the original document. Perhaps the journalist will make this clear.

The DSM are minutes, so they were distributed to all participants at the meetings. So all participants must have copies too.

Odds are they weren't typed on a typewriter but on a computer, which would mean the original also exists on the computer.

This is very different from what happened with the Rather debacle. The information was 30 years old and the author dead.

[Coexist]

29. they were typed from verified photocopies I believe

they have been vetted - don't worry about them

[indie_voter]

32. Yes and the source isn't the only person who has the minutes

Minutes are sent to everybody who was at the meeting, which is why this is more than one person's impression of what was said.

If people disagreed, that would be entered in to the record as minutes are official.

This isn't just one person taking notes for their own personal file.

That is what scares this Admin, mho.

[indie_voter]

26. Yes

Also,minutes by themselves wouldn't be enough in any trial, would they?

I would think they would need testimony from the participants,or the very least, the source.

Which is why I think Blair has to go down first, this will open up many avenues of information which can then be used to prove Bush lied to congress.

MHO, the DSM is the first shot (heard around the world), it won't bring about impeachment by itself, it is just one of many pieces of the puzzle.

[Frederik]

22. Blair's office did not deny their authenticity

And if they weren't real, they would have, as it hurt Blair in the election.

[Pryderi]

27. If this is true, then there is no evidence.

[Goldmund]

30. Cool, so let's see them deny their authenticity.

[Spazito]

31. Don't be troubled, they have been verified by...

"The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war."

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

[FearofFutility]

37. Unfortunately,

Americans don't really pay attention to the news. They hear little sound bites and then draw conclusions. If people hear anything that allows them to dismiss the DSM, it will lose traction. I'm really concerned about this. It feels too much like what happened with so called "Rathergate". I think we need to turn up our noise machine to drown this out. We know that it's factual. No one has denied the content. I'm an agnostic, but if there is a God, please, please make this stick!!

[brentspeak]

38. I've barely been following the DSM saga

and I didn't sign my name to the petition. And now I'm glad I was cautious.

You would think that people would be smart enough to completely vet leaked documents like this before championing them as "evidence'. It might reflect what was actually said/written, but it still doesn't look good that this is a typed copy of a photocopy that was later destroyed (why?).

Didn't Rathergate teach people that you have to make absolutely sure there isn't some funny business going on BEFORE you make a big deal out of something? Good grief.

[indie_voter]

39. Destroyed because

“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.”

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

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html

[brentspeak]

40. So why not pass them off to someone else?

Or hide them somewhere? Makes absolutely no sense why he had to destroy them.

Didn't people know about this before they went all ga-ga over them?

[agincourt]

41. The Bush interview in 1999,

Where he was tape recorded as saying he wanted a war like Margaret Thatcher to get his legislation passed, is actually more damning. Unlike Britain however, we ignore anything incriminating against Bush.
He was probably the first President since the depression to plan on taking us to war before even being elected. Likewise ,inquiring minds might wonder if that he wanted a war so bad, would he want to prevent a terrorist attack? So much is out in the open, but nothing is done, save for whitewash.

[four more wars]

42. If there was any way to suggest they were fake, it would be done by now

They are real,

if they were fake Blair and Bush would have said so at there press conference