Authenticity

The precursor to the downfall of GWB, at least if you ask DU types, is the so-called "Downing Street memos". The authenticity of these documents is now coming into question. Powerline and the good Cap'n have more.

Here's something interesting as Ed points out:

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 AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying 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.

Emphasis mine. Appeared authentic? More like fake but accurate, again. The reporter allegedly destroyed the originals after retyping what they contained. This would not hold up in court even if a flunking out first year law student argued the case. If you were this reporter, wouldn't you take at least a few pictures of the purported memos?

Update: I tend to disagree with the Powerline synopsis that the original documents are real and here's why:

British politicians tend to understate things and would not, at least in my opinion, go up against a respected paper that can make things very dicey politically.

Second, there probably was thoughts along this line prior to us invading Iraq along with the Brits. The fact that there was discussions to this effect are undisputed. But if--and it's a big if--these memos did not really exist, except in the spoken words of the principles, then they are not authentic documents.

Whatever. The left is whacked upside the head by facts again.