Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

You give the benefit of the doubt to and praise the Downing Street Memos as damning evidence of Bush lying about the war, which is more than enough to toss your credibility out the window. Here's my favorite part of the article: You know, I’d have a lot more “outrage” about the Downing Street Memo if it were somehow more credible. The reporter who broke the story in the British papers claims to have made a copy on an old typewriter of the transcripts from a clerk who allegedly attended the meeting, and then burned his original copy.

It all sounds so “Rathergatesque” to me that I can’t put any faith into the document. Imagine digging up an old typewriter to transcribe notes in this day and age, and then pre-aging them by photocopying them several times before presenting “the smoking gun” to the public. How convenient(and dramatic) versus credible does the claim of “burning the originals to protect the source” sound? I’d have to go with “convenient”.

I say until the source is identified, and some actual transcripts ( not fifteenth generation transcribed and photocopied notes)are presented, I’ll leave the barking about the DMS’s to the moonbats.