Jump to content

Talk:Downing Street memo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who wrote and received the memo?

[edit]

I think it's important to add a list of those who wrote and recieved the memo, because it's not really clear to Americans that read it. They see "C" and "CDS", and assume that they're some kind of code-name, when that's not the case. So, I propose that there be a list of individuals who recieved copies of the memo, their positions, and so on.

Such as...

Individuals who put out the memo:

  • Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
  • Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo

Individuals who recieved the memo:

  • Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
  • Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
  • Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
  • Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
  • Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
  • Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
  • Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
  • Head of MI-6 ("C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
  • Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
  • Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
  • Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell

Nathyn 04:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Denied what allegations?

[edit]
"On May 5, Congressman John Conyers sent a letter to President Bush signed by 88 of his colleagues demanding an explanation of the revelations in the memo. On May 16, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan the allegations, claiming that the United States only went to war after giving Iraq every chance to comply with its "international obligations.""

What allegations? the letter does not make any allegations. It asks a number of very simple questions, giving the administration a very good chance to explain itself by giving them every benefit of the doubt. There are no allegations in the letter. what does scott think he is refering to?

Furthermore, scott claims such-and-such - what does that have anything to do with anything? at best, it is in the direction of answering one of the questions in the letter, regarding the accuracy of the content of the memo, asserting that "yes, indeed, that part of the memo is accurate."

However, it certainly reads like the exact opposite. Kevin Baastalk: new 12:44, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Just curious: Do you know "Scott"? Your words certainly portray a kind of personal acquaintance. -- Don'tFeelLikeLoggingInRightNow,WikipediaIsTooSlow 21:20, 2005 June 7 Eastern Daylight Time

Authenticity of the memo

[edit]

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4506943.stm) on May 2nd, the day after the 'leak', Downing Street released the official document, verifying the contents of the 'leaked' memo reported in the Times on May 1st.

No, this refers to a different leak. It was a leak of part of the Attorney-General's legal advice to the UK government from March 2003 which prompted the government to release the whole document - nothing to do with this memo. David | Talk 21:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impeachable Offense or not?

[edit]

A section devoted to the above argument and discussing whether this constitutes grounds for impeachment might be warranted, as the topic has been raised repeatedly in the left wing Air America talk radio as of late.

FWIW: User:Kevin_baas#The_case_for_impeachment_of_President_George_W._Bush Kevin Baastalk: new 15:09, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
[edit]

John Kerry joins the club

impeachment

in light of new developments, i think an "impeachable offenses" section is warranted. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:11, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

impeachment

[edit]

on second thought, lets keep that word off here, esp. not in the context of afterdowningstreet or black box alliance, and i don't think conyer's would like to be characterized that way. "resolution of inquiry", "inquiry", or "investigation", or "answer questions", or something of the source would be more acccurate.

If one is to use the concept, i think "impeachable offenses" or "possible impeachable offenses" would be a more tactfull nuance. and in any case, these should not be used in the context of afterdowningstreet, bba, or conyers, as that is not one of their stated goals and amounts to misrepresentation. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:28, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Joint Blair/Bush press conference on June 7, 2005

[edit]

I don't have time to take care of this myself at the moment, but the article probably should be updated to include the responses made by Blair and Bush at their joint press conference at the White House yesterday. See the transcript (and a link to video) at whitehouse.gov: President Welcomes British Prime Minister Blair to the White House, which includes the following:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Steve.
Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.
But all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.
My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult. The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have -- and it's the last option I know my friend had, as well.
And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully, take a -- put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks, and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

My own take on this is that they're not disputing the authenticity of the memo per se, but neither are they confirming its authenticity.

Well, Blair's "... that memo was written ..." is pretty confirmatory, isn't it?

In classic spin-control mode, they're making the strongest case they can while avoiding giving anything away to the other side. For me personally, this raises the status of the memo's authenticity to the level of having been pretty well established, since if they could dismiss it as not being authentic, that would clearly be a stronger rebuttal of its contents than what they're giving us (and indeed, this has been the biggest argument in favor of its authenticity since it was first revealed). Since they're not challenging the memo's authenticity, they don't feel they have that option available, ergo, the memo is authentic. But I wouldn't put my own personal conviction of that in the article as an established fact.

By this interpretation, though, what they're actually contending in their statements yesterday, without actually being explicit, is that the memo is just wrong: Either the statements made at the meeting and summarized in the memo were summarized inaccurately, or the statements themselves, while they actually were made at the meeting, were factually incorrect in contending that the US has already committed itself to a policy of going to war. As evidence for this, Bush and Blair both cite their subsequent pursuit of a diplomatic solution at the UN as making a prima facie case that they had not, in fact, committed to war at that point.

Which is a pretty artful bit of spin, and serves nicely to shift the emphasis away from the memo itself. They did, in point of fact, go to the UN and work hard to obtain resolutions critical of Iraq's WMD programs and support of terrorism. The question then becomes whether they did so in good faith, actually seeking to avoid the necessity of war, or did so in bad faith, merely attempting to obtain diplomatic and legal cover for a decision that had already been made. (Note, too, that it's possible that Blair was legitimately seeking to avoid war, and only Bush who was acting in bad faith. Or, I suppose, vice versa.) As those familiar with legal issues know, proving that someone did something in bad faith is a very difficult task. And again, since they've carefully avoided offering any explanation for the memo itself, they (and their supporters) remain free to adopt whatever explanation seems strongest at any given point: either that the memo is not authentic, that its account of what was said at the meeting is inaccurate, or that it is accurate, but that the statements it reports were themselves factually incorrect.

Of course, the memo itself is Exhibit A in the case that the UN efforts were made in bad faith, in that it describes in detail British (though not American) plans to use the UN in order to help with the justification for going to war. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for some muckraking journalist to point that out, or to ask Bush or Blair to account for the apparent contradiction between the memo's version of reality and the one they offered at yesterday's press conference. Personally, though (and again, I recognize that this is POV, and not suitable for inclusion in the article, except in terms of being one of the positions being taken in the controversy), I think the memo really is a smoking gun. The available evidence strongly supports the interpretation that it is, in fact, an unvarnished, your-eyes-only account of what the head of MI6 believed in July, 2002, about the Bush administration's firm-as-of-that-date commitment to go to war. And in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't see any reason to think he was incorrect in believing that. I mean, it's not like he was retarded or something. -- John Callender 19:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
  • http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3215932
    David Swanson, a Washington Democratic activist working to persuade Congress to pursue an inquiry into the memo, said the document's timing and the U.N. resolution calling for Saddam to disarm do not disprove the memo's contents.
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201359.html?nav=rss_nation/special
  • http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_3_36/ai_n6015196
    "Behavioral scientists have identified many powerful factors that drive us to war -- factors so numerous and so compelling that it's hard to imagine how we'll ever overcome them. Evolution seems to have equipped us -- men, especially -- with strong tendencies to organize and kill. As General John J. Pershing stated, "Men go to war because they enjoy it." Like many mammals, we also possess the natural tendency to protect our territory. Society is capable of suppressing genetically based tendencies, but when it comes to war, most cultures actually fuel the flames. We deliberately instill nationalistic pride in our children, and we teach them to assume roles and follow orders -- all characteristics of the good soldier. In addition, we "deindividuate" people by giving them uniforms; we diffuse responsibility by having them use weapons in teams; we dehumanize enemies by labeling them heathens, animals and so on. Throw in financial incentives, some propaganda and a charismatic leader or two, and we become more antlike than ever."
  • A Partner in Shaping an Assertive Foreign Policy
    Elisabeth Bumiller. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 7, 2004. *:pg. A.1
    Ms. Rice was in similar lock step with Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, on going to war with Iraq, senior advisers to the president said, and served as an implementer of the president's wishes. Richard Haass, the former director of policy planning at the State Department who is now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, recalls going to see Ms. Rice in July 2002, well before the president began making a public case for ousting Mr. Hussein, to discuss with Ms. Rice the pros and cons of making Iraq a priority.
    Basically she cut me off and said, 'Save your breath -- the president has already decided what he's going to do on this,' Mr. Haass said.
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/08prexy.html?pagewanted=print
  • http://www.radionewsamerica.com/index.php?blog=2&title=downing_street_memo_gets_fresh_attention&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Uh, negative on the Minn. Tribune.

[edit]

The CS Monitor was probably the first major US publication to report about the memo, and ironically the article talks about the lack of coverage. The link is here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

Pre-emptive POV scrubbing

[edit]

I think there's a lot of good information in the article currently, and most of it should definitely stay, but at the same time I think the gradual evolution of the article has brought it to a point where it's in need of some reorganizing and summarizing. And that might be a good opportunity to do some pre-emptive toning-down of some of the anti-Bush POV that has crept in, and balancing it with some material presenting the other side's position. It's not that the actual language there now is bad, for the most part. But the overall tone and balance of the article, if only by virtue of the selection of information that's currently included, is pretty strongly anti-Bush/Blair. I think that's understandable, given the nature of the story: This is one of those controversies that's going to tend to energize and enthuse the anti-Bush people, while at the same time it's going to tend to be dismissed and ignored by the pro-Bush people (at least initially).

But what's there now is getting kind of fuzzy around the edges; it feels like a laundry list of factoids and links from the anti-Bush side, and I think that tends to weaken the article as a neutral account of the memo and its significance.

I also think it's true that as time goes on, and the people who support Bush settle on one or more forceful responses to the memo, they're going to start showing up and wanting to edit the page to include their position. Rather than spiral into an edit war, I think it would be best if we got to work on the page now and fixed the more obvious examples of POV it contains, and tried to structure it to include a place for a balanced, sympathetic presentation of the other side's position.

For example, if you happened to see Colin Powell's appearance on the Daily Show the other night, I thought he gave a strong defense of the Bush/Blair position vis-a-vis the Downing Street memo. It wasn't really explicitly focused on that; it was more wide-ranging, but the memo did get mentioned, and for all that the Daily Show is comedy, this was very much one of those times when Jon Stewart takes his outsider-critic role seriously, and Powell came off as the principled guy that I still want to believe he is, and the result was some really good discussion that felt truer to me than the shouting-head back-and-forth of that passes for public debate in too many places these days.

Here's a link to the video of the Powell appearance: Daily Show celebrity interview: Colin Powell I'm thinking of transcribing it, so the text will be available to those who can't watch the video.

And now I've done that, so if you want the transcript you can get it from my weblog: Colin Powell on the Daily Show. -- John Callender 08:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I think some cleanup and reorganizing, along with some sympathetic treatment of the pro-Bush/Blair position, would help strengthen the page from a NPOV point of view. -- John Callender 05:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have given it a first go. Specifically there needs to be a reference for the quote from an anonymous administration source. David | Talk 08:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Superb job. Thank you very much for that. The "former senior US official" was from what I believe to have been the first US media coverage of the memo, in a story by Knight-Ridder's Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott. See "Downing Street" memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy (May 5, 2005):

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

I'll edit the mention in the main article to include sourcing. -- John Callender 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How to cover additional memos?

[edit]

The Sunday Times of London apparently has more secret memos containing internal Blair government discussions of US/British planning for the Iraq war. See the Times of London site: Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action and the LA Times (registration required): New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq. From the latter:

Michael Smith, the defense writer for the Times of London who revealed the Downing Street minutes in a story May 1, provided a full text of the six new documents to the Los Angeles Times.
Portions of the new documents, all labeled "secret" or "confidential," have appeared previously in two British newspapers, the Times of London and the Telegraph. Blair's government has not challenged their authenticity.

I'm wondering how these should be covered on wikipedia. I guess I'll add a new section to the current page headed "Additional memos" for now, though it seems to me that as more information on them emerges we may want to create a separate page under some title like "British memoranda on the Iraq war" for them. Thoughts? -- John Callender 14:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Think Progress apparently has the full text of the six additional documents available as PDFs. I haven't read them yet, but intend to do so, and incorporate a very brief summary of each, with a link to the source, in the "Additional documents" section of the article. I'm still trying to figure out what the sequence of events was in terms of when, where, and in what form the documents have been made public. The Think Progress folks also have another, older article that recounts how the British press wrote about some (all?) of these documents back in September of 2004. Anyway, I'm trying to get this all straight so I can add it to the article. If someone else has a clearer picture of it and is willing to do so first, that would be nice. -- John Callender 20:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restructure into facts/controversy?

[edit]

I wonder if a good way to clean up the article would be to try to extract all the factual, non-controversial material about the memo into one section, then follow it with a section that reports the positions being taken by each side regarding the memo's significance/implications. That would take some fairly heavy editing, but I think it might help the article do a better job of being an encyclopedia article, rather than a forum for reporting a long list of competing statements about the memo from the pro/anti perspectives.

In truth, I haven't really seen much of a substantive argument concerning the memo from the pro-Bush side. But such as it is, I'd like to see it gathered together and articulated sympathetically, so readers of the article understand that both sides of the question are being presented in a fair manner. If one or more of those who think the memo is being overblown by the Bush haters is willing to help develop such a section, that would be really great. In the absence of that I'll do my best to come up with something myself, but since I fall pretty squarely into the "yeah, it's a smoking gun" camp, I could obviously use some help from the other side to make sure the question gets addressed fairly. --John Callender 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's see; "What memo? It's probably a forgery. It's only the author's opinion, anyway. Besides, it's old news." HOw's that? Gzuckier 20:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Other than the rather rude comment above this, the position of those of us who think this memo is rather worthless, pro- or anti-Bush, is that the memo provides nothing new. We knew Bush wanted to invade during the debates, let alone before the run-up. Furthermore, preparing for what was believed to be an inevitability is not inappropriate, wrong, or illegal. Finally, the one part that everyone seems to consider a "smoking gun" is the "facts were fixed" section, which we either believe to be a) nothing of worth, as it's not a demonstration of manipulation, b) typical policy buildup (i.e., you pick a policy and then find the information that fits the policy you want to pursue, or c) a misinterpretation of the word fixed due to British and American terminology (i.e., like an article in USA Today noted, "fixed" would mean "bolted on." I hope this helps. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. 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."
would change that position, eh? Gzuckier 18:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. --Badlydrawnjeff 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well that's not how I understand the term! Any other speakers of British English here? Secretlondon 17:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full Text of the Memo

[edit]

THe full text of the memo is avaliable here and here. (Anon)

It is also at Wikisource [1], as linked from the article. Rd232 20:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

should we list them?

[edit]

"more congressmen have signed on, bringing the total to 94. [3] (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001436.htm) As of June 16, 2005, over 100 congressmen had signed the letter, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi."

should we list these people?

if we do Bush backers may attack them.

122 congresspeople, over 560,000 citizens signed the letter. Kevin Baastalk: new 05:22, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Fake.

confirmin their authenticity

[edit]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html Kevin Baastalk: new 16:57, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Related page

[edit]

There is overlap between this article and Iraq document leak 18 June 2005. We need to sort these out! This article feels like a mess and a political football - I can't think how to sort it but we need to do something. Secretlondon 17:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no overlap. That article discusses an independant set of documents released much later than the downing street memo. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:53, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the other documents included some that had originally been reported on before the Downing Street memo, though maybe they hadn't been released publicly in full at that point?
The above comment is correct. The AP documents are the same ones leaked September 2004. It seems to be a case of "not reported here" (by analogy with the programmers' "not invented here" :) - no-one has reported them in the States, so they must be "new". They are not, it's just that the US press were too asleep to notice these documents in the runup to the 2004 election. Not only were they in the UK press around Sept 18-21 2004, they have been sitting around on cryptome, and then on one of its mirrors, continuously since then.
In face the whole business of an "18 June 2005" leak is bogus. That page should be taken down and any usable contents absorbed into the UK Cabinet Papers page. It appears to be a case of severe over-reliance on AP.
Regardless, I think Secretlondon's suggestion that the two articles need to be sorted out makes sense. I understand that there are differences between the DSM and the other batch of documents, but they also have a lot in common. From the standpoint of an encyclopedia article they seem to me to be strongly related to each other. I'd think that over time that will come to be even more the case; that is, in future years the whole batch of documents, including the DSM, will tend to be talked about together, as a group.
For one, they are almost certain to be from the same source. Certainly, they were all broken by the same reported.
(Correcting myself) : Smith has now said that the DSM and its briefing paper were from a different source: "somebody else gave me further ... documents"! ([2])
I suggest we come up with a name for a new article that can serve to incorporate all the relevant information in both Downing Street memo and Iraq document leak 18 June 2005, create that article by merging material from both of the existing pages, then redirect from both of those pages to the new article. I realize that that's a big step, and don't want to be so bold as to just jump in and do it myself, but I think it's worth discussing.
The merged page would probably give substantial coverage to the DSM (though I don't think it should include everything from the current page, which could use some trimming), and lesser coverage to the other documents. One approach we could take, which I've suggested previously, is that we could have a section of the page that describes the documents' contents in neutral terms, followed by a discussion of the controversy surrounding them, with a presentation of the arguments being made as to the documents' significance and implications (or lack thereof) by the various parties to the current debate.
Some ideas for the new page's name:
Anyway, I'm curious what people think about this idea. -- John Callender 15:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Leaked British documents on the Iraq war - maybe "Leaked British documents on the build up to the Iraq war". I notice that a lot of the article is taken up with the effect the documents had in US politics. We have less on the documents themselves. If the arguments are that people are trying to hide the information then maybe these articles aren't solveable currently. Whatever we do will end up being used in a war by proxy. Trying to mediate in US politics is probably no good for anyone's mental health.

We need background - what are they? where do they come from? what do they contain? Some sort of timeline I think. Effect in the UK (not confirmed or denied publically etc) - one leak just before general election. Then all the stuff on the US controversy as stated by John above. Secretlondon 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well first let me clarify - many of these documents have been confirmed by the British government. Kevin Baastalk: new 17:06, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Need answer ASAP!

[edit]

Is this Michael Smith guy connected in any way to CBS and "Rathergate"?

Sure. Both Smith and Rather are journalists (broadly defined). They both are men living in the early part of the 21st century, speak English, and published documents purporting to show behavior that, if true, would be damaging to the reputation of George Bush. Beyond that, I'm not aware of any similarity in the two cases, or of any "connection" that might be drawn. It wouldn't surprise me to see people in the right-wing media trying to link them in the public mind, but I can't see any factual basis for such a link. -- John Callender 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there's reason to speculate that he's the same Michael Smith hired by Mary Mapes to help with the Rather 60 Minutes piece. The name is fairly standard, but both are apparently freelance reporters, and there's something to be said about the coincedence of two reporters named Michael Smith being involved in memo controversies. Either way, nothing is proven yet, so anything added to the entry should reflect the speculative nature, but to say that there's no similarity or factual basis is false. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, hey, that's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. I (obviously) wasn't aware of there being a "Michael Smith" involved in the Rather story. -- John Callender 20:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to follow, John, a blogger appears to have called CBS to verify if they're the same person and he was told they weren't. That's more verification than I had yesterday, and it'd be lax of me not to share, but take it as you may. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Michael Smith who broke the various DSM stories was in Britain and publishing in the Daily Telegraph at the time of Rathergate. He is a well established British defense journalist with a (British) intelligence background. The Smith of Rathergate fame was "in Texas", and, presumably, American!

Michael Smith op-ed piece in LA Times

[edit]

Michael Smith, the journalist who obtained the DSM, has an interesting op-ed piece in today's LA Times: The Real News in the Downing Street Memos. He gives an interesting perspective on his own journey from being a supporter of Blair's decision to go to war to believing the memos provide documentation of illegal activity. -- John Callender 23:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can this be anywhere on Wikipedia?

[edit]

http://democracyforamerica.com/memo_movie.php

looks like they believe the date is real

[edit]

Vice President Dick Cheney was asked on CNN about the 'Downing Street memo' Asked if he disputes the memo's claim, Cheney said, "Of course. The memo was written sometime prior to when we actually got involved in Iraq.

"And remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean and comply with the UN Security Council resolution. We did everything we could to resolve this without having to use military force. We gave him one last chance even, and asked him to step down before we launched military operations.

"The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out."

It's not surprising that "they" believe the "date" is real - the memo is entirely authentic - suggest you read the first paragraph of the article! :) Isn't it time to move on from the question of authenticity? There's not one credible source that I know of that's questioned whether the leaks are genuine - in nearly two months, now. Whereas those that have commented without questioning it include Bush, Blair, and now Cheney, and stories in which it has been unofficially confirmed have been run by the Washington Post, NBC, LA Times, etc., etc.. If there was even a hint of a question of the authenticity of the memo, the British Government would have quickly issued caveats, but they have not. At this point, the only outlets who are questioning the memo are just and only those who you would expect to want to "smear" it: Limbaugh, and other pro-Bush mouthpieces whose collective credibility is already close to zero on any potentially partisan issue.

Mike Smith claims this is proof that the memo existed

[edit]

this is where he makes the claim http://downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

and this is the link to the "proof"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downing_Street_memo&oldid=1271542626"