from a story in the AP- this is starting to look a lot like the CBS Memo story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618...hBkVnWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NzN0azRvBHNlYwN3bA-- -- 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. -- An anonymous source, without seeing the orginals, says the content "appeared authentic". the Sunday Times accepted Smith's story, without asking to see the original documents, using an un-named source to verify them and whose best opinion was they "appeared authentic"? now watch the media beat the fake but accurate drum...
The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times, The BBC: All British trash with an agenda. Looks like they've all been exposed now.
'An anonymous source, without seeing the orginals, says the content "appeared authentic".' ____________ I need to check my file cabinet, i'm sure there are some secret gov. documents I could sell to some fool media outlet. Newsweek, Telegraph, CBS... Hello?
While it's certainly some shoddy journalism, I don't think anyone has said the memos are fake. And given that the memos "From:" lines are public, you'd think someone could ask "did you really say this?" or that the people creating the memos would have come out in the last month and said "I never wrote this".
Unlike the CBS story nobody has presented one piece of evidence that the memos are fake. In the CBS story evidence was presented, and the CBS story was exposed.
tony blair hasnt disputed the contents of the memos, has he? here are some other "selective quotes" from the article. "When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later." "U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
Smith, a reporter with an obvious axe to grind, was smart enough not to release the originals to the public.
If they are fakes, they are fakes, I have no problem discounting them as proof of anything if they are indeed fakes. But so far nobody has presented any evidence.
It is not up to anyone to prove that they are fakes, it is up to the reporter to prove that they are genuine. His refusal to offer up the originals is suspicious behavior on his part.
When people lay out charges, it is up to those people to prove those charges. The reporter either has or has not done his job this case. But if someone is going to accuse him of not doing it, then it is indeed up to them to show that he didn't do it.
it's pretty obvious he didn't do his job- there are no original sources to back him up, he burned them. and for the times to rely on copies, w/ no way to authenticate them other than the word of some anonymous source, is beyind negligent, it's corrupt. then there's the highly suspicious timing of their release...
Why is this even news? It seems pretty apparent that the administration (and Blair's administration) either assembled a misleading hodgepodge of 'evidence' to support going into Iraq or they were so convinced it was true that they saw what they wanted to see in the evidence to go into Iraq. Either way continuing to say the evidence wasn't strong enough to go into Iraq (b/c immediate WMD risk or AQ) is redundant at best and nails down the chalkboard irritating at worst. FLASH: NEW STUDY says earth is INDEED round! Wow.
I think it should be checked, and if they were fakes, they are fakes. But so far nobody has offered one bit of evidence that they are fakes.
no one offered one bit of evidence that they are real. it's the journalistic equivalent of hearsay- actually, it doesn't even rise to that standard. the onus is on the times and the reporter to prove the allegations, not on the accused.
I believe that the reporter felt that his memos did prove the allegations. Early checks seemed to back up his belief that the memos were real. I agree he should have checked them out more. It is strange, though that they weren't called fakes until now. I mean if someone said they a document claiming I was in Iraq taking vigilante justice on insurgents I would come out immediately and say they were fakes since I know beyond any doubt that I haven't done that. Yet in this case the people involved aren't claiming the memos are fakes, and even after this latest bit, they still aren't claiming the memos are fakes. It is very interesting. All I can say is that I hope the whole truth comes out, if it hasn't already.
I think you're taking an untenable position on this one, FB. Innocent until proven guilty is not the standard to arbitrate EVERY disagreement. It is specific to processes like criminal charges. As a journalist, he ought to be able to corroborate his story and the whole 'I just typed it up myself' thing does seem fishy. As Major pointed out, its at best shoddy journalism although he does make a good point that no one has denied it yet as well.
I have said myself that it warrants checking into. I would have no problem with people looking more thoroghly into the situation. But it isn't just innocent until proen guilty standard. It is the standard that folks can't just level any charge they want at people without any evidence to back it up. Do you see where that could lead? People could accuse anyone in government of anything they wanted and not be under any pressure to prove their allegations. It is the standard in foramal debates, scholastic debates, journalism, and nearly any other format where issues are discussed, it is not just criminal procedings. I don't know why the reporter wouldn't want to be more careful. That is sloppy journalism. I agree. On a side note another thing I find odd is that journalists have a higher level of standard to prove their cases than the leaders of nations need to have in order to start a war.
I don't think these memos are fake because they don't really say anything big. Democrat leaders have made a bigger deal out of these memos than they really are. They don't say anything of substance. The CBS memo was forged to give Democrats proof of something they really wanted. If these memos were fake, they would say more and they would be more incriminating for the administration.
