Today on Blogcritics
Home » Forgeries Abound!

Forgeries Abound!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek:

Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse for the MSM, it does. Captain’s Quarters has the latest on the fake Downing Street Memo that was distributed and the subject of those “make-believe” impeachment hearings and the usual rancorous thundering from the left. Turns out that by the author’s OWN ADMISSION that the documents are not originals typed on an old typewriter and the originals were burned making it impossible to authenticate anything. This is not a rumor going around, this is what the author, Michael Smith himself, said to the AP. As CQ makes clear there is a difference between fakes and frauds. The documents are clearly fakes as the author himself states. But that certainly calls into question whether they are frauds as well.

That brings us to story two. Remember the Dishonorable Traitor Dick Durbin calling the US Military nazis based on a FBI memo? Turns out that Durbin was also lying about the memo too. Myopic Zeal brings the quote from Fox News that states:

One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, the official said.

So it looks like Durbin also was lying about the comments of a confidential memo because he knows they probably won’t release it and he’ll get away with it (much the same is true in the Downing Street Memos, they can’t release it so they can be mischaracterized without the government being able to adequately defend). Blogs for Censure is up and running calling for the Dishonorable Traitor Dick Durbin to be censured. I don’t think he should be censured… I think every GOP commercial should feature this man’s comments and if Democrats don’t explicitly condemn it, they should be ipso facto unqualified for any office anywhere in this nation.

Enough is enough. There is plenty to criticize about America. The Democrats have moved beyond that to make up stories to criticize. First it was Dan Rather, then Isikoff, the Amnesty International, then the Downing Street Memo, now a U.S. Senator. The entire party has made it clear to the nation they are not interested in constructive solutions, they are interested in fabricating charges. It’s time to throw them out of office. I don’t want censure… as an Illinois voter, I want a recall.

Powered by

About John Bambenek

John Bambenek is a political activist and computer security expert. He has his own company Bambenek Consulting in Champaign, IL that specializes in digital forensics and computer security investigations.
  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    what lunacy. You say ‘first it was Dan Rather’, in your rationale of why to ‘throw out’ the Democratic party. Like the Democratic party was the ‘mastermind’ behind all your Chicken Little ramblings.

    You are just throwing all you can against them, even unrelated crap, in your cry to no longer compromise with the opposing side.

  • John R.

    You’re pathetic, man, you guys must be running scared if this is the best you can do. Be careful, you’re showing your true colors.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    And trying to Google-bomb, as usual – to the detriment of blogcritics, since Google is known to flag sites that attempt google-bombing

    The journalistic method of the reporter is questionable, but that point is somewhat lost in yr rant.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Does anyone else see the irony in quoting a blog called “MYOPIC ZEAL” as a reliable source?

  • Wayne

    I love the sight of morons in the morning roast in hell!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I’m not throwing them out for casuing RatherGate… I’m throwing them out for jumping on it like baffoons during a campaign and then defending it with “fake but accurate”. Running scared? You guys have NOTHING except fake memos…

    What’s the Democrats plan on Social Security? Iraq? Taxes? Health Care? There is no plan except to blame Bush for trying to kill people.

    This is all you got… “roast in hell”…

    No ideas. No plan. Just flame flame flame.

    Enjoy being in the even redder United States.

  • joe

    Fake? LOL! Is that the best you traitors can come up with!

    Everything is fake to you. Bush himself could fall out of the sky into your lap and tell you he lied as you’re video taping it and you’d come up with some lame “it’s not real” argument.

    I guess nothing’s real then.

    You shills are a laugh. You would spin your own mother as a terrorist if you had to (as you steal her last dollar out of her purse). LOL you idiots

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    The author of the article himself admits the docs are fakes.

    Who are we to tell him he’s wrong.

  • Katherine

    The document Durbin quoted from was released by the federal government in response to a FOIA request, and has been posted on the web for months. Here’s the link. Please print a correction.

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple Stark

    >>The author of the article himself admits the docs are fakes.

    No. Why are you being idiotic? He has said nothing of the kind.

  • Common Sense

    Hello John, Faux News wanna-be correspondent

    The AP and Washington Post both confirmed the authenticity of the memos using their own sources, we have more than one organization saying they are true. In the Rathergate it was just CBS, who screwed up. In this one we have more than just the Sunday Times reporter.

    Hello wake up, get your ass out of the sand and think before you spread false rumors.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    geeez kiddies, remember the Rule!

    if Coulter is the link, the author is a dink….

    whoa..channeling a dead lawyer for a minute there…

    film at 11

    Excelsior!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    One, Katherine…

    Durbin’s statement is here

    Try again.

    Two, the author ADMITS he copied the memos and burned the originals. The documents are not originals and cannot be authenticated. The author admits this, that’s how this started his own statements. They were pawned off as originals which makes them fake. They may have accurate information, but since the originals are burned there is no way to authenticate… it certainly calls into question his accuracy considering the really odd way he went about this.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Sources? No, they confirmed it with ONE source, who said the seem to be authentic.

    That’s it.

  • Impeachbush/cheneynow

    Just saw the british reporter that received the downing street memos. He was interviewed on Hardball. He explained that they had lawyers review them and a legal procedure was followed to try and protect all parties and protect their right to the documents. They made photocopies of the originals that were received and then sent what they actually received back to the source. This was done in order to protect their right to the documents.
    They then typed exact copies of the memos in order to eliminate a marking or such that would otherwise reveal the source.
    The Memos are AUTHENTIC.
    The originals were not burned.
    The british paper has exact copies of the originals.
    These weren’t written by secretaries but the very top people in Blairs cabinet.

    All BOZOS that say they are FAKE and/or the originals were burned or other stupid explanations simply won’t accept the TRUTH. They realize the damage these documents potentially do to the administration (ie IMPEACHMENT) and are trying to discredit them by LYING
    Can they do anything other than lying? well i guess they like to do character assasination of anyone that threatens them too.
    ImpeachBush/CheneyNow

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    They are fake. They might be true copies… they might not be. Who knows.

    I do know, however, if there was something that supported Bush that followed the same kind of document trail, you’d be just as skeptical.

  • Ayana

    Matthew Rycroft, David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell….all top level British officials who were in attendance of this meeting, yet not one of them have claimed that this document is fake. In fact they’ve all asserted that these documents are authentic. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Bush and his croonies will not “Rather” their way out of this mess. No amount of character attacks and claims of fake documents will divert away from the fact that Americans are waking up about this war. That tactic is getting old and played out and in the wake of how silly most “pro-life” war-hungry neo-cons looked after the Schiavo autopsy was released, you guys should do yourselves a favor and stop betting on the stupidity of Americans. The Kool-aid effect is starting to wear off….and you guys are DESPERATELY afraid. And it shows…

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    2 things:

    1) The memo also says Bush and Blair BELIEVED that Iraq posed a threat. They could be wrong, but they were honestly wrong. Therefore they could not have lied. Been wrong, sure.

    2) The memo might more or less be accurate, but the DSM being used to prove the war was a “lie” was only about ONE SENTENCE in the memo. To validly authenticate the memo and its contents requires the original, not recollection of one sentence in several pages.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    It doesn’t matter if the documents are copies or the originals if they are substantively correct, as confirmed by various British government ministers.

    The real issue here is that there’s nothing incriminating or troubling in the memos unless you’re reading them with a real willingness to stretch the contents to find anything to attack Bush with. In addition, while they may be good copies of the originals, the originals are still second hand interpretations – really summaries – of conversations and much of what’s in them is the opinions, interpretations and conclusions of the person taking the notes, not necessarily exactly what was said or meant in the briefings. This substantially reduces their value as any kind of ammunition against the administration.

    Dave

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Well, that too. The “confirmations” are somewhat suspect though as they are sort of “yeah, I kinda think how that went” sort of confirmations. I’d like a confirmation against the originals first, and even then, it still shows that Bush and Blair BELIEVED Iraq was a threat.

    It is possible that some middle man trying to kiss up to the boss gave them doctored info they wanted to hear. That’s perfectly plausible, a scenario I don’t think we hear enough of.

  • impeachbushcheneynow

    It’s difficult to carry on a conversation with people that refuse to acknowldege the truth and use nonsense remarks to try and divert or belittle it.
    Theres a tsunami coming. President Cheney and his little dummy can either head for higher ground or drowned in the gutter they live in now.
    impeachbushcheneynow

  • Ayana

    Dave,

    The question you should be asking yourself is why did top British officials walk away from that meeting under the “assumption” that Bush and Blair were intent on invading Iraq? If the discussion, as Blair and Bush ascertained, was about the most peaceful solution in dealing with Saddam, how on earth did anyone come to the conclusion that Bush wanted to invade Iraq so badly that the facts had to be fixed around the policy? And let’s remember that this memo is not an isolated accusation. More like yet another person, document, etc coming out about what really happened in the months leading up to the invasion. And all this character assasinating while diverting from the real issue makes this administration look guilty as hell!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Well maybe if that official will come forward, we can ask him why he thought that instead of making assumptions.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    When the modus operandi is to level the charge, then assert that “where there’s smoke, there must be fire,” it doesn’t matter if the supporting documents are forged, fake, top-secret or true, as long as they can be spun to accomplish the initial goal: level the charge.

    So, have you stopped beating your wife (or children/dog/cat/pud) yet?

  • BillB

    Bush could be caught on camera, live, in times square, strangling an old women to death, while reciting “All hard work and not enough vacation time makes George an excruciatingly grammatically challenge messenger from God” and this republican congress will still resist impeachment. It ain’t happenin’.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “What’s the Democrats plan on Social Security? Iraq? Taxes? Health Care?”

    This would actually be a fair question for President Bush too, since he doesn’t seem to have a plan for any of those.

    Is it too early to say “lame duck?”

    And am I alone in saying after reading several of John Bambi’s post that he’s an absolute lunatic?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ayana: “The question you should be asking yourself is why did top British officials walk away from that meeting under the “assumption” that Bush and Blair were intent on invading Iraq?”

    That’s actually not the impression they give in the memos. The impression is that Bush and Blair wanted to lay the groundwork for potential war while continuing to pursue peaceful solutions for a bit longer, which frankly seems entirely reasonable to me.

    impeachbushcheneynow: “It’s difficult to carry on a conversation with people that refuse to acknowldege the truth and use nonsense remarks to try and divert or belittle it.
    Theres a tsunami coming. President Cheney and his little dummy can either head for higher ground or drowned in the gutter they live in now.”

    And that kind of silliness advances the conversation? Come back when you have something to say.

    Scott: “This would actually be a fair question for President Bush too, since he doesn’t seem to have a plan for any of those.”

    Well, Bush more or less HAD plans on those, but with all the idiocy going on in congress and the distraction of Iraq the actual meaningful issues seem to have been lost in the shuffle.

    Dave

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Yes, you would be the only one labeling me a lunatic.

    Bush’s plan on social security is public (the whole private accounts fight, remember).

    Bush’s plan on health care is public… medical tort reform.

    Bush’s plan on Iraq is public. Stay til the job is done.

    You may disagree, but his plan is out there.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    i can’t resist..

    Scott is not alone..you are a lunatic

    of course, i believe it because of totally different Reasons..

    it seems that the actual phases of the moon and it’s orbit affect Sloop John B’s mental dynamics in a sever, quantifiable and totally treatable fashion…

    the Rx would be a bottle of 25 year odl single malt, 50 cc of thorazine and about 6 weeks of electro shock while listening to Al Franken

    it may not cure him, but i will make a Fortune selling the dvds!!!

    mwahahahaHAHAHAHahaHAHAhAHHAHahhHAHaaaaa

    did i just say that out loud?

    Excelsior!

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Bush’s plan on social security is public (the whole private accounts fight, remember).”

    I see, so is there a place I can go and read his specific proposal? All he’s done is push private accounts without any other substance to it. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

    “Bush’s plan on health care is public… medical tort reform”

    Not really a plan on health care is it?

    “Bush’s plan on Iraq is public. Stay til the job is done”

    Not much of a plan there either. What’s the plan for getting the job done precisely? What’s the plan for getting troops home? what’s the plan for long-term stability in Iraq and the Middle East?

    What’s the plan Bush?

  • Ayana

    Dave,

    From the memo:
    “C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

    No Dave. That doesn’t sound like his impression was that Bush was looking for the most peaceful solution.

  • SFC SKI

    “baffoons” Typo or brilliantly apt new word? You decide.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ayana, the memo also says that Bush and Blair were committed to following through with the UN as far as was feasible. The perception is that they were preparing for war because it was clear that UN sanctions were not working and were not going to work – that’s what ‘inevitable’ means – it doesn’t mean that they wanted to go with the war option, it means that war was becoming the only remaining option, even though they were going to let the peaceful options play out first. Sometimes you have to prepare for war even while pursuing peace.

    Dave

  • Ayana

    Dave,

    Also from the memo:
    “The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”

    “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.”

    Oh and Dave, “fix facts”, “thin case”, and “Saddam was not threatening his neighbors” means the same here as in London.

  • Ayana

    Oh and Dave, the word games only works on people who want desperately to believe that Bush wouldn’t possibly lie to get us into war. The impression of these officials are in black and white. The Republican Spin Machine needs to find a new record to play because this same old tired song of blaming everyone else for the failures behind this disgusting war obviously doesn’t work anymore.