Some right wingers are so scared of the truth, they use one lie to cover up another lie, and so on, unfortunately, for them at least, they lie so much that their lies cannot be backed up by the facts. The Washington Monthly has this report:
Here's Tony Blair himself on May 1, the day the first memo was published:In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that "subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route," seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm.
......
Here's the Washington Post on June 12:Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.
Also on the 1st May, Downing Street stated that the document contained "nothing new." In other words, Downing Street did not deny the document was genuine:
One reason for the secrecy is that the minutes record discussion of US plans for invasion; another is that at the time Blair had given no indication that plans were so advanced.He had not revealed to MPs or the public that in April 2002 he had told Bush “the UK would support US military action to bring about regime change”, as recorded in the Foreign Office briefing paper. Both before and after the July meeting Blair insisted in public no decision had been made.
The July meeting was later mentioned by Lord Butler in his report on the use of intelligence on WMD as a “key stage” in the road to war; but its details have never been revealed until now.
All available evidence backs up the case for the authenticity of the memo.
Article comments
1 - Jude Nagurney Camwell
OH NO!
ANOTHER RATHERGATE.....
NOT!
DEFINITELY NOT!
2 - M Paulding
Yes, Rush Limbaugh and some other drug-addled crackpots have weighed in. They're more than a few weeks late. We know with certainty that the memos are authentic.
Next, Rush and his friends will be telling us that the United States Bill of Rights is a forgery. They're certainly acting as if it is.
3 - Joyce
What other choice do they have, but to claim it is a fake, try to stiffle the press, and divert attention away.
This regime really believes the joke is on the American people.
4 - EQ
While Bush and his wingbots try to claim that Bush tried the diplomacy route first, someone needs to ask Mr. Bush publicly and on national television that if that were the case, then why were the U.S. and U.K. bombing Iraq during the summer of 2002, prior to UN Resolution 1441, and prior to any $87B or authorization to use force votes in Congress? This bombing was outside of the no-fly zone, inside of Iraqi air space, and targeted strategic Iraqi defense targets in hopes of a)goading Saddam into striking back, so they'd have an excuse to invade, and b)weakening Iraqi defense in anticipation of a later invasion.
This point is being missed just about everywhere. Nail them with it.
5 - Dave Nalle
EQ, we were bombing Iraq off and on for 15 years before the invasion. What's so special about the bombings in 2002?
Dave
6 - Mary D.
Dave Nalle, read this
7 - Voice 1
Indeed, the Downing Street Memo certainly is not a fake. Blair even referred to it, as I stated in the post, as has Bush, and the Butler inquiry.
8 - Dave Nalle
Mary, I guess you have a short memory. What the Times article doesn't mention, but which was general knowledge at the time of those bombing raids, is that those raids targeted antiaircraft gun emplacements which were in violation of the no-fly zone, so there was nothing improper or extraordinary about them.
I haven't heard a lot of right wingers claiming the memos to be forgeries, frankly. The criticism of the memos is more subtle than that. They're viewed as suspect mostly because they're second hand accounts and because they details are inherently unverifiable. And like the original DSM they don't have anything in them which is all that revelatory or shocking.
This is a case of the left desperately trying to grab hold of a sow's ear and turn it into a purse.
Dave
9 - Martin
Uhh, Dave? They are not second-hand reports. They are minutes drawn directly from meetings of the upper echelon of British leadership. Do some fact checking before you relay these GOP inanities. You will learn that the minutes are written as officially sanctioned truths. It's a process that has been in place for years and is not selectively applied. The British produce minutes following meetings about cow-farming and sewage treatment, and on down the line. Since that IS A FACT, then the minutes represent an actual, factual description of what was said. They also represent an insider judgment as to the content of the meetings. Minutes of meetings are critical documents intended to give British lawmakers all the facts so that they may direct future actions. The DSM and subsequent documents are not second-hand heresay. They are first-hand, straight from the horse's mouth.
By the way, the only desperation Liberals feel is to save this nation from plunging into a fanatical Dark Age of theocratic corporate rule. We are desperate for transparency in government. We are desperate for the truth. The DSM presents a truth for all to see, that the Bushies lied us into war. That is the highest possible crime a president can commit, apart from direct murder. Whether or not the end result is Bush's impeachment, haven't enough questions been asked to merit a thorough investigation? The excuse that we all knew Bush was lying before he sent our boys to war doesn't frickin' cut it. Bush was a DISASTER as a businessman, always having to be bailed out, and he is a juggernaut of incompetence and corruption as a president. He thrives on turning American against American. For that alone George Bush's butt needs propelling by everyone's boot.
10 - nodummy
Uhmm no actually the document is a typed COPY of the meeting minutes- with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals...
Explain to me why the memo needed retyping to secure the source ...
Or maybe your right ... the meeting was heald on paper only ... and he was taking notes from the document used.
Oh no ... wait ... that wouldn't make sense would it ... yeah neither does retyping a memo to secure the source ...