More Memos

What is it with the media and memos? First we have some "Bush National Guard" memos, which were explained to have been delivered at a cattle auction by way of a random guy originally from "Lucy Ramirez." These documents were photocopied and the originals evidently destroyed. They were amazingly bogus.

Next we had the Downing Street memos. These were documents that seemed to explain how Tony Blair and George Bush worked together to fabricate pre-war intelligence as an excuse to go to war in Iraq. To protect the source of these documents (and to disallow anyone from proving their authenticity) the reporter in this case re-typed the memos and destroyed the originals. These "memos" are also bogus.

Finally, the Guardian is reporting that they have seen new memos which are transcripts of a meeting between Blair and Bush in 2003 in which they planned for the Iraqi war. This particular case of memo-mania however lists no source and no currently existing documents - someone just "saw" them.

If you are wondering if they are fake:

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

So, uh, Bush was going to paint a U2 to look like a UN plane? Besides the obvious facts that Saddam had fired on all types of planes in the past, that the UN doesn't have any U2's (or any fighter planes at all), and that it would be impossible to prove that a particular UN plane was fired on along with the fact that any description of this "UN plane" would easily be found to be bogus, I must assume that the Guardian assumes that Bush is a complete brainless idiot, and that all of it's readers are, too.

Wow.

UPDATE: The poor fools at the Huffington Post are eating it up:

I'm presuming the memo is legit.

...

His sources were obviously British officials upset with the war. So my informed hunch is that this document is real.

Why? First of all - there is no document. We are going on the word of one anti-American British journalist and other "'assumed' anonymous British officials" that are upset about the war. Anonymous sources and angry-about-the-war officials aren't sources anymore. There has not been a single time such sources elicited anything other than lies and deceit.