Lots of Downing Street Links

BBA

Once again, as a member of the Big Brass Alliance, it is my sworn duty to post important stuff here. Unfortunately, I'm really feeling slow on the uptake today, so I'm glad that other people have written comprehensive stuff. The following is lifted completely from one of our fearless leaders, Shakespeare's Sister.

I'll start with a link to her post on Conyers trying to take his petition to the White House.

Next, on to an email missive sent out to the BBA today:

Hi everyone. There's been some (probably justified) concern that the Right's last ditch tactic to disavow the Downing Street Documents by calling them fakes will gain some traction in the
media. So we need to be prepared to combat such assertions. Following is a list that should help you get started:

MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

[W]ar critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

Editor & Publisher:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000955273

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times, Pincus notes. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources.

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201359.html

WashingtonPost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley, who questions (rather ridiculously) whether Dearlove's assessment of his meeting was "accurate," still notes:

There is no dispute about the authenticity of the Downing Street memo.

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity...

NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html

officials at the British Foreign Office in London, while insisting on anonymity, said inresponse to queries from The New York Times that they would not dispute the authenticity of the document.

Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1647332,00.html

The Times notes that when directly asked about it at their joint press conference, neither Bush nor Blair disputed the original leaked memo's authenticity, and additionally points out the USA Today, who hadn't previously covered the memo because they couldn't obtain independent verification, reported on it once Bush and Blair were given the opportunity to repudiate it and did not.

And Kevin Drum's got some more here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006537.php

Please read, and understand - people aren't just making this up.