Fake But Accurate: The left’s modus operandi

That about made me choke! I just thought I couldn’t believe it but I do:roll:

The guy who originally received them has said the ones eveyrone is basing all their stories on aren’t originals. Therefore, no spin required. They aren’t originals.

Now, as for the claim that the authenticity wasn’t denied…

Is that the standard we’re using now? Something is true if it isn’t denied? I don’t know a single court of law where that stands up as a defense against libel (for example). Do you?

If you’re readily acknowledging the memos were never claimed to be originals, what are you basing your belief on them in? Michael Smith, who you don’t know from Adam?

And as for this paragraph?

Certainly if the Downing Street memos were erroneous or fraudulent, I would expect officials of the Blair government to deny them and set the record straigth. Wouldn’t you? Well, they haven’t.

Not at all, and for more explanation, see my comment in the last paragraph of the top post on this site. You’re basically saying that the seriousness of the charge makes it more true. If Smith hadn’t admitting to “retyping” the memos, I might say I believe them absent of proof that they aren’t true.

However, considering the only authenticity of these memos exists in Smith’s mind, I’d have to say you’d be better off hanging your “Bush lied people died” on other proof.

But we’re meant to draw conclusions on the motives of Bush and Blair based on these admitted fabrications.

What? Nice spin attempt. No one has ever said the content was fabricated. In fact, Blair himself has not disputed the content, only the interpretation of the content. From his joint news conference with Bush on June 7, 2005:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Steve.

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. …

Kinda looks like there really, really was a memo, huh?

Your entire post is attempting to discredit the content of the memos because the originals are not available. An ad hominem attack, so to speak, on an inanimate object.

Who cares if they’re not available when one of the principals – Blair – acknowledges they exist?

Very different situation. Blair has acknowledged the content, but disagrees with the interpretation. He has never disputed the content. Never. Neither has Bush.

Considering the way the administration flopped around like fish on hot concrete concerning the Newsweek “scandal”, don’t you think they’d be at least equally as apoplectic about something this important, if the reporting contained inaccuracies?

Yeah, me too…..

Thank, Other Mike. You said neatly what I was saying sloppily.

If anyone feels the most important issue is the steps a reporter took to protect his sources…fair ball. That’s an interesting issue.

To me, a far more interesting issue is the content of the memos. I can’t help thinking that some of the scornful comments on their provenance are essentially intended to help those uncomfortable with their substance to dismiss them.

Linoge, I already know (and am not in the least surprised) that the substance of the memos is unimportant to the supporters of Mssrs. Bush and Blair…that was my point too. It’s a little unnerving, but not unanticipated.

As for standards of proof…journalists aren’t called on in ANY country, as far as I know, to meet the standards of legal evidence (although that’s a handy way of dismissing the memos, for sure) But then again, neither are Presidents of the US pitching their case for WMD.

Balbulican- I am sorry you are too ignorant that you continue to hold onto but a piece of what the POTUS laid out for grounds for invading Iraq.

And, actually, I will be damned if I am going to let journalists get away with anything short of those standards. If they cannot substantively prove what they are writing, then they damned well should not write it. Yellow journalism has absolutely no place in the modern world (nor any place in any world, for that matter), and tends to cause more than a few issues (case in point: the numerous deaths from the Newsweek idiocy).

Either way, Mr. Smith is full of dren, and anyone basing any decisions or assumptions off what he has “exposed” is equally so. Until the original memos surface, this is all just smoke and mirrors, and equally substantial.

Vinny:

“Or UN Weapons Inspectors like Hans Blix, for that matter”

Quite right. Although as it turns out, Hans came a bit closer that George in the Great WMD Pool.

Pam: Thanks for the very insightful and analytical contribution to the discussion.

Linoge:

Calm down and be civil. I’m not Sirrios. we can actually talk like grownups here.

“I never said journalists were held to those standards, now, did I?”

Well, you did say that “Any scientist (or lawyer/judge) would be more than willing to tell you that correct data, gathered in an incorrect manner, is invalidated. ” In a normal conversation, that would suggest that you are trying to establish some sort of parallel between scientists/lawyers/judges and journalists (since it’s journalists that we’re discussing). Perhaps I misread your intent. Care to rephrase or restate?

“And, actually, I will be damned if I am going to let journalists get away with anything short of those standards.”

Whoops. So…you WERE, in fact, trying to establish some sort of parallel between scientists/lawyers/judges and journalists …oh, dear. This is so confusing.

Anyway, as Mike notes: the memos existed, and their content is undisputed by either government.

I think a more productive line of defense than denial would be simple acknowledgement. “We made a policy decision, and we had to sell it to two unconvinced electorates. So we made certain strategic communications decisions in what we perceived to be the best interest of our countries.”

Much better strategy than sticking heads in sand and pretending memos don’t exist.

I’ve never liked getting information second hand. This seems like fourth hand information.

Let’s say I wrote a report in college named “X Plus Y” that was rather controversial. The professor handed it around to some of his fellow administrators as a kind of “get a load of what this kid wrote”. One of the other professors writes down a few summaries of things I wrote about and his impressions. A few days later I get back my report with a grade on it and myself none the wiser.

Five years later, I am running for city council and during a news conference a reporter asks me if I ever wrote a report called “X Plus Y”. I, of course, answer “Yes”. The reporter only has information based on what that one professor wrote down and starts asking me questions based on that information.

Herein lies the problem, how can the reporter ask me to authenticate information that is summarized by someone else and has another persons conclusions and views contained therein? I probably wouldn’t be able to give very complete answers or conclusive answers about something that had been written a number of years ago and now only appears in pieces.

The report isn’t fake, but it’s incomplete.

Linoge, what the hell is wrong with you? The memos existed, Blair and Bush have acknowledged that, and they have not disputed the content. If they have, please point it out.

If you care to actually read a little closer than your evident skimming, nowhere have I denied the existance of these memos, in some shape or form.

The reporter is just saying he destroyed the memos, but still has them.

Bulldren. The reporter has come out and said all he has is a hand-typed (on a typewriter? Gimme a break.) copy of a photocopy of the originals. Am I the only one seeing the problem with that? Wizbang said it best: “I could produce a typed paper saying Clinton took a bribe to give China “Most Favored Nation” status. Is someone going to throw Clinton in jail because Paul at Wizbang has a typed page? Silly.” The “memo” that Mr. Smith has proves nothing and, in the end, is nothing. Until the originals come out, there is absolutely not point in continuing this conversation.

“Balbulican, I bet you never once reconsidered something you put up on the Internet, you being God’s gift to online debate that you are… ”

Well, you lose that bet. I reconsider all the time. Frequently, for instance, I wonder how I could have phrased a discussion point more dispassionately, without recourse to insult.

As Vinny pointed out, we’[re talking about two different things. You’re talking about how a reporter handled specific source documents. If that’s what most interesting to you, no problem.

I’m talking about the the substance behind the memos, which is consistent with the actual, observable events that occurred. To me the notion that the American and British administration colluded to mislead their respective electorates is kind of important, but again, if that’s a matter of indifference, no problem.

I now see that using [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags with you is more than a good idea… it is a requirement.

The funny thing, at any rate, is that we are arguing the same exact thing. You are saying that the substance of the memos only goes to prove the continued evilness of the Bush and Blair administrations. I am saying that Mr. Smith has absolutely nothing in his possession except for some typed pages that may or may not be based on anything at all. The sad thing is that you cannot seem to understand the logical extension of my argument – the only exposure you, or anyone else, has had to the substance of these “memos” is what Mr. Smith has presented, and there is absolutely no proof backing up his representations of the memos as being true, or valid, or anywhere near the ballpark. So here you, and others, are, making these wide-reaching, grand assumptions, off of nothing more than a cleverly assembled smoke-and-mirrors exercise.

Next time, try to take the debate a few steps beyond what is actually being said. It might make more sense in the future.

Dave is right – until such time as the originals surface, if ever, intelligent people can only see this is a rather well-constructed character assassination, designed to cater to the weak-willed and easily-lead. Namely, people who are making assumptions about the quality of the American and British administrations and any supposed dirty little agreements they may or may not have made.

If you want to keep making malicious assumptions based on third/fourth-hand data, go right ahead. I certainly am not going to stop you. I may point and laugh, but far be it for me to stop you. Me, I am going to wait until the actual memos surface, and withhold judgement until then.

Hold on, “his claims”? Do we really need to, again, go through the list of people on both sides of the isle that believed the exact same thing?

Nice spin, V…and of course, you’re echoing the line that’s ripping through the conservative blogs faster than a speeding bullet.

Your readers should note, however, that the British Government has not denied the authenticity of the memos. So your rationale for calling them “fake” (“counterfeit”, “forged”) is…?

“They aren’t originals.”

Quite right. Nor has the reporter, nor anyone else, claimed they were, as far as I know.

‘Is that the standard we’re using now? Something is true if it isn’t denied? I don’t know a single court of law where that stands up as a defense against libel (for example). Do you?”

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was talking about a “legal standard” of proof, although I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion.

Certainly if the Downing Street memos were erroneous or fraudulent, I would expect officials of the Blair government to deny them and set the record straigth. Wouldn’t you? Well, they haven’t.

So these supposedly earth-shattering memos are nothing more than the copy of a copy of a supposedly real original, and only have the backing/witnessing of a single guy who supposedly did all of this (and maybe his secretary)? And this is what the left is basing their entire spaz-fest on? Not to be crude, but give me a fucking break.

I have not seen this bad evidenciary support in… well… months, considering this is nothing more than an extension of the, “Well, it is not true, but it sure is believable!” trend started by Newsweek.

As for the British government not bothering to take the time to respond to this ludicrous “memo”, any response they might give to the memos would substantiate them, no matter if it was a denial or an affirmation. If they denied it, the Left would merely say that the government was trying to cover up their misdeeds, and thememos would gain even more credibility than they amazingly enough already have.

Sorry, I did not really care about these memos when they first came out. But now… now it is obvious that they are complete dren.

Are you blind? My point is that no one examining the memos has a copy of the memo, just Smith’s “copy” of it.

No spinning. His actions are questionable. His “copy” isn’t an exact copy, and there is no way to validate the information on those memos. Nobody has addressed his copies, only the memos that Smith didn’t actually have.

I don’t doubt there are memos out there. You’d have to be an ass to doubt that.

I do doubt the veracity of what he’s carrying along with him as the actual memos, and based on the fact that the reporter has, in effect, up until now done everything to make people think they’re the real deal, I think it calls a lot into question.

Now, as for the “content” of the “memos,” who the hell is denying that administrations wanted Saddam out of power? Only the dumbest human being thinks that Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 wouldn’t salivate at the thought of removing him from office. This is hardly news.

And of course they strategized on how to “sell” it to people. Just like anti-war folks strategized on how to “sell” the dangers of the war. Just like Democrats along with CBS “strategized” to taint Bush’s National Guard service with fake memos.

If the strongest claim the left has is that Bush wanted Saddam out in the mid nineties, they might wanna look at their icon, Bill Clinton, who decided it was such an important goal that he signed an act that mandated the US do whatever possible to remove Saddam for the benefit of the rest of the world.

Damn neocon that he is.

Quite simply because the people commenting on them have never seen them!!!!!!!

Come on Mike. I say I have a copy of your will and I know what it says, so I write about it.

You come back to me and say you have a will.

That’s not the same thing as you saying I have your will and it’s correct.

these memos haven’t inflamed the hot-pants, overly sensitive “Arab street” into murdering 16 people. now if the DS memos had allegations of the Koran getting a glance from an infidel, then maybe the White House would be as apoplectic.

(still not sure why we care so much about what the fabled “arab street” thinks or does, but I digress…..)

Any scientist (or lawyer/judge) would be more than willing to tell you that correct data, gathered in an incorrect manner, is invalidated. At this point, it does not really matter what is in those memos. Michael Smith successfully shot himself in the foot by not retaining whatever proof he migth have had (besides his word… *twirls a finger*), and also destroyed any future chance of the memos being taken seriously.

One has to play ball by the rules, otherwise you get ejected. Smith is warming up the launch pad.

Or UN Weapons Inspectors like Hans Blix, for that matter.

I never said journalists were held to those standards, now, did I? But here you are, basing an entire massive (and somewhat idiotic) belief structure off something that has no basis in reality whatsoever. Additionally, you are blaming Bush for something that may or may not have happened.

That is what requires proof, and that is where you (and those who agree with you) fail.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for trying to twist my words around again… with the frequency with which you do that, one would think you would be better at it. At any rate, what I actually said is that Smith shafted any chance of himself, or these memos, being taken seriously by anyone with half a clue. If people find the content of the memos to be unimportant (I am neither confirming nor denying that people do), it is solely due to the poor research habits of Mr. Smith, that is all. If people find these remarkably pathetic information gathering techniques to be a good enough reason to disbelieve everything they hear about the memos now and in the future… well… damn, I certainly cannot blame them.

This has nothing to do with supporters or non-supporters. This has to do with simple intelligence.

Linoge, what the hell is wrong with you? The memos existed, Blair and Bush have acknowledged that, and they have not disputed the content. If they have, please point it out.

Here’s my twisted little mind working: The reporter is just saying he destroyed the memos, but still has them. Bush and Blair figure this may be the case, so they aren’t going to come out and say BULL SHIT, and lo and behold, the reporter comes out and says, “Oh, I DID keep a copy of the originals, and here they are.”

They’ve already been caught in one whopper of a lie about the war, two just wouldn’t look good in the history books.

I think a more productive line of defense than denial would be simple acknowledgement.

Will this do?

Now, as for the “content” of the “memos,” who the hell is denying that administrations wanted Saddam out of power? Only the dumbest human being thinks that Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 wouldn’t salivate at the thought of removing him from office. This is hardly news.

And of course they strategized on how to “sell” it to people. Just like anti-war folks strategized on how to “sell” the dangers of the war. Just like Democrats along with CBS “strategized” to taint Bush’s National Guard service with fake memos.

I mean, hell, it’s basically what I was saying…

Vinny, I think if we weren’t speaking in a public forum, but chatting over beer, we’d both agree that the substance of the memos was true, that the originals were probably authentic, and that Bush and his team were not entirely honest with the electorate in describing their intention to invade Iraq. I’d say he lied (i.e., knowingly misrepresented his intentions): you’d find another word. But we would agree on substance.

There are folks out there who are still in denial about all that, though.

Gah. Misclicked and sumitted anywise. Time for another double-posting.

Balbulican, I bet you never once reconsidered something you put up on the Internet, you being God’s gift to online debate that you are…

Sorry, but a group of individuals not denying that these “memos” are correct does not inherently make them correct. They are copies of copies, and not even direct copies at that. There really is no argument here whatsoever.

Sure, the originals are out there somewhere. Mr. Smith, however, has jack.

If Smith is able to produce originals that show he is not spinning the facts, then I would have no problem believing him. However, the MSM has a bad track record when it comes to stories that bash President Bush and have single, anonymous sources.

“You are saying that the substance of the memos only goes to prove the continued evilness of the Bush and Blair administrations.”

Naw. I don’t bandy about big words like “evil” quite as readily as Mr. Bush and associates. I am simply noting that, like every administration I have ever lived through of any political stripe, they lie/selectively enhance and suppress/manipulate (choose your verbs) information to maximize support for their position among the electorate.

As for “pointing and laughing” until Bush and Blair personally deliver hand-signed, radiocarbon dated and authenticated certified original memos to you for your personal analysis and inspection…by all means, be my guest.

I wasn’t following your blog back during the run up to the war, but I assume you were just as cautious when the President’s asserted that Iraq was stuffed to the brim with weapons of mass destruction aimed at the United States, and that you demanded the same standard of evidence before accepting his claims. Good for you.