The wingnuts try a familiar ploy

It seems that the wingnuts feel that they are able to defuse the disasterous impact DSM with a tried and proven method... debunk the authenticity of the source materials.

Little Green Footballs

The Downing Street memos: fake but accurate.
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."

That news snippet is expounded upon in Captain's Quarters

One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.

This is a different tactic, perhaps acknowledging the "not really news" slant was being ignored by a public which has a firmer grasp on what they were being told at the time.

•  I hope you appreciate...

  what I went through to get this posting.  Now, I must take a shower.

  by stumpy on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

•  Typical.

  The right would rather ignore problems than deal with them.

  by Stradavus on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:28:41 AM PDT

•  I'm almost certain...

  ...that the article I read quoted Smith as saying he copied the docs and retained the originals.

  If memory serves, the article was linked from a comment in an "Open Thread" which went on to examine  in a tangential way the history of paper sizes; folio, quarto, etc.

  by Pyewacket on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:29:17 AM PDT

  •  My comment above is unclear.

    I offer that info to aid anyone interested in searching for the link or to help their recall as to the location.  My Dkos search has been fruitless.

    by Pyewacket on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 AM PDT

    •  There was a discussion on paper sizes

      here and doesn't Michael Smith mention the retyping issue in his WaPo chat? sorry, don't have a link to that right now...

      by highacidity on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:01:55 AM PDT

      •  Thank you.

        That's the thread all right though I seem to have misremembered the comment about Smith retaining the originals; it appears nowhere here.

        Here's a transcript of the WaPo online event you mention.  Nothing about copies/originals there either, though.

        by Pyewacket on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:32:38 AM PDT

        •  There was an article interviewing Smith...

          ... that I may have been thinking of as well. I will try to find it and post it here. I think this is very important to have the refutation ready for this talking point... you are correct in that they are now switching their defense from "it's not news" to "they're not authentic."

          by highacidity on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:37:32 AM PDT

•  no one come forward

  Neither Blair nor Bush has come forward to disclaim the memo.

  It could be the biggest hoax ala AWOL documents. But so far both leaders has not tried to deny it. (which is surprising.)

  The point is, we have to use other method to back up the assertion, until we have other documents.

  by fugue on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:51:30 AM PDT

•  Here's a point I've been...

  ...meaning to offer for months now, ever since Rathergate: in the book 1984, the point of constantly rewriting history was not to create an alternate reality -- the point was to shift around the information so much that ALL information eventually became unreliable in people's minds. There was no reality to pin down, so reality became whatever the government said it was.

  by kenlac on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:57:20 AM PDT

  •  that is the way they have decided

    to "deal" with the internet, flood it, for now.

    by cognitive dissonance on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:21:17 AM PDT

•  That's true isn't it?

  Wouldn't the originals be right where they should be?  Wouldn't actually removing them be a worse crime than revealing what was in them?

  The British government can and should compare what is being printed in the newspapers there with the originals, and act on it accordingly.

  If there was a question of authenticity or truth, Blair would be the first one to condemn the documents, but he hasn't, nor has Bush.

  by nupstateny on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:11:34 AM PDT

  •  Bingo!

    If there was a question of authenticity or truth, Blair would be the first one to condemn the documents, but he hasn't, nor has Bush.

    Over at FR, all they're talking about is the "authenticity" issue, and basically nothing else. Let them keep it up, since it only serves to keep their heads in the sand, making our job of getting at the true facts much easier, because there is no other real 'spin' to counter, just the "old news" BS.

    by Terre on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:35:14 AM PDT