The original Downing Street Memo was reported by a rightwing journalist working for a rightwing newspaper owned by a rightwing media mogul. And now rightwing bloggers like Captain Ed and Marc of USS: Neverdock want us to believe that the memo and other documents are fakes.
They don't bother to point out to their readers that even if this were true, it would prove a rightwing conspiracy of lies (surely approved by the same Murdoch who owns Fox News and the Weekly Standard) to unseat war-ally Blair and his leftwing Labour Party in favour of a rightwing Conservative Party who want to withdraw the UK from Iraq but won't look too hard at tax evasion. Either that, or Murdoch is using his British outlets to doublecross Rove in preparation for switching to a Democrat candidate in '08.
To make the case for fakes, they rely on a tenuous parallel between the Downing Street documents and the Dan Rather case - attempting to say that if one case of leaked doscuments is found to be forged then ALL cases of leaked documents are likewise fake. The logical mistake there is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be pointed out.
Then they deliberately mangle a Raw Story article, only quoting the sections they need to bolster their illogic and rely on the laziness of their readers in not following imbedded links to conceal their subterfuge.
Here's USS:Neverdock's quote -
"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."
and here's the Raw Story parts it deliberately missed -
"I was given them last September while still on the [Daily] 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.
"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."
Lets see now - the actions were taken because of instructions from the Telegraph's legal eagles; it was done because true copies would have given Special Branch direct rather than secondhand evidence and the Telegraph didn't want it's entire editorial team in jail; it was the Telegraph NOT the Times (so why on earth does USS:Neverdock want it's readers to complain to the Times?) and in any case the story refers to six original documents (later authenticated by the British government i.e. NOT FAKES) which were used for Telegraph stories, not the later Downing Street Memo or Downing Street Briefing.
Wow, what a lot to miss out if you are trying to establish facts!
As for the bit about using an old typewriter, any net nerd could tell them why. A computer disk, even after hitting the delete key, preserves information that can be retrieved by, just a for instance, Special Branch. A typewriter ribbon can be burned or thrown in the Thames. The legal team obviously intended there to be only secondhand evidence of a breach of the Official Secrets Act, a distinction whichj could easily be exploited by a clever defence lawyer in court.
Let us also consider that Michael Smith is an ex-spook himself and operational security to the point of paranoia probably comes very easily to him.
All this distortion and spin is purely because the Downing Street Memo and it's associated documents are a true and authentic account of decisions at the time they were written, no matter what happened later at the UN to retroactively attempt to justify those decisions, as admitted by Blair,
And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations Tony Blair,Transcript of Press Conference with Bush, 7th July 2005
and are having a snowballing impact as people come to realise they were lied to by Bush and Blair.
The latest document released by Michael Smith in the Sunday Times shows that the British Foreign Office clearly considered an increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" illegal under international law. It also means Bush acted illegaly by allowing those US raids since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.
I expect that pundits like USS:Neverdock and Captain Ed, with a gallant disregard for the jounalistic integrity they pretend to make so much of, will try to play this document down too.
I have a suggestion for a new slogan for their blogs: "Spin to make a dervish's nose bleed."
No comments:
Post a Comment