DSM are fake on Drudge

Stumpy posted this earlier when the blog Capptain's Quarters first put it on.  

It then hit the National Review and sometime tonight it hit Drudge.  

I am surprised that I had to go back 150 diaries to see this in the diary list.  

We get hit by this sh*t too late.The real test of media bias will now occur. Let's see how quickly the MSM picks up this piece of idiocy. I wouldn't be surprised to see it hit them like a bolt of lightning.

It will make CNN faster than the memos did themselves.

Our tack with the MSM should be their bias in coverage, not defending the memos in detail. Defeding them implies that the ridiculous charge is valid. We just need to bash the media for their biased coverage

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/19/13234/6546

From the blogger at Captain's quarters

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate", where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out --

Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.....

Michael Smith, who did the story,

"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.........
"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." End quote by Smith

Then Captain's Quarters said this following nonsense.
Ignoring the fact that Smith said he xeroxed them.

Why an old-fashioned typewriter? Why not just retype them on a computer, if you've already decided not to work from the originals? It looks like an attempt to fake people into believing that the documents produced by Smith were the originals.

The reasoning behind this is idiotic and stupid, but it has already been posted on Drudge.

•  it worked for them last time

  so they're trying it again.

  they're desperate.

  by Nordic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:55:33 PM PDT

  •  And they won't get very far

    The reporter has already talked about this.

    This is normal procedure in the UK, document is returned to leaker as document is govt property.
    Govt is contacted by paper saying document is about to be published and has an opportunity to respond. Only if govt respond in the negative means that they don't agree. British press all know the memos are authentic.

    The wingnuts are putting an American perspective on a  British political matter and are going to really embarass themselves.

    by obgynlover on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:06:04 PM PDT

    •  what is sad ....

      is that you can bet your ass tomorrow CNN and the rest of the whores will be trumpeting the "story" which will go something like:

      "some are saying that the documents may be fakes"

      And that will be the story that most idiots will remember.

      They'll think - "I remember hearing about those -- weren't those fakes?"

      Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.    But over the last four years I've seen the truth get the shit beat out of it over and over and over ....

      by Nordic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:14:51 PM PDT

    •  I really, really, really...

      really, really, really, really, hope you're right.

      But I'm not getting my hopes up.

      by Stradavus on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:26:23 PM PDT

      •  Maybe they'll get "Gallowayed"

        I sincerely hope they stick out their necks and get their heads neatly lopped off.

        by Nordic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:35:14 PM PDT

        •  what"s the background for that phrase?

          just curious?

          THKS

          by Al Rodgers on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 01:19:22 AM PDT

          •  people leaning out of trains?

            I have no idea.

            by Nordic on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:10:00 AM PDT

•  bring it on

  They tried this with the Teri Schiavo memo, and got burned.  They will this time, too.

  More publicity for the DSM = good.

  by chumley on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:56:40 PM PDT

  •  Yes, more publicity=good

    But let's not take it for granted that this will go down like the Schiavo doc... we must be ready for this and I thank the diarist for venturing into the sludge at Drudge... Forewarned is forearmed.

    by highacidity on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:01:36 PM PDT

    •  "Forewarned is forearmed"

      Very true.  Good point.

      by chumley on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:11:17 PM PDT

•  The right-wing noise machine

  roars into action. Big surprise.

  Since this journalist works for a foreign news organization (BBC), it'll be harder for US wingnuts to bully the the BBC or the journalist in question into submission.

  by James Benjamin on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:57:27 PM PDT

  •  oops

    Wrong Brit news org, but the basic point stands.

    by James Benjamin on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:03:07 PM PDT

•  Raw story

  has shot this crap down already...go read

  www.Rawstory.com

  by machadez on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:58:26 PM PDT

  •  for the lazy

    www.washingtonmonthly.com :
    

    Now, unlike the Killian memos that were at the center of Rathergate, there are quite a few principals in this case who either wrote or received these memos and therefore have absolute knowledge of whether or not they're genuine. The first memo, for example, was written by Matthew Rycroft and distributed at the time to David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell. So far, not a single one of these people has claimed they're fake...

    by Nicholas Phillips on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:17:06 PM PDT

•  Oh my God!

  A typewriter? Is it time for another fascinating discussion about fonts? Sans serif is so dreamy...

  by Admiral Santa on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:59:21 PM PDT

•  Nothing happens in a vacuum

  It's not just the Downing Street Minutes.
  ...it's minutes to back up the minutes
  ...it's Conyers applying pressure.
  ...it's sinking poll numbers
  ...it's Republican congressmen calling for an exit strategy
  ...it's the daily death toll from Iraq
  ...it's papers across the country staring to do their job.
  ...it's constituents back home telling their congressmen it's not worth.

  Call Downing Street a fake. Be my guest. Are you going to call the soldiers dying in Iraq fake deaths? Are we faking the fact that as more soldiers  die or are horribly wounded, others won't take their place, causing a crises in the Army? Are we faking the poll numbers?

  Here's what I think. People are starting to get wise to the tricks, and now they aren't going to work as well. Why? Track record. Hubris. All coming back to haunt them at once.

  Get ready for the ride, it's going to be fun.

  Unless they have another 9/11 up their sleeves.

  by makemefree on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:40:51 PM PDT

  •  i am obviously not agreeing

    that they are fake. They are real.

    I posted this because the right wing spin machine spins faster and more directly than we do as of now.

    Putting it on Drudge is like mainlining it to Fox to CNN to Howie Kurtz at the Washington Post.  

    We should not be blindsided and ignore this because it seems so obvious.  We ignored the Swift Boat Liars but the MSM flogged it endlessly.

    We should flog the press to cover these memos and treat these assertions as nonsense, but if they treat these lies as credible, then we have to bash them for their bias.  

    by debcoop on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:54:27 PM PDT

    •  I for one

      did not think you agreed, I understand your posting. I hope I didn't sound offensive. by crap(in a previous comment), I meant the allegation, not your diary.

      by machadez on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:26:54 AM PDT

      •  thank you

        i better go to bed

        by debcoop on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:51:54 AM PDT

•  Bush couldn't authenticate any reason

  for going to war. Fucking hypocrites.

  by jfern on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:30:50 AM PDT

•  Micahel Smith's behavior...

  was a bit strange.  don't you think?  

  http://democracyguy.typepad.com/democracy_guy_grassroots_/2005/06/dsm_and_reporte.html

  by Tim Russo on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:10:27 AM PDT

•  Smith on Hardball 6/20

  Here's part of the Hardball transcript.  Smith himself said the originals were returned to the source.  The reports of Smith saying the originals were destroyed seem to be reports of him saying that, not direct quotes.

  GREGORY:  Michael Smith broke the story of the highly confidential Downing Street memo for "The Sunday Times of London" just days before British Prime Minister Tony Blair was reelected.  And he joins us now from London.  

  Michael Smith, welcome and thanks for being here.  

  MICHAEL SMITH, "SUNDAY TIMES OF LONDON":  That's all right.  

  GREGORY:  Let me begin with new information that's come out about the Downing Street memo and your notes, your own reporting on this.  It's come out that you destroyed some of your initial notes that supported the memo.  Is that the case and why have you done that?  

  SMITH:  We--I haven't destroyed any notes.  

  What happened was that, when I first received the first six batch--sorry--when I first received the batch of six documents back in September of last year, when I was working on "The Daily Telegraph," I was under very strict orders from the lawyers as to how I should handle that.  I had to photocopy the documents, send the originals back to whoever had sent them to me.  That meant that the photocopy paper that the actual documents were now on was our property at "The Daily Telegraph" and therefore couldn't be taken away from us on that basis.  

  And then the lawyers, not me, the lawyers, insisted that a secretary typed up on a typewriter the actual text of the documents.  And then, on the evening, as we went to press on the story, we actually shredded the photocopies of the documents.  And the reason for that is that the source who had given them to us could have been identified by the particular copy of that document that they had by an elimination process.  And we were anxious to protect the source.  

  GREGORY:  But the bottom line is, the British government has never said the memo is not real or the content is wrong?  

  SMITH:  No, they haven't, no.  And all the embarrassment it's given them, they would rush immediately to say, this is rubbish, this is not a true document.  

  GREGORY:  Right.  

  SMITH:  And, indeed, everyone saw Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush at the White House press briefing, where Mr. Blair responded to that.  

  GREGORY:  Right.  

  SMITH:  And, you know, Mr. Blair didn't say it's false.  He said that he didn't agree with something that was said in here by the head of MI6.  But he didn't say the document didn't exist.  He said it was an old document and things had moved on after that document.  

  by St Pauli Girl on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:54:36 AM PDT