So, where are the original Downing Street Memos?

Apparently the BushBot blogosphere is trying to relive old glories and desperately trying to draw a parallel between the DSMs and Rathergate. It seems that the typewritten DSMs are in fact facsimiles: the reporter photocopied the original memos he was given, returned to the originals to the government source, and then a "legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter". This was apparently done to protect the original source, but as to the re-typing on the old typewriter, that's a bit more suspicious.

In any case, another BushBot makes a bit more sense. No one has denied the accuracy of the memos, and in addition there's also the matter of the legal desk secretary. Would they testify to the accuracy of what they typed?

And, there's also the matter of the original memos, which as we know were returned to their government source. If the minutes of the meetings are different, surely someone should have leaked them to the press by now, no?

Note also the (deliberate?) attempts to confuse matters here: the "originals" which were destroyed are not the originals, they're the photocopies. Expect the Emily Latella-ish Bush supporters to use "originals" when they're actually referring to copies.


Okay... This settles it - "The Lonewacko Blog" is moving right up my blogroll (something that should have been done sooner).


The memo concerns a meeting between Bush and Blair, and the contents reflect what was discussed at that meeting. So Bush has, or should have, "knowledge" about both content and "existance" (try existence). At least in this particular case. But about the knowledge-having part, I'm still not sure in general about Bush.

Lack of denial =/= admission, you lunatics.

Only in lalaland do people publicly and officially "deny" existance of things about which they have no knowledge.

I've never heard anyone -- Bush or Blair of some acolyte -- dispute the authenticity of the memos or their contents. Bush seems beyond this kind of thing anyway -- in his own mind, in the media, and amongst a sizable portion of the electorate. After all, he's on record as saying that in his opinion his re-election validated his Iraq policy. Now one might add: No matter what the revelation. There's also sense of resignation about the whole situation -- we're there and can't leave until the mess is cleaned up, i.e. we can't leave the place to the 'terrorists', so what good does it do to quibble about the past?