The Left, and particularly the moonbat "Impeach Bush" crowd, has been buzzing for the last several weeks over the so-called "Downing Street Memo," which supposedly contains a "smoking gun" revelation that "proves" the Bush administration "fixed" evidence in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
I've been looking for a good, concise write-up about the content of the memo and what it really means, and I've found one at SEIXON blog. It's really too good to quote from; you should read it all. The author leaves no stone unturned, including the memo's deceptive colloquial title, which attempts to add "officialness" to an otherwise truly unremarkable document.
The document, which is really "[Matthew] Rycroft's interpretation of Richard Dearlove's interpretation of US officials' interpretation of the Bush administrations intentions regarding Iraq," is thoroughly analyzed, with often-quoted passages examined in context and then taken out of context to illustrate how they are deceptively employed in order to implicate the Bush administration.
In the final analysis, the Downing Street Memo and the new so-called "Manning Memo" - when they are taken in their entirety - illustrate that both the US and the UK felt that Saddam must be removed from power, but as of the summer of 2002 both governments were still unsure of how to do it. They were still looking at intelligence and assembling the evidence necessary to justify an appropriate method. Today, with three years hindsight, we know that the method eventually agreed upon was a military invasion.
The insistence of Bush-bashers in using latter-day events to interpret historical documents ultimately leads to nothing but nonsense. Just ask Hal Lindsey how accurate his Biblical prophecy predictions have been lately.
UPDATE: Paul from WizBang asks, "Are The Downing Street Memos Bogus?" He quotes an interesting item buried in this AP story:
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 the AP that he protected the identity of the source who had provided him with the documents: He typed copies of them on plain paper and destroyed the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers. (emphasis added)
There's more. Paul also quotes from a Raw Story article which Smith further explains that, "before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter."
Well that's just great. At least they didn't make the fatal mistake of using Microsoft Word, or faxing them from a Kinko's.
In any legitimate analytical endeavor there is a fundamental component called traceability. Whether you are concerned with the analysis data, analytical standards, reference standards, or the specimens themselves, it is critically important that you have the ability to trace the authenticity and to document the chain of custody of any item in question. Whether Michael Smith realizes it or not, his decision to create new documents by recopying the contents of the memos completely destroys their traceability. At this point, all we have in terms of verification is a "fake but accurate" testimony from an anonymous government official. Paul at WizBang is correct when he concludes, "This "evidence" would be tossed out of any court in the land in about 4 seconds."
Comments