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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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