I have searched all over Hell

[Champion Jack]

and I can't find where someone has verified the DSM.
I'm assuming these have passed the test, but , has anyone come out and said--"these are legit, with out a doubt"?

[DebJ]

1. to turn that question on its' head: neither Blair nor Bush denies

the integrity nor accuracy.

[EVDebs]

13. They dare not....Like Clinton in the docket, they'd be under oath.

Bush can be forced to testify under oath just like the Big Dog. Tony's already vouched for the document; makes it harder for GW, doesn't it ?

[Gman]

2. I saw a thread over at FR saying the same thing today

It seems they're going back to the old tried and true tactic of calling evidence they don't like forgery.

[Champion Jack]

5. which is why I ask, I need better ammo against

those vicious freaks

[NightOwwl]

14. They aren't going to be bothered by facts...

so why bother with them, period?

But if for some reason you still want to try...see my post #10.

[Gman]

15. Remember one thing

you will never win an argument with a fool, much less convince the fool he/she is wrong

[Champion Jack]

17. Good Point....

sad, but, true

[seriousstan]

3. I asked this question 2 weeks ago and got nothing

but the same old "they aren't denying the authenticity" line. I still believe that this is another setup waiting to happen.

[Gman]

12. .

replied to the wrong post

[brentspeak]

20. I've got that awful feeling too.

So what if they aren't denying the authenticity? If these memos are shown not to be the same exact thing as the originals (like a photocopy), Bush and company can just use the RW echo chamber to spread serious doubt about them.

I'm still scratching my head as to how and why otherwise intelligent people would jump on DSM BEFORE making absolutely sure it's 100% Kosher (and no, a typed copy of something that was later, for no good reason, destroyed, is not good enough).

[Poppyseedman]

4. As the DSM gains traction and

before people are going to put their political necks on the line, there better be some hard and fast evidence it is a legit document. Otherwise, that bird isn't going to fly

[EVDebs]

6. "Blair has now acknowledged the authenticity of the document."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/168

under 19. Slam Dunk

4th paragraph down, last sentence.

[Poppyseedman]

11. This is not in quotes

(Blair has now acknowledged the authenticity of the document.)

Do you have a direct quote from Blair?

afterdowningstreet.org isn't exactly a non biased source

Not trying to rain on your parade, but it's a weak source easily dismissed by the right

[EVDebs]

16. If M$M were doing their jobs we'd have that all over the front pages

now wouldn't we ? The fact that DSM is being ignored shouldn't make us think this is another CBS news / Rovian fabrication.

Let's make it easy for you. Let's hear Bush deny it in detail.

Let's support a Resolution of Inquiry if there is any doubt about the DSM in order to clear your worried mind and end the rain on my parade (or put light on Bush's charade).

[Poppyseedman]

24. Resolution of Inquiry would be a great idea

My mind is far from worried.

My only point is you posted a source that claimed "Blair has now acknowledged the authenticity of the document"

What you linked to was not a source of that acknowledgment, just a statement by the author of the article.

That my friend doesn't hold water in the real world.

Put the words in Blair's mouth and it will be a credibility source that can be acknowledged or denied

Anything else is heresay and fodder for bloggers, not impeachment trials

[EVDebs]

27. That source comes from Ray McGovern, quoted in afterdowningstreet

Mr McGovern would LOVE to testify anywhere anytime about the DSM runup to war in Iraq.

Bring it on.

[Carolab]

7. Maybe you searched through hell but you didn't search the DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3896989&mesg_id=3897111

[smartvoter]

28. LOL Carolab. We should remember to search here when we're stuck. nt

[Cha]

8. The Downing Street Memo..

"The Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002—eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005. Since then, several other leaked UK government documents have come to light. Together they present a disturbing picture of a President obsessed with invasion, and a loyal ally troubled both by how it could be justified and by what it would bring."

More..
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

I'm told the Times of London is a murdock paper.

[teach1st]

9. More memos verified

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.

But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

[NightOwwl]

10. From AP...

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

[agincourt]

18. You make a good point,

The only way the pigboys can't Dan Rather the documents is because Tony Blair said they were genuine. This leads me to speculate: Is Tony Blair getting sick enough of our Texas rat to damage himself politically to put a dent in Bush? I often thought Blair didn't want the Iraq war to turn into a Grover Norquist rape like it did.

[EVDebs]

19. British troops are pulling out of Iraq next year ...

Britain may be out of Iraq next year
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12860778%5e1702,00.html
14apr05

""We need, as a country, a proper exit strategy from Iraq."" The same can be said for the US !

With US troops alone in this fiasco, if not Blair himself, other British military and intelligence must have been asking themselves what they'd gotten themselves into.

As Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland CA, "there's no there there". That can be said about Iraq. What was the point of going there again ?

[Spazito]

21. Another confirmation of authenticity

"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

[EVDebs]

22. Thanks, Spazito ! Let's Rain on Bush's Charade, now, shall we ?

[Champion Jack]

25. isn't that article from sept 20 '04?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. This is crap! These memos have faced no question as to authenticity

in their land of origin, Britain.Its revolting for people to bring this up as their last ditch stand against what the DSM are and what they reveal.

Blair didn't question them, Jack Straw didn'nt question them,Manning didn't question them, (probably becuase they know they do exist, exactly as reported) . I do understand the skepticism as we have been led down a primrose path before, but primarily by this adminstration who apparently commissisoned(!) fake documents about yellowcake, etc. But notice how no one in Britain is arguing about the CONTENT of the memos. I'm sure that's because they all know they may be under oath one day and they all know what is reported in the memos is true.

So get a grip. If they were forged and if the content were made up, the Brits, their main component and recipients would have raised that flag.

As for American papers, in the future, maybe the authors should spit or bleed on them so we can verify DNA and authenticity down the line

[EVDebs]

26. We can always go directly to source Mr Deerlove

if he can manage to avoid the fate of that British doctor found dead:

"The British Government says it will hold an independent judicial inquiry if a body found near Oxford is found to be that of David Kelly, an adviser to the Ministry of Defence.
Dr Kelly, an expert on weapons of mass destruction who has been working for the British Ministry of Defence, went missing after telling his family he was going for a walk.

Earlier this week, Dr Kelly denied to a parliamentary inquiry that he was the source of the BBC story which accused the Government of embellishing evidence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

He voluntarily admitted to the Ministry of Defence that he had held an unauthorised meeting with the journalist who wrote the story.
Committee members then suggested he was the "fall guy" and the committee agreed he was most unlikely to have been the story's source."

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/007755.html