Talk:Downing Street memo

Criticism section

I think we need to edit the "Criticism" section and delete the counter-arguments to criticisms made about the DSM. It sets up an assumptive premise that these criticisms aren't valid. The rest of the article isn't full of dissenting statements and remarks; they're mostly relegated to one section that seems to be arguing with itself. If we're going include counter-arguments, we need to fully do so, and spread out amongst the entire article. If not, we need to let the "Criticism" section stand as its own entity. People can do their own research to find criticisms of the criticisms, or we can include footnotes or something. But as a matter of fairness and non-bias, this article shouldn't step on the criticism almost to where the article just confirms that which is in doubt about the memos. Cueball (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote and received the memo?

I think it's important to add a list of those who wrote and recieved the memo, because it's not really clear to Americans that read it. They see "C" and "CDS", and assume that they're some kind of code-name, when that's not the case. So, I propose that there be a list of individuals who recieved copies of the memo, their positions, and so on.

Such as...

Individuals who put out the memo:

• Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
• Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo

Individuals who recieved the memo:

• Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
• Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
• Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
• Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
• Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
• Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
• Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
• Head of MI-6 ("C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
• Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
• Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
• Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell

Nathyn 04:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

We do need to maintain a neutral POV on this article. But this does NOT mean scrubing all the controversial content out. Reading the last version before I edited it, you couldn't tell what the significace of the memo was. Ace-o-aces 18:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added the claims made by anti-war campaigners of the memo. However the quote about "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is out of context: in the memo it is a comment on inter-agency disputes in the USA, whereas quoting it without this context would be assumed to be a statement of UK policy. It's also not clear what this sentence means, it being perfectly possible to interpret it innocently. David | Talk 18:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Umm... okay... "not clear what this means"? It's perfectly clear: the cart was being put before the horse. Instead of the policy being fixed around the intelligence, "The intelligence was being fixed around the policy." I don't know how anyone could possibly be more clear than that. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:19, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

It could mean that intelligence was being sought that might help to assist in developing this policy. The word 'fixed' is a very imprecise one. David | Talk 22:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"fixed around" is pretty precise. you have the policy. it's a rock. it's already there. it has to be sturdy in order to "fix" something "around" it. And it has to already be there. Now if it were used to develop a policy, the policy would not already be there, but would be fixed around the intelligence. Notice that this is the exact opposite. This is how things are supposed to work. There is no ambiguity here. If they wanted to say " intelligence was being sought that might help to assist in developing this policy.", they would have said "the policy was being fixed around the intelligence." the issue is which comes first, the policy or the intelligence. whether one starts with a policy and then looks for intelligence to "assist" it; to "fix around" it. .... whatever. this is completely ridiculous. the statement could not be any more blunt. i cannot concieve a more blatent and straightforward way to say it. this is totally ridiculous. 22:45, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Show me any legit source that denies this memo is the real deal. Blair didn't deny it, he just said it wan't significant.Ace-o-aces 18:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Should this article be expanded to include HOW the intelligence was created oyut of thin air to fit the policy, as well as the backgrounds of the DOD pre-war deception operations as well as the PURGE of anyone in CIA that was honest enough to refuse to participate. There are MANY stories on this now, in mainstream Wikipedia-compliant sources. Hell, even Curveball went live on BBC in 2011 to state unequivocally that he lied, and the Bush Administration KNEW he lied.

Also, how about in the "American Reaction" segment here, again citing myriad Wikipedia approved sources, involving the fact that the average American both knew that he lied, and even approved of war crimes against a country that did not attack us, nor had any plans to attack us? So many interviews and polls exist that the entire "American Reaction" needs to be addressed. Granted, some of us who were trying to get attention to this in the American press eleven years ago were rebuffed and told that no such stories would be carried, some of these editors and producers even questioned the loyalty of people stating facts.

DOD's own paychecks to Judith and hundreds of others are well-known and a mainstream story what? five? six years ago? 74.120.133.105 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

the compromise by dbiv on the authenticity issue is acceptable for now. Ace-o-aces 18:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved the authenticity issue to the intro section. I think this reorder is logical. -- Toytoy 13:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, two things:

• Who's calling it the "smoking gun memo," and how do we get off continuing that line of thought when it, well, isn't?
• Anyone else uncomfortable with using FAIR as a reference here, given their severe lack of anything regarding balance?

Just throwing them out there. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the term "smoking gun memo" has been used since it first started being talked about, though it's a term that has been used mostly by the anti-Bush side, or used to assert that it isn't, in fact, a smoking gun by the pro-Bush side. The number 1 google hit at the moment for the phrase "smoking gun memo" is the Times of London page with the memo's text, although "smoking gun" doesn't appear on that page. I'd assume from that that a large number of high-pagerank pages are linking to that page using that term as the link text.

The only place the term currently appears in the article is in the lead sentence, where it's offered as an alternate name, i.e.: sometimes described as the "smoking gun memo". I could see an argument being made that that's important information, so a person reading the article who happened to have heard of it referred to that way would know he/she had found the right article. The question of whether or not it constitutes a "smoking gun" is pretty much a central point in the controversy, so the article should probably avoid asserting that it is or isn't. Can you suggest a change that would improve the article? Remove it as an alternate name? Clarify in the introduction that Bush supporters dispute its "smoking gun"-ness?

The only reference to FAIR currently is citing them as critical of the lack of coverage of the memo in the US media. The fact that FAIR is not itself balanced or neutral doesn't strike me as an automatic disqualifier in and of itself, as long as we're careful to present the information with accurate sourcing, and avoid having the article itself take a stand on FAIR's assertions. The section goes on describe several mainstream media outlets also discussing the dearth of coverage. Maybe because of that the criticism by FAIR doesn't really need to be cited at this point? I'd be curious what others think about this. -- John Callender 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that the "smoking gun memo" is really only considered such a thing by folks who think this memo brings somehting new to the table, should we consider it NPOV, or, at the very least, mention that it's indeed the folks who see this as a Big Freakin' Deal that are calling it such a thing?

Just to note: questions as to whether it "brings something new" are intrinsically non-NPOV on both sides. It *is* NPOV that the DSM has *been widely called* a "smoking gun" (prefixed with "so-called", by detractors.)

I'll put the FAIR thing another way: FAIR, to me, is so out there that they're not really reliable. If we have other articles, even if FAIR is citing them after the fact, that say the same thing while being NPOV, established sources, we should be using those and not a source that's obviously got a bias in its reporting. We wouldn't necessarily allow an article by MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh to be put in the body of this as a legitimate source on the memo either, y'know? --Badlydrawnjeff 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If a story is well sourced and confirmable, it doesn't matter which news organisation put it out, be it moveon or Limbaugh. The proper unit for credibility assessment is the story, not the outlet.

Well, if MoveOn or Rush were making substantive comments about the topic in question, then yeah, I think it would be legitimate to mention them, though in each case I think they should be identified (via neutral language acceptable to reasonable folks on each side of the controversy) as to their pre-existing track-record of advocacy on one side of the issue or the other.

Anyway, I've taken a stab at addressing the two POV concerns you mentioned. See the changes I made, and feel free (obviously) to edit further if you see a way to improve things. And thanks for taking the time to give useful feedback on the article.

Actually, that works better than I thought it would. I don't disagree, so thanks for addressing them respectfully! --Badlydrawnjeff 14:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see what effect the DOD disinformation operation had right here on Wikipedia in suppressing the truth, wouldn't it, Jeff? Were you in uniform or on the same payroll as the reporters DOD was paying off? 74.120.133.105 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, I've added a few links to the "blogs" and "media coverage" area to balance out our linkage. Before the edit, we didn't have a single link in support of any opinion or situation regarding the memo from an "unimportant" standpoint, so I'm hoping the additions balance that out a bit. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there are any users concerned about a "nuetral" POV on the Downing Street Memo, I believe a mainstream and well respected author such as Christopher Hitchens should have his easy article linked well before extremists (right) Paul Craig Roberts, and (left) Nader, Way.

Also, this sentence does not make logical sense and reeks of bias. "It has been said that some of those present at the meeting believed that Iraq might possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) "capacity". However, the minutes explicitly state that the capability was less than that of Libya, Iran, and North Korea, and that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors."

This is some pretty basic logic here, if those present believed Iraq has "less" WoMD than Iran. That in no way contradicts the sentence that those present believed that Iraq possess WoMD. There is absolutely no logical explanation for "however" to be in that sentence. I hate to say it, but the only thing that "however" uncovers is the inherant bias of the authors.

Curveball's confession in 2011 on BBC's "Modern Spies" that the Bush Administration KNEW he was lying, but didn't care is the end of that line of reasoning. 74.120.133.105 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Denied what allegations?

"On May 5, Congressman John Conyers sent a letter to President Bush signed by 88 of his colleagues demanding an explanation of the revelations in the memo. On May 16, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan the allegations, claiming that the United States only went to war after giving Iraq every chance to comply with its "international obligations.""

What allegations? the letter does not make any allegations. It asks a number of very simple questions, giving the administration a very good chance to explain itself by giving them every benefit of the doubt. There are no allegations in the letter. what does scott think he is refering to?

Furthermore, scott claims such-and-such - what does that have anything to do with anything? at best, it is in the direction of answering one of the questions in the letter, regarding the accuracy of the content of the memo, asserting that "yes, indeed, that part of the memo is accurate."

However, it certainly reads like the exact opposite. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 12:44, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Just curious: Do you know "Scott"? Your words certainly portray a kind of personal acquaintance. -- Don'tFeelLikeLoggingInRightNow,WikipediaIsTooSlow 21:20, 2005 June 7 Eastern Daylight Time

"being fixed" vs. "being fixed around"

"..spokesman Scott McClellan said that the memo's statement that intelligence was "being fixed" to support a decision to invade Iraq was.."

This statement implies that the memo stated that intelligence was being "fixed" to support a decision to invade Iraq. This is false. The memo did not state or imply that intelligence was altered. The memo stated that intelligence was "being fixed around the policy", that is, that intelligence (that was not "fixed"; altered) was being selectively choosen so as to confirm the policy. (see confirmation bias) Therefore, McClellan's statement regarding the fact that intelligence was not "fixed", which noone has disputed, did not answer any questions, nor refer to any content in the memo. At best, his statement is completely irrelevant, at worst, and in effect, it's a misrepresentation of the question and the memo; A claim that the memo stated that intelligence was "fixed", a claim that, to put it mildly, is not substantiated by the actual memo. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 15:20, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

And you're what, shocked and disappointed? This is the administration that brought us Jeff Gannon. Rd232 15:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

(sorry, I'm not expert in how to format replies here..) It's not true that "no-one has disputed" that the intelligence was "not fixed". Michael Smith, the journalist who reported the memo interprets it as in "fixed the race" (OED: "fraudulently arranged"). In his online discussion at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html he said: "Michael Smith: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it." That is pretty clear and unequivocal. This view should be given at least equal weight to McClellan's, who, after all, has every reason to distort the interpretation.

I'm not sure I see what the fuss is. The choice seems to be either that evidence was totally made up, i.e.'fixed' in a fraudulent sense, or it was selectively chosen to support a particular (implicitly incorrect)conclusion, i.e. 'fixed' in a fraudulent sense. Are people saying that claiming a conclusion by only considering evidence which supports that conclusion is perfectly ok? Sandpiper 08:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

current events status on issues that are underreported by us media

from my experience, one really needs to keep an active watch on developments to be able to catch events the day of (to be able to post them on the current events page), when the issues are under-reported by the main media sources in america. Some possible sources to track:

• google news search, date-sorted [1]
• conyers' blog [2]

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:16, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

well, also foreign news sources in general. I got tumbled to the memo by the UK telegraph's daily news email, and it's a pretty rightish paper. Gzuckier 21:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's also underreported by Wikipedia, in my opinion. This article shall be placed on the news section of the Main Page. -- Toytoy 00:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

nominate it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:22, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

ya, this all hinges on the 10 families of dead soldiers in iraq sueing the british government for illegal war winning their case, imho. then the sh*t will hit the fan in america. otherwise, nothing's going to happen. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:02, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Authenticity of the memo

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4506943.stm) on May 2nd, the day after the 'leak', Downing Street released the official document, verifying the contents of the 'leaked' memo reported in the Times on May 1st.

No, this refers to a different leak. It was a leak of part of the Attorney-General's legal advice to the UK government from March 2003 which prompted the government to release the whole document - nothing to do with this memo. David | Talk 21:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why this is a 'smoking gun' for the Bush Administration

The reason the minutes are a 'smoking gun' is that it show's Bush's prior knowledge and state of mind when he broke the law in fulfilling his obligation to Congress.

As required, by law for H.R.Res. 114, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the administration was required to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action had started.

Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush informed Congress in writing that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security; obviously, given the recent information revealed in the Downing Street Minutes, President Bush knew that was not true at the time he submitted that letter. This is a clear violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, and would result in a premeditated illegal act by our President.

The above is wrong. First, the resolution is (H.J not H.R.) H.J.Res.114 and is available from the Goverment Printing Office (GPO)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Second. All the President has to detemine is that diplomatic or peaceful means alone would not be adequate. The actual text of H.J. REs 114 said that within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush shall inform congress that "(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq".

Third. In the beginning paragraph of the article it is stated, "which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time". However the official policy of the U.S. was already public knowledge as referenced again in H.J. RES 114. "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

President Clinton and Congress agreed to the removal of Saddam to be official U.S policy. At that time it was through proxy, after 911 it became direct. So, it appears the policy (removal of Saddam)the DSM references was already the official policy of the U.S. as far back a 1998.

As we all know now, but was entirely ignored by the ani-bush crowd, was the fact the memo confirmed the belief that Saddam had and might use WMD. The reference to Smoking Gun should be removed from the first paragraph. It is far from neutral and can prejudice the reader from the very beginning. Jdi 90025 (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

President Clinton and Congress agreed to the removal of Saddam to be official U.S policy. At that time it was through proxy, after 911 it became direct. So, it appears the policy

For your information, the Iraq Liberation Act specifically precluded invasion, in section 8, which reads: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces..." There was no provision for what Richard Dearlove concluded to be the case after his visit to Washington, that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action..." You can't wave a magic wand and say "after 9/11 it became direct." That's circular. ~ smb 11:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that, thank you. My point being, the official policy was not classified (as stated in the first paragraph) and that using the term smoking gun in the first paragraph is far too soon, because while it is true that some refer to it as that, it is not widely agreed upon enough to be considered a neutral comment, at least not enough to justify first paragraph placement. As for the policy: as stated in the ILA in 1998, the official U.S. public policy was regime change. The method to achieve that goal changed after 911 because bush made a decision to instead use direct force. However, the policy remained the same - being the core belief that Saddam should be removed, and that is the policy I expect the DSM is referring to. Your magic wand comment is correct in the context of an encyclopedia, I'm sorry i didn't make my comment more clear, I expected most people would be able to read between the lines to understand that Bush made the change, but my comments are only for the discussion area here, and would be rewritten if I intended them to be a part of the article. Jdi 90025 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.98.95 (talk)

Impeachable Offense or not?

A section devoted to the above argument and discussing whether this constitutes grounds for impeachment might be warranted, as the topic has been raised repeatedly in the left wing Air America talk radio as of late.

FWIW: User:Kevin_baas#The_case_for_impeachment_of_President_George_W._Bush Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 15:09, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

new links

John Kerry joins the club

• http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6283
• http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-05/06-02-05/a14op114.htm
• http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-05/06-02-05/a01lo167.htm

impeachment

• http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19142
• http://www.sfbg.com/39/35/x_mediabeat.html
• http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/8138/
• http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word/
• http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/15303

in light of new developments, i think an "impeachable offenses" section is warranted. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:11, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

impeachment

on second thought, lets keep that word off here, esp. not in the context of afterdowningstreet or black box alliance, and i don't think conyer's would like to be characterized that way. "resolution of inquiry", "inquiry", or "investigation", or "answer questions", or something of the source would be more acccurate.

If one is to use the concept, i think "impeachable offenses" or "possible impeachable offenses" would be a more tactfull nuance. and in any case, these should not be used in the context of afterdowningstreet, bba, or conyers, as that is not one of their stated goals and amounts to misrepresentation. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:28, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Joint Blair/Bush press conference on June 7, 2005

I don't have time to take care of this myself at the moment, but the article probably should be updated to include the responses made by Blair and Bush at their joint press conference at the White House yesterday. See the transcript (and a link to video) at whitehouse.gov: President Welcomes British Prime Minister Blair to the White House, which includes the following:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.

But all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult. The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have -- and it's the last option I know my friend had, as well.

And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully, take a -- put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks, and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

My own take on this is that they're not disputing the authenticity of the memo per se, but neither are they confirming its authenticity.

Well, Blair's "... that memo was written ..." is pretty confirmatory, isn't it?

In classic spin-control mode, they're making the strongest case they can while avoiding giving anything away to the other side. For me personally, this raises the status of the memo's authenticity to the level of having been pretty well established, since if they could dismiss it as not being authentic, that would clearly be a stronger rebuttal of its contents than what they're giving us (and indeed, this has been the biggest argument in favor of its authenticity since it was first revealed). Since they're not challenging the memo's authenticity, they don't feel they have that option available, ergo, the memo is authentic. But I wouldn't put my own personal conviction of that in the article as an established fact.

By this interpretation, though, what they're actually contending in their statements yesterday, without actually being explicit, is that the memo is just wrong: Either the statements made at the meeting and summarized in the memo were summarized inaccurately, or the statements themselves, while they actually were made at the meeting, were factually incorrect in contending that the US has already committed itself to a policy of going to war. As evidence for this, Bush and Blair both cite their subsequent pursuit of a diplomatic solution at the UN as making a prima facie case that they had not, in fact, committed to war at that point.

Which is a pretty artful bit of spin, and serves nicely to shift the emphasis away from the memo itself. They did, in point of fact, go to the UN and work hard to obtain resolutions critical of Iraq's WMD programs and support of terrorism. The question then becomes whether they did so in good faith, actually seeking to avoid the necessity of war, or did so in bad faith, merely attempting to obtain diplomatic and legal cover for a decision that had already been made. (Note, too, that it's possible that Blair was legitimately seeking to avoid war, and only Bush who was acting in bad faith. Or, I suppose, vice versa.) As those familiar with legal issues know, proving that someone did something in bad faith is a very difficult task. And again, since they've carefully avoided offering any explanation for the memo itself, they (and their supporters) remain free to adopt whatever explanation seems strongest at any given point: either that the memo is not authentic, that its account of what was said at the meeting is inaccurate, or that it is accurate, but that the statements it reports were themselves factually incorrect.

Of course, the memo itself is Exhibit A in the case that the UN efforts were made in bad faith, in that it describes in detail British (though not American) plans to use the UN in order to help with the justification for going to war. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for some muckraking journalist to point that out, or to ask Bush or Blair to account for the apparent contradiction between the memo's version of reality and the one they offered at yesterday's press conference. Personally, though (and again, I recognize that this is POV, and not suitable for inclusion in the article, except in terms of being one of the positions being taken in the controversy), I think the memo really is a smoking gun. The available evidence strongly supports the interpretation that it is, in fact, an unvarnished, your-eyes-only account of what the head of MI6 believed in July, 2002, about the Bush administration's firm-as-of-that-date commitment to go to war. And in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't see any reason to think he was incorrect in believing that. I mean, it's not like he was retarded or something. -- John Callender 19:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

news links regarding the conference

• http://dawnofnewamerica.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-and-blair-press-conference.html

• http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3215932

  David Swanson, a Washington Democratic activist working to persuade Congress to pursue an inquiry into the memo, said the document's timing and the U.N. resolution calling for Saddam to disarm do not disprove the memo's contents.

• "I am not sure what point they thought they were making," said Swanson, the co-founder of www.afterdowningstreet.org. "These minutes mesh perfectly with a building pile of evidence, including testimony from former administration officials, and if that's going to be a matter of sheer coincidence, we need an explanation of why."

• http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/08/excerpts_of_the_downing_street_memo/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News

  It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision.

• http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050608/pl_usatoday/downingstreetmemogetsfreshattention

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201359.html?nav=rss_nation/special
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_3_36/ai_n6015196

  "Behavioral scientists have identified many powerful factors that drive us to war -- factors so numerous and so compelling that it's hard to imagine how we'll ever overcome them. Evolution seems to have equipped us -- men, especially -- with strong tendencies to organize and kill. As General John J. Pershing stated, "Men go to war because they enjoy it." Like many mammals, we also possess the natural tendency to protect our territory. Society is capable of suppressing genetically based tendencies, but when it comes to war, most cultures actually fuel the flames. We deliberately instill nationalistic pride in our children, and we teach them to assume roles and follow orders -- all characteristics of the good soldier. In addition, we "deindividuate" people by giving them uniforms; we diffuse responsibility by having them use weapons in teams; we dehumanize enemies by labeling them heathens, animals and so on. Throw in financial incentives, some propaganda and a charismatic leader or two, and we become more antlike than ever."

• A Partner in Shaping an Assertive Foreign Policy

  Elisabeth Bumiller. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 7, 2004. *:pg. A.1

  Ms. Rice was in similar lock step with Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, on going to war with Iraq, senior advisers to the president said, and served as an implementer of the president's wishes. Richard Haass, the former director of policy planning at the State Department who is now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, recalls going to see Ms. Rice in July 2002, well before the president began making a public case for ousting Mr. Hussein, to discuss with Ms. Rice the pros and cons of making Iraq a priority.

  Basically she cut me off and said, 'Save your breath -- the president has already decided what he's going to do on this,' Mr. Haass said.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/08prexy.html?pagewanted=print
• http://www.radionewsamerica.com/index.php?blog=2&title=downing_street_memo_gets_fresh_attention&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Uh, negative on the Minn. Tribune.

The CS Monitor was probably the first major US publication to report about the memo, and ironically the article talks about the lack of coverage. The link is here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

Pre-emptive POV scrubbing

I think there's a lot of good information in the article currently, and most of it should definitely stay, but at the same time I think the gradual evolution of the article has brought it to a point where it's in need of some reorganizing and summarizing. And that might be a good opportunity to do some pre-emptive toning-down of some of the anti-Bush POV that has crept in, and balancing it with some material presenting the other side's position. It's not that the actual language there now is bad, for the most part. But the overall tone and balance of the article, if only by virtue of the selection of information that's currently included, is pretty strongly anti-Bush/Blair. I think that's understandable, given the nature of the story: This is one of those controversies that's going to tend to energize and enthuse the anti-Bush people, while at the same time it's going to tend to be dismissed and ignored by the pro-Bush people (at least initially).

But what's there now is getting kind of fuzzy around the edges; it feels like a laundry list of factoids and links from the anti-Bush side, and I think that tends to weaken the article as a neutral account of the memo and its significance.

I also think it's true that as time goes on, and the people who support Bush settle on one or more forceful responses to the memo, they're going to start showing up and wanting to edit the page to include their position. Rather than spiral into an edit war, I think it would be best if we got to work on the page now and fixed the more obvious examples of POV it contains, and tried to structure it to include a place for a balanced, sympathetic presentation of the other side's position.

For example, if you happened to see Colin Powell's appearance on the Daily Show the other night, I thought he gave a strong defense of the Bush/Blair position vis-a-vis the Downing Street memo. It wasn't really explicitly focused on that; it was more wide-ranging, but the memo did get mentioned, and for all that the Daily Show is comedy, this was very much one of those times when Jon Stewart takes his outsider-critic role seriously, and Powell came off as the principled guy that I still want to believe he is, and the result was some really good discussion that felt truer to me than the shouting-head back-and-forth of that passes for public debate in too many places these days.

Here's a link to the video of the Powell appearance: Daily Show celebrity interview: Colin Powell I'm thinking of transcribing it, so the text will be available to those who can't watch the video.

And now I've done that, so if you want the transcript you can get it from my weblog: Colin Powell on the Daily Show. -- John Callender 08:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I think some cleanup and reorganizing, along with some sympathetic treatment of the pro-Bush/Blair position, would help strengthen the page from a NPOV point of view. -- John Callender 05:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have given it a first go. Specifically there needs to be a reference for the quote from an anonymous administration source. David | Talk 08:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Superb job. Thank you very much for that. The "former senior US official" was from what I believe to have been the first US media coverage of the memo, in a story by Knight-Ridder's Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott. See "Downing Street" memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy (May 5, 2005):

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

I'll edit the mention in the main article to include sourcing. -- John Callender 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How to cover additional memos?

The Sunday Times of London apparently has more secret memos containing internal Blair government discussions of US/British planning for the Iraq war. See the Times of London site: Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action and the LA Times (registration required): New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq. From the latter:

Michael Smith, the defense writer for the Times of London who revealed the Downing Street minutes in a story May 1, provided a full text of the six new documents to the Los Angeles Times.

Portions of the new documents, all labeled "secret" or "confidential," have appeared previously in two British newspapers, the Times of London and the Telegraph. Blair's government has not challenged their authenticity.

I'm wondering how these should be covered on wikipedia. I guess I'll add a new section to the current page headed "Additional memos" for now, though it seems to me that as more information on them emerges we may want to create a separate page under some title like "British memoranda on the Iraq war" for them. Thoughts? -- John Callender 14:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Think Progress apparently has the full text of the six additional documents available as PDFs. I haven't read them yet, but intend to do so, and incorporate a very brief summary of each, with a link to the source, in the "Additional documents" section of the article. I'm still trying to figure out what the sequence of events was in terms of when, where, and in what form the documents have been made public. The Think Progress folks also have another, older article that recounts how the British press wrote about some (all?) of these documents back in September of 2004. Anyway, I'm trying to get this all straight so I can add it to the article. If someone else has a clearer picture of it and is willing to do so first, that would be nice. -- John Callender 20:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restructure into facts/controversy?

I wonder if a good way to clean up the article would be to try to extract all the factual, non-controversial material about the memo into one section, then follow it with a section that reports the positions being taken by each side regarding the memo's significance/implications. That would take some fairly heavy editing, but I think it might help the article do a better job of being an encyclopedia article, rather than a forum for reporting a long list of competing statements about the memo from the pro/anti perspectives.

In truth, I haven't really seen much of a substantive argument concerning the memo from the pro-Bush side. But such as it is, I'd like to see it gathered together and articulated sympathetically, so readers of the article understand that both sides of the question are being presented in a fair manner. If one or more of those who think the memo is being overblown by the Bush haters is willing to help develop such a section, that would be really great. In the absence of that I'll do my best to come up with something myself, but since I fall pretty squarely into the "yeah, it's a smoking gun" camp, I could obviously use some help from the other side to make sure the question gets addressed fairly. --John Callender 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's see; "What memo? It's probably a forgery. It's only the author's opinion, anyway. Besides, it's old news." HOw's that? Gzuckier 20:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other than the rather rude comment above this, the position of those of us who think this memo is rather worthless, pro- or anti-Bush, is that the memo provides nothing new. We knew Bush wanted to invade during the debates, let alone before the run-up. Furthermore, preparing for what was believed to be an inevitability is not inappropriate, wrong, or illegal. Finally, the one part that everyone seems to consider a "smoking gun" is the "facts were fixed" section, which we either believe to be a) nothing of worth, as it's not a demonstration of manipulation, b) typical policy buildup (i.e., you pick a policy and then find the information that fits the policy you want to pursue, or c) a misinterpretation of the word fixed due to British and American terminology (i.e., like an article in USA Today noted, "fixed" would mean "bolted on." I hope this helps. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

would change that position, eh? Gzuckier 18:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. --Badlydrawnjeff 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that's not how I understand the term! Any other speakers of British English here? Secretlondon 17:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full Text of the Memo

THe full text of the memo is avaliable here and here. (Anon)

It is also at Wikisource [3], as linked from the article. Rd232 20:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

should we list them?

"more congressmen have signed on, bringing the total to 94. [3] (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001436.htm) As of June 16, 2005, over 100 congressmen had signed the letter, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi."

should we list these people?

if we do Bush backers may attack them.

122 congresspeople, over 560,000 citizens signed the letter. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:22, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Fake.

confirmin their authenticity

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:57, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Related page

There is overlap between this article and Iraq document leak 18 June 2005. We need to sort these out! This article feels like a mess and a political football - I can't think how to sort it but we need to do something. Secretlondon 17:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no overlap. That article discusses an independant set of documents released much later than the downing street memo. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:53, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the other documents included some that had originally been reported on before the Downing Street memo, though maybe they hadn't been released publicly in full at that point?

The above comment is correct. The AP documents are the same ones leaked September 2004. It seems to be a case of "not reported here" (by analogy with the programmers' "not invented here" :) - no-one has reported them in the States, so they must be "new". They are not, it's just that the US press were too asleep to notice these documents in the runup to the 2004 election. Not only were they in the UK press around Sept 18-21 2004, they have been sitting around on cryptome, and then on one of its mirrors, continuously since then.

In face the whole business of an "18 June 2005" leak is bogus. That page should be taken down and any usable contents absorbed into the UK Cabinet Papers page. It appears to be a case of severe over-reliance on AP.

Regardless, I think Secretlondon's suggestion that the two articles need to be sorted out makes sense. I understand that there are differences between the DSM and the other batch of documents, but they also have a lot in common. From the standpoint of an encyclopedia article they seem to me to be strongly related to each other. I'd think that over time that will come to be even more the case; that is, in future years the whole batch of documents, including the DSM, will tend to be talked about together, as a group.

For one, they are almost certain to be from the same source. Certainly, they were all broken by the same reported.

(Correcting myself) : Smith has now said that the DSM and its briefing paper were from a different source: "somebody else gave me further ... documents"! ([4])

I suggest we come up with a name for a new article that can serve to incorporate all the relevant information in both Downing Street memo and Iraq document leak 18 June 2005, create that article by merging material from both of the existing pages, then redirect from both of those pages to the new article. I realize that that's a big step, and don't want to be so bold as to just jump in and do it myself, but I think it's worth discussing.

The merged page would probably give substantial coverage to the DSM (though I don't think it should include everything from the current page, which could use some trimming), and lesser coverage to the other documents. One approach we could take, which I've suggested previously, is that we could have a section of the page that describes the documents' contents in neutral terms, followed by a discussion of the controversy surrounding them, with a presentation of the arguments being made as to the documents' significance and implications (or lack thereof) by the various parties to the current debate.

Some ideas for the new page's name:

• British Iraq war documents
• British government documents on the Iraq war
• Leaked British documents on the Iraq war
• Secret British documents on the Iraq war
• Prewar British documents on Iraq

Anyway, I'm curious what people think about this idea. -- John Callender 15:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Leaked British documents on the Iraq war - maybe "Leaked British documents on the build up to the Iraq war". I notice that a lot of the article is taken up with the effect the documents had in US politics. We have less on the documents themselves. If the arguments are that people are trying to hide the information then maybe these articles aren't solveable currently. Whatever we do will end up being used in a war by proxy. Trying to mediate in US politics is probably no good for anyone's mental health.

We need background - what are they? where do they come from? what do they contain? Some sort of timeline I think. Effect in the UK (not confirmed or denied publically etc) - one leak just before general election. Then all the stuff on the US controversy as stated by John above. Secretlondon 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well first let me clarify - many of these documents have been confirmed by the British government. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 17:06, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Need answer ASAP!

Is this Michael Smith guy connected in any way to CBS and "Rathergate"?

Sure. Both Smith and Rather are journalists (broadly defined). They both are men living in the early part of the 21st century, speak English, and published documents purporting to show behavior that, if true, would be damaging to the reputation of George Bush. Beyond that, I'm not aware of any similarity in the two cases, or of any "connection" that might be drawn. It wouldn't surprise me to see people in the right-wing media trying to link them in the public mind, but I can't see any factual basis for such a link. -- John Callender 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's reason to speculate that he's the same Michael Smith hired by Mary Mapes to help with the Rather 60 Minutes piece. The name is fairly standard, but both are apparently freelance reporters, and there's something to be said about the coincedence of two reporters named Michael Smith being involved in memo controversies. Either way, nothing is proven yet, so anything added to the entry should reflect the speculative nature, but to say that there's no similarity or factual basis is false. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hey, that's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. I (obviously) wasn't aware of there being a "Michael Smith" involved in the Rather story. -- John Callender 20:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to follow, John, a blogger appears to have called CBS to verify if they're the same person and he was told they weren't. That's more verification than I had yesterday, and it'd be lax of me not to share, but take it as you may. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Michael Smith who broke the various DSM stories was in Britain and publishing in the Daily Telegraph at the time of Rathergate. He is a well established British defense journalist with a (British) intelligence background. The Smith of Rathergate fame was "in Texas", and, presumably, American!

are you sure?

So the Butler comittee has confirmed their authenticity?

are you sure this news site can be trusted?

BTW could Sir Andrew Turnbull confirm the memo's are real?

The British government seems never to confirm or deny the contents of leaked documents. Secretlondon 19:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The British government, as a matter of policy, (usually) will not confirm the authenticity of genuine leaks. They are, however, quick to confirm the *inauthenticity* of hoaxes (as they did with the legal advice hoax, 29 April, 2005.) However, Tony Blair said, 7 June 2005, of the Downing Street Memo: "let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations" ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/07/national/w152752D27.DTL ). I think you could take that as confirmation. Also, regards the six documents leaked September 2004, the Guardian (UK) wrote "The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1308223,00.html ). There is really no serious question as to the authenticity of the documents.

Regards the Butler committee, I have no link to validate this, but I believe only one of the six docs from Sep 2004 was entered as evidence there. Just FYI and FWIW :)

I'm trying to work out which one you mean by the legal advice hoax - a summary was leaked on the 27th april - then on the 28th 13 pages were released [5]. I can't find anything in the UK media or via google that says this - have you got a reference? Secretlondon 19:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was a story on Yahoo about a fake version of Goldsmith's legal advice being hawked around newpapers in London, but I'm afraid it's expired. However, there's a story at: http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=103632 about it. Goldsmith's office, according to that story, was quick to offer a statement saying it was "a complete forgery". (BTW, I've indented your comment above, to distinguish it from mine - hope that's ok.)

I was told by a Brit that the Butler committee would know (or be able to prove) if the memos were real or fake.

Blair spoke to the issue without questioning the authenticity of the minutes (memos); the U.S. press has been oddly mute on this issue, however, there is growing realization amongest the public of the import of these documents as relates to U.S. actions in Iraq. Challenges based on -- it was retyped and originals destoryed can be seen as little more than GOP spin doctoring. Leading up to WWII, Churchill was provided with documents spirited out of offices which became the subject of intense debate in Parliament, this seems a similar situation in some ways. Let's also remember that these documents were published by one of the most credible newspapers in the world. Calicocat 19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael Smith op-ed piece in LA Times

Michael Smith, the journalist who obtained the DSM, has an interesting op-ed piece in today's LA Times: The Real News in the Downing Street Memos. He gives an interesting perspective on his own journey from being a supporter of Blair's decision to go to war to believing the memos provide documentation of illegal activity. -- John Callender 23:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can this be anywhere on Wikipedia?

http://democracyforamerica.com/memo_movie.php

looks like they believe the date is real

Vice President Dick Cheney was asked on CNN about the 'Downing Street memo' Asked if he disputes the memo's claim, Cheney said, "Of course. The memo was written sometime prior to when we actually got involved in Iraq.

"And remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean and comply with the UN Security Council resolution. We did everything we could to resolve this without having to use military force. We gave him one last chance even, and asked him to step down before we launched military operations.

"The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out."

It's not surprising that "they" believe the "date" is real - the memo is entirely authentic - suggest you read the first paragraph of the article! :) Isn't it time to move on from the question of authenticity? There's not one credible source that I know of that's questioned whether the leaks are genuine - in nearly two months, now. Whereas those that have commented without questioning it include Bush, Blair, and now Cheney, and stories in which it has been unofficially confirmed have been run by the Washington Post, NBC, LA Times, etc., etc.. If there was even a hint of a question of the authenticity of the memo, the British Government would have quickly issued caveats, but they have not. At this point, the only outlets who are questioning the memo are just and only those who you would expect to want to "smear" it: Limbaugh, and other pro-Bush mouthpieces whose collective credibility is already close to zero on any potentially partisan issue.

Mike Smith claims this is proof that the memo existed

this is where he makes the claim http://downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

and this is the link to the "proof"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

Downing Street Memo is not admissible as evidence

Because the Downing Street Memo is not an original but a "retyped" copy with certain excised out of the document, it is impossible to have the document authenticated or know what other changes to the document might have been made. Because of this, the document will never be admitted into any court of law. This should be plainly stated early in the article. [User:RonCram|RonCram]

What does it matter that it "will never be admitted into any court of law"? No one is urging that it should. In any event, presumably there are "some" originals lying around somewhere, so it's possible that one of them will turn up someday (at the very least, years from now, assuming they are declassified at some later date.) Geoff.green 03:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The lawyers are the ones who asked that the original document not remain in possession, and mike smith explained the reasoning pretty thoroughly. If the court asked for the original document - well, courts don't ask, they order; the original will be subpoenaed. In that there are multiple first-hand witnesses corroborating both that the text is an accurate reproduction and corroborating the veracity of the minutes of the meeting (the person who took the minutes has a reputation for thorough, accurate, and neutral minute-taking), it would be rather ridiculous for a court not to order a subpoena, or to discard the reproduction as "not credible", or "not shedding sufficient doubt".

Furthermore, when the word "evidence" is used in relation to the document, it is meant only to assert that the document, and the fact that it has been verified as an accurate reproduction by multiple high-level government officials, is sufficient to warrant - indeed, to make neccessary - a formal investigation - a congressional "Resolution of Inquiry" into this and other documents, some of which have been verified as authentic by the Prime Minister Tony Blair himself. Such an inquiry would gather information and asses whether the facts merit litigative action. If such action is executed, evidence would be gathered by way of the court through the legal process known as "discovery", which would include subpoenaes of documentary evidence and/or sworn testimony. That is how these things work. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The retyped copy is not admissible as evidence. The process of "retyping" the document opens it up for error and/or mischief. There is no way to know what errors may have entered the memo during that process. Even people who attended the meeting might think something was said or happened that did not happen if the memo falsely recorded it. Courts may subpoena the memo but Britain probably has "Executive Privilege" as we do here in the States. I do not think an original version of the memo will be produced. If the memo is authentic, it is possible an original could turn up. If authentic, Britain is certainly not going to turn over an original to any US court. RonCram 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

man commits a murder. Man writes a confession. Big group of people see confession and read it. Confession is copied into newspaper and printed, but original gets destroyed. Several important people say, yep, heard of it and can't find anything wrong in it. Police decline to investigate? Sandpiper 07:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this still an ongoing event?

This page is listed in the ongoing events section and I would like to clarify whether this is still the case. It isn't ongoing in the sense that additional news is occuring on this event or that additional repercussions are occuring. As a news story, it does not appear to have received any attention for nearly two months now. At what point does an ongoing event cease to be ongoing? MLA 11:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the last significant event, which i don't think was reported in the article, was n:Rep._Barbara_Lee_calls_for_U.S._Congress_probe_into_Iraq_War_planning. When this resolution passes or fails, there will be another significant event to report in current events, and if it passes, there will be a lot more to follow. Another thing hanging is the trial in Europe - a civil case brought by mothers of deceased European soldiers, challenging the legality of the Iraq War. So that's the status in "real life" of this topic; those two things. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that those aren't strictly the Downing Street Memo. The ongoing event appears to be investigations into the Iraq war planning of which the Downing Street Memo was part but is not now part of public discussion.MLA 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the downing street memo isn't mentioned in the resolution - the resolution is much broader, but the resolution was a direct consequence of the downing street memo and related documents being released, and the downing street memo and related documents were released in part to support the civil case in europe challenging the legality of the war. So these things are all causually related. The downing street memo certainly does not enjoy the amount of discussion it did when it was fresh, and cannot be reasonably called part of mainstream public discussion. However, another news item regarding the memo just came up august 5th: [6] This relates to the "spikes of activity" section of the downing street memo, and is an extension of an earlier news item from May 30th: [7] The first news item notes the release of information that bombing raid of iraq increased significantly dureing the lead-up to the war. In defense, the U.S. government countered by claiming self defense; that an increase in threats was met with an increase in defense. The second news item, however, notes the release of information from the same source: U.K. Parliament, that the number of recorded threats actually decreased during that time, contrary to the Bush administration's claims. In any case, this is new information relating to the downing street memo, specifically "spikes of activity", with possible motivation to provoke. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Authenticity questions

May I suggest that, in view of the overwhelming press consensus that there is no significant question as to the authenticity of any of the documents covered here, we relegate all coverage of authenticity-related questions to the "veracity" section, with perhaps a brief mention of the issue in the introduction and a "(see below under veracity)" or some such? (pete - no username)

I support that idea. Raphael1 23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

link

Is prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/290306Memo.htm this] in the article? --Striver 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Downing Street memo has failed, for the following reason:

At 52kb long, I feel the one person review system at GA can't do this article justice. It should really go to peer review. My view is that it's far too long, and should be written far more concisely. Also, the lead section is completely inadequate - it's much too short for such a huge article. Worldtraveller 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of BS

On top of the fact that the Clinton administration had concluded that Iraq had WMD less than 2 years before the memo, the words Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. removes any doubt of lying to the contrary regardless as to what the true definition of "fixed" is. 65.185.190.240 01:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a strange form of logic. It's like quantumn physics: premises as well as anti-premises! Kevin Baas^talk 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're gonna have to go ahead and point out what you mean, man. That made no sense. I could easily say "purple monkey dishwasher" and express exactly what you said in that comment. In fact, purple monkey dishwasher. BonniePrinceCharlie 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, that logically it's all mish-mashed and doesn't line up. When you put the sentence "Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD." in context, you see that it meant that they believed they could press the case for regime change by convincing the public that the regime was producing WMD. (And we know, in fact, that the regine was not producing WMD.) This does not remove any doubt of lying. Quite to the contrary, it shows the motive for lying. And it shows an attempt to find a way to justify regime change to the public: by linking it with WMD; they were "fixing" WMD to regime change - the facts and intelligence to the policy.

As regards clinton, well, bush was given the same intelligence clinton was -- nothing changed in the iterim -- and clinton didn't invade iraq. Kevin Baas^talk 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Clinton didn't send ground troops, but he dropped twice as many tons of munitions on Iraq during December 1999, on the eve of impeachment hearings, than Bush did in any month. That was the real "shock and awe."--Munseym (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What's funny is people are all fired up about whether or not the memo is authentic, who cares? It's obviously full of biased interpretations of what was going on, such as the famous "fixed around the policy" line which war critics have taken about 8 steps left of left field to claim intelligence was falsified or fraudulent. This memo is no "smoking gun" to anyone unless you are so dumb you think when a President named Bush from Texas went to congress to get permission and funding to kick a guy named Saddam's ass in Iraq, that he was just tossing the idea around, mulling it over as if maybe he'd just as soon go fishing that day if it's sunny. Just 6 months after 9/11 Saddam went on Iraq TV and made a declaration in direct defiance of our War on Terror he knew we'd engaged in: To raise the reward program supporting Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. (the international terrorism cited in the joint resolution) That was taped and played repeatedly on Al Jazeera throughout the middle east. On that day if George W. Bush had not decided to attack Saddam he would have been in violation of the law passed by Congress after 9/11 regarding prosecuting international terrorists and those who support and harbor them, and the President's duty to protect the American people. batvette. 75.37.174.111 09:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Has the Downing Street memo has been confirmed? I can't tell by reading the article, it slips and slides on the issue and doesn't directly address it. There is a section about authenticity that says little about it. Raggz 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair has confirmed the date that the memo was written ("before going to the U.N."), and said that it was one of the government papers reviewed by the butler review. The memo was published in a mainstream U.K. newspaper that is considered very reliable: The Sunday Times. It's all in the article. The memo was even put on the congressional record and members of congress even sent a letter to the president asking him, among other things, if he denies the authenticity of the memo. He didnt' respond to that letter, or a follow up letter either. If you want a better answer than is given in the article, you'll have to ask bush or blair themselves. Unfortunately, they haven't been very forthcoming (as you can see by reading the article). But I wish you luck. Kevin Baas^talk 15:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem frustrated, but my point remains. The article is confusing and your response is also confusing. The lack of confirmation or denial is neither a confirmation nor a denial. Why is Tony Blair's confirmation in only one newspaper and not mentioned in the US at all? I suppose that one paper is cited in the article so I can read the Tony Blair quote? I would accept Tony Blair's authentication, so I suppose I need to read it for myself. Raggz 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the citation says "The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war." This is all there is for confirmation? Who in the Foreign Office? Was it the Foreign Minister or was it an accountant? Does the Foreign Office in the UK make important announcements to only one newspaper? It all seems pretty soft. I understand that you believe, but without a high degree of prior belief, this is a very soft confirmation. Raggz 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of "the Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine", cited in one of the main UK newspapers, isn't clear to you? If you understood at all what a press office is, or how UK government departments and the media interact, you wouldn't then ask stupid questions like "who in the Foreign Office?". Please stop editing nonsense into articles when you clearly have such little understanding of the issues. There is no "incontrovertible evidence" that George Bush is actually not a lizard, but no-one goes around pointing that out in wikipedia articles. The status of the memo, and the issues around its veracity, are very clear from the paragraph as it is, without this random sentence - which merely reflects your own personal view - being thrown in. --Nickhh 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is mostly gibberish is supposed to be my responsibility because I added a clarifying sentence? I was visiting to review what the evidence actually is - and after reading this article I knew nothing that I didn't to begin with. The next reader to wander in deserves more clarity. It reads like something that conspiracy theorists always seem to produce, it does not read like a useful article for the rest of us. I am fine with you cleaning this jumble of soft allegations up, please do so. You are correct, I have no expertise with this topic, which is why I wanted to read it.

Please add the citation to some UK Government official source and I will be happy. That is all that I ask, (and you really should have added it before). If you cannot do this, please add something to advise the Reader that this material is not officially confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no personal opinion in my edit, it is a fact that some people accept that these are real - and that others do not. At WP we try to help the Reader understand the topic, evangelisim is not our role. Raggz 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten how frustrating you are -

1) Where did I say either that this article was "mostly gibberish", or that you were responsible for that?

2) The article as it is states where the memo was allegedly obtained and where it was reported, together with a summary of official responses from various sources to this and other leaks. That is all it needs to do - it does not need insertions from one editor telling everyone else what his or her conclusions are. People can think for themselves when presented with a selection of facts you know. You are the one who is evangelising.

3) Why should I have "added [a citation] before"? This is the first time I have looked at or edited this article. And please note again - when a paper reports a UK govt department as having said something, this is generally because that department's press office gave the quote to that paper when that paper asked them a question - ie it is an official source, communicating through the medium (understand?) of a newspaper.

I'm afraid this follows the long pattern of your editing - inserting your own nonsensical or irrelevant opinions and conclusions into articles, while absurdly accusing other editors who are trying to keep this encyclopedia as neutral and fact-based as possible of being "POV warriors". --Nickhh 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to add your citation that links to the official confirmation of the UK Foreign Office - or not? I'm the Reader, I want to read this key citation - or I want the article to say up front that there is none. What is so hard to grasp here? Your are responsible for this article, so please add this citation.

I have no problem with the present convoluted discussion of the details of the article, some Readers may be looking for these. Just be considerate of those who want a quick summary that states that the Downing Street memos are (or are not) officially confirmed. If they have been confirmed, why not the citation? I'm sorry if this request frustrates you. Raggz 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some people accept the unofficial confirmations by the media and the lack of official denial to confirm the veracity of the Downing Street memos and others do not. There is no incontrovertible evidence for veracity." Notice that there is no opinion expressed by this? It merely summarizes in two sentences what the article does say, but does not directly articulate. Do you claim that humanity is unified in agreement with you? There are great many who agree with your position, most I suspect agree with me in that they just don't know. Why not help the Reader out here? Rewrite it, or write something better, but tell the Reader in the summary if the Memo was ever confirmed - or not. Do it in a summarizing sentence or two, this will make me happy and I won't bother your article. I only care about the next Reader, this is not an issue that I care about.

Don't make this into some personal issue, I don't recall ever interacting with you before and I'm only interested in improving this article. When did I call you a POV warrior? WP determined this about one editor that I interacted with, after this was determined officially I mentioned it in another article's talk page. Is this what you are talking about? Are you that editor using a new account? Let's "keep this encyclopedia as neutral and fact-based as possible"? I'm for this, are you willing to work toward this? Raggz 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went to the UK Foreign Office's site and could not find any confirmation there. Would someone direct me to it please? Raggz 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you'll find confirmation of the genuinity of ANY document on the UK Foreign Office's site, and I'm surprised that you seem to expect to find confirmation there. Websites of foreign offices don't do that. What they do do, however - sometimes - is when a major newspaper asks them a question, they will go through the proper bureaucratic channels, to retrieve an official, reliable answer, and give it back to the newspaper, telling them what they can publish, and how to publish it, so as to insure that the answer is accurately and reliably reported to the public. that is the primary functions of foreign offices: to provide an official conduit of communication between the territory that it is in and the government that it is a part of. They get way too many requests to put all the answers on their website, and that's not what their website is for.

Now, as far as I understand - and I'm certainly not a newbie - a major newspaper quoting a foreign office qualifies as a reliable source, just as a major newspaper quoting a press secretary does. If you're really curious, I suppose you could get the article that quoted the foreign office, call that foreign office, and ask them if they really said that, as the article said they did, and give them the bibliographic information for that article. This would be much like taking a quote from a newspaper attributed to "the white house" (which is another way of saying "the press secretary"), and calling the white house (or the press secretary) and asking him if he actually said that. If the foreign office considers your call important enough, and actually do get an answer to you, well i imagine you won't be too surprised when they say "yes, we told them the document was genuine, and we stand by that statement.", and you would have just succeeded at royally wasting their time. However, you would not be able to publish your findings on wikipedia, as that would constitute original research.

My point of all this is that you are making unreasonable demands.

Now the point of wikipedia is to present the reader with verifiable information, and source that information. If you believe that the item you cited should get more prominence, then fix it. And if you can think of ways to present the information in this article more clearly without removing pertinent information, I think we all would be happy to see that. But be advised that people may have different opinions on what the clearest way to present material is. If, on the other other hand, all you have to say is that the article is "mostly gibberish", well, that doesn't really help improve the article, which is what we are here to do, and there are probably a lot of editors who would take offense to that. Kevin Baas^talk 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that unlike the US State Department, in the UK FO they do not issue formal statement but primarily act through newspapers and the media - in only response to questions. I didn't know that, thank you.

"My point of all this is that you are making unreasonable demands." Perhaps, I will consider your information and thoughts. Thanks for changing your tone. Raggz 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blair & Bush

“Some accounts, including the books Plan of Attack and State of Denial by Bob Woodward (published in April 2004 and September 2006, respectively), say that then Secretary of State Powell and others were concerned about the potential consequences of an invasion of Iraq, particularly the difficulties of building a democracy after major hostilities ended. Other accounts include reported memoranda (the “Downing Street Memo”) by British intelligence officials, based on conversations with U.S. officials. That memo reportedly said that by mid-2002 the Administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq and that it sought to develop information about Iraq to support that judgment. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair deny this.” Order Code RL31339 Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security Updated December 28, 2006 Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Page 13 Would anyone suggest that this denial is from a reliable source? Raggz 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Q “Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?”

“PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.” President Welcomes British Prime Minister Blair to the White House. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair June 7, 2005 Raggz 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This certainly constitutes a denial, as the first word of the response, "No" makes clear. And it is from a reliable source. However, it's important to not what it is a denial of. He is denying that the facts were being fixed, as in altered. Even though nobody is arguing that they were altered. What people are saying was that America (not britian) choose the policy first, then stuck ("fixed") facts and intelligence to it that would support it. This is a different use of the word "fixed". (which some have argued, btw, doesn't exist in britian) And regardless, he is only denying this point; this sentence. After his denial, he goes on to confirm much of what is in the memo.

At no point in his response does he deny that the document contains the official minutes of a meeting on 10 downing street between top us and uk officials. And thus, he does not deny that this was the official minute-taker's genuine interpretation of what was being said at the meeting. Of course, he was not asked either of these questions in this encounter.

Nor does he, in this response deny the allegation that "by mid-2002 the Administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq" as the http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/47330.htm citation claims.

but most importantly, blair is not denying that the DSM is the official minutes of a meeting that it purports to be the official minutes of.

In any case, if that's not in the article, it should be, in due proportion of course. Kevin Baas^talk 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree that Tony Blair confirms them. "And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations." "That memorandum"? This quote is on the website of the Department of State, United States of America. The memos are confirmed.

My issue remains, even though I was factually wrong. The article lacks a good summary. In this summary it should state that Blair confirmed the memos. I opened this article to get this info, but there was no summary, and I never learned if the memos were actually confirmed - or not. I recommend deleting all that wandering semi-relevant stuff.

The summary needs to fairly include "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He strongly denies this. If we accept one part as credible we should take both. Something like Tony Blair strongly denied that the pre-invasion process involved fixing the facts. While the memo itself is confirmed to be genuine, it is denied that the memo accurately summarized the pre-invasion process. Follow with a sentance or two that SUMMARIZES the opposition's view. Raggz 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Raggz: I don't know where to start. But picking up various threads from the above discussions ...

1) I never accused you of calling ME a POV warrior, I merely said it was a phrase you have used in the past against other editors. Which, without any sense of irony, you have.

2) Did it really take this much effort on the part of two editors to convince you that the authenticity of the memo has been implicitly confirmed, according to the sources already cited in the article?

3) Did it also really require a second editor to explain at length to you how UK government departments speak to the media, when I had already done that?

4) You keep bizarrely asking for "a citation" when we were actually already discussing the Guardian citation which you, in your post of 20:05 on the 16th, had first pointed out to me.

Finally the fact that you claim never to have interacted with me before is the final bit of clear evidence that you are not fit to edit this encyclopedia. Sorry if that breaches WP:NPA. Nickhh 08:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What article have we worked on before, please remind me?

NICKH says: "The article as it is states where the memo was allegedly obtained and where it was reported, together with a summary of official responses from various sources to this and other leaks. That is all it needs to do - it does not need insertions from one editor telling everyone else what his or her conclusions are. People can think for themselves when presented with a selection of facts you know. You are the one who is evangelising."

My point is that I read this unfocused article to learn if the Downing Street Memos were confirmed - or not. Instead I wandered about for an excessively long time without the article telling me this key FACT. Why not tell the Reader this key fact in the first or second paragraph of the (missing) summary?

NickH says: "People can think for themselves when presented with a selection of facts you know." The role of an encyclopedia is not the same as an essay, or even a news story. The role of an encyclopedia (in my opinion) requires summarization of facts (when possible), good articles do not unecessarily make the Reader evaluate facts that can be summarized/cited as facts, without forcing extensive consideration and education. Of course not all topics can be so simply summarized, perhaps this one cannot. Why force the reader on a ten-mile jog when they only need walk ten meters? Is this really necessary?

There seem two relevant points about the Downing Street Memos: (1) Are they authentic? and (2) what do they say? I suggest covering these points MUCH more clearly - these two points belong in the summary.

I'm willing to help with a draft summary, and I'm willing to listen to your ideas. How may we best work together? Are you OK with me working on the new summary? Do you want to do it? Raggz 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that "Are they authentic" (to which the answer is presumably "Yes") does belong in the lead. As you say, it's one of the first things people wish to know. PalestineRemembered 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have told you before I am an occasional editor and do not want to get involved in huge amounts of editing and rewriting of articles, or indeed talk page debates. And contrary to what you state above, the section on Veracity (which might better be called "Authenticity") is clearly signposted within the article, so anyone interesting in reading about that aspect of the memo - as you say you were - can go there easily. As I've said before that section then sets out the basic facts as reported, including official reactions. In my view these pretty clearly suggest the memo, or rather the account of its contents, are genuine - but unlike you I have no wish to insert my personal conclusions on that point into the article, in the summary or elsewhere. Perhaps the intro could include a brief summary sentence to say "the authenticity of the memo and its contents has never been officially denied", but I'd be very wary of adding anything more than that. I also repeat my point that Wikipedia should not include attempts to lead other readers by the nose towards one particular editor or another's conclusions of what the (verifiable) facts actually mean. On the wider point, there may be issues with the clarity of this article overall, but on past experience, you are not the editor to make any amendments in order to improve it. --Nickhh 07:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm nor sure what Raggz is wanting to achieve here. I hope this user is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. [8] The authenticity of these documents are not -- or should I say, no longer -- in doubt. There is a clearly defined section covering this. It takes only seconds to find it. smb 10:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NickH & smb: Why do you believe that I have an agenda - beyond improving the article? Now that you have tossed that out, please explain? (1) How am I disrupting this article? (2) What point am I disrupting Wikipedia to make? I'm unaware of these, please answer so I may address your concerns. Raggz 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem overly eager to insert your own original research into this article, so that it flags up your own conclusions about everything to do with the memo and the Iraq war as whole. Saying "X is or is not incontrovertible evidence for Y", as you seem to want to do, is you drawing your own conclusions and - in your own words - leading the reader. That is disruptive to the article. And getting "consensus" on a talk page before doing that is not enough - all that means is that you have managed to get the agreement of the small number of editors who happen to be engaged in the article at that time (although that is unlikely at the moment, thankfully). The issues are addressed in more details elsewhere on this and other talk pages --Nickhh 07:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias have a concise summarizing style. I am attempting to summarize the complexities for the Reader and am not attempting to insert OR. This article really needs a concise summary. If no one objects, because the summary is accepted as accurate, such summaries serve the Reader. My attempts to summarize have not been accepted, and are now faded history. Raggz 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the document about Clinton administration had concluded that Iraq had WMD less than 2 years before the memo. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

References

News Coverage and Systemic Bias

I tried to add some multinational coverage--can anyone help with this? Cyrusc 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

"The memo was first published in The Sunday Times on 1 May 2005..." The memos were publicised earlier, on 21 March 2005, in this BBC Panorama programme Iraq, Tony and the truth You can watch it here smb 08:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary

We seem to have consensus that (1) Tony Blair confirmed that the memo was genuine and (2) concurrently stated that the content was inaccurate. These are relevant facts that deserve to be in the summary/opening. The necessary qualifications need appear, but not necessarily there. These are facts. Are there others? Yes, but all others are secondary and can stay where thy are. This article reads like a journalist would write, not a bad style, but perhaps too thorough and indirect of a style. If we put a tight summary up front, the Reader who wants details will benefit from the thorough journalistic style. What is now a weak unfocused article could be a focused and thorough encyclopedia article.

I am sensitive to the fact that other editors here have sensitivities when I edit here. NickH (for one) has made it clear that he doesn't want to edit this article much - and doesn't want me to edit it either. I'm fine with somone else editing the summary in, (I want to make NickH as happy as is possible), who wants to take this on? Raggz 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there need be discussion on Tony Blair's second point - he concurrently stated that the content was inaccurate. Is this proven or disproven? If not proven,this discussion should not be in the summary, but should instead appear at length later at some appropriate point. Raggz 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any serious doubt about the veracity/authenticity (ie that is a genuine document whose contents are accurate - a point you now appear to accept Raggz), and this has always been the case in the UK since ths story originally appeared. Highlighting the - limited - debate that may have occurred on this point included in the intro would appear to me to be giving the fringe attempts that were made to discredit the story undue weight.

As for Blair's attempts to say the memo was somehow incorrect in what it said (ie that one of his senior policy officials was making an inaccurate assessment), I would argue that this falls within the scope of "politician attempts to reject criticism shock". Blair in particular as a politician is very skilled at wriggling out of situations when caught out. Of course it's worth noting that response, but I don't really know what it proves in the real world. I mean what did we expect him to say when this was exposed: "yes, sorry, it's all true - me and George lied about everything?". More broadly I just dispute the idea that this article is somehow a total mess that needs cleaning up, by Raggz or anyone else. --Nickhh 06:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You have a quote from the Prime Minister of the UK stating that the memos are authentic. We also have a statement that the memos are inaccurate. These two are facts. We have consensus.

Did the PM lie? Perhaps and perhaps not. Did the PM admit to this? No? What then is the incontravertable evidence for deceit? If this exists, I have no problem (and expect consensus) on this. If not, document, but don't lead the Reader. The usual journalist stuff ... Facts are facts, the rest MIGHT not belong in an encyclopedia article, even if an investigative article should be written. If you have better ideas or evidence on this, I will of course listen ... Raggz 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Raggz: "What is now a weak unfocused article could be a focused and thorough encyclopedia article." No, there is nothing wrong with the article. We already have sections that address the very issues you raise. Can you not see them? Here they are: Veracity of the memo and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. If your sole concern is with the lead then say so clearly, instead of typing five-hundred plus words. smb 10:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead is not my sole concern, but it is presently my priority. (The 500 word version is below.) It should comply with WP policy for openings and especially NPOV. (short version of 30 words). Raggz 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are making. Blair's comments - both his implicit acceptance that the document is authentic, and his apparent rejection of its conclusions - ARE documented in the article. All I've debated above - on the talk page of course - is what conclusions to draw from this. However I have never suggested that my conclusions, or any other editor's, about what this means for the overall probity of UK & US government policy ahead of the Iraq war should actually be in the main article (or whether it is "incontrovertible evidence" for one thing or another). In fact what I am trying to desperately do here is to stop YOU putting your original research and conclusions into this article, and thereby "lead[ing] the reader". This article is about the memo - what does it say and what was the reaction to it. That's it. --Nickhh 07:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC) ps: I find your apparent faith and belief in what our leaders say very touching.

Hello Nickhh, there is no need to feel "desperate", as long as you want to work for consensus within Talk, we can work for consensus.

"The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", contains an overview of a secret 2002-07-23 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. It clearly states that, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." This is our opening paragraph and it is not a summary of the article. It does not meet the criteria for the opening in WP. It is OR, and can be deleted for this cause alone. Tony Blair admits that the memo is real, but disputes that it's contents were an accurate summary. Our opening sentence does not mention these key facts. It presumes that the memo does accurately represent the facts. This may be true or it may be untrue, but this is disputed and it violates NPOV because it does not represent the other views.

• "Smoking gun"? What do we mean by this? I understand what a "smoking gun" means - but not what the alleged crime implied by it is.

• "contains an overview of a secret 2002-07-23 meeting"? Tony Blair disputes this in citations within our article, he says it is not an accurate summary. Not mentioning this is a NPOV violation.

• "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD". Same as the preceeding. Just mention Blair's denial of the foregoing, so that NPOV compliance is attained.

Nickhh has expressed a strong preference for doing the necessary edits, so I will wait to permit him to bring the article into compliance with the NPOV policy. Including Blair's statement in the appropriate places and adherence to NPOV should be possible without "leading" the Reader. Raggz 02:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not expressed any such preference. Will you please stop making things up? Nor do I think edits are necessary. To answer your points -

1) The "smoking gun" should probably have a reference to show which critics - if any - have described it that way.

It need more than a citation, it needs to be explained. What crime is being referred to? Raggz 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

2) Tony Blair does not dispute that the memo contains an overview of the meeting. I thought we had - after a long debate - settled this question about the authenticity of the memo to your satisfaction. All he did was deny that UK & US policy was actually as it was described in the memo. That is a very different thing. I don't understand what this has to do with NPOV.

I would prefer that Tony Blair be quoted directly. He admits that the memo is genuine, and states that the memo does not accurately state the information it covers. He does not state that none of the information is correct. This should be in the article and given a fair weighting. It should be in the summary. We have consensus regarding the authenticity of the memo. Raggz 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

3) The intro merely sets out that the memo says "Bush wanted ....". This is 100% correct.

If you have evidence as to what Bush wanted, I missed this. Tony Blair quite cleverly completely undercut your ability to use the memo to establish this as a fact. The summary should not about disputed and possibly factual material like this. It should instead summarize the facts and the debate establihed in sections. Raggz 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is called "Downing Street Memo", not "Tony Blair's thoughts on the Downing Street Memo", or "Does the Downing Street Memo accurately describe US policy?". The intro should simply say what the memo was and what it said, and although it could probably be improved in terms of how it's written, it currently does this. All the debate about the reaction to the memo, or details about how some of its contents were contested or denied should be in the body of the article, as they currently are. --Nickhh 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article properly references the actual text of the memo. We could just leave it for the Reader to read. When we move into an article, we need comply with WP policy on how we do this. Tony Blair's thoughts on the Downing Street Memo belong in a prominent place in our article, even if you or I don't believe him. Raggz 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary point is that the summary does not summarize the article. My secondary points relate to the actual summary. WP suggests (by my fallible memory) that all the key points regarding the entire article need be summarized. Excellent WP articles do not have any citations in the summary, because the summay is a summary of sections that have support. For me, citations in the summary signal incomplete editing.

There most serious criticism is that while an excellent essay for publication in a left-leaning blog or magazine, it is not encyclopedic in style and it also violates the NPOV policy. The opening paragraph is an excellent opening for an essay, and I don't suggest that it is a bad paragraph given the overall article. It fits well, it is just not an encyclopedic opening or article. The writing, the flow, and the quality of scholarship are all fine. This makes editing to begin to shift toward a more encyclopedic version that better complies with NPOV more challenging. Such do tend to reduce the integrity of the essay. Raggz 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Challenged

The following citations are challenged as not qualifying as reliable sources.

• The BradBlog
• Media Matters: From their site they admit to political advocacy. "Help Stop Conservative Misinformation. You can join Media Matters for America in the fight against conservative misinformation in the media. We regularly provide action items based on our real-time monitoring of the media and conduct action campaigns to prevent the spread of conservative misinformation. Thousands of activists like you take advantage of these tools to hold the media accountable for spreading conservative misinformation." Raggz 05:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Rawstory: From rawstory..."the site is quoted by Newsweek as, "Muck, raked: If you're looking for alleged GOP malfeasance, the folks at rawstory.com are frequently scooping the mainstream media." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• DemocraticUnderground Raggz 06:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The democraticunderground link is not quite being used as an authoritative source cited in order to verify a claim. The claim in the article is that the democraticunderground thread linked to was where significant US media interest in the "other memos" began. A citation for that claim would be, for example, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00116.htm ; scoop.co.nz may also exhibit political bias, but since the claim itself (that US media interest in the "other memos" originated in that linked democraticunderground thread) has little political import, this may be safely ignored. The main point here is that the democraticunderground thread is not being used as a cite to verify any claim, it is rather being exhibited as a primary text; so the (obvious!) political bias of democraticundergound is a non-issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.186.62 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've added in the scoop link as a ref for this claim. The edit is "/* Additional documents */ Provide citation for democraticunderground "revival" claim" should anyone wish to revert this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.186.62 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Afterdowningstreet.org Raggz 06:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Bob Fertik's Blog Raggz 06:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you could provide the context that these sources were used in (such as the reference number), that would be very helpful.

For example, I found the source "AfterDowningstreet.org": in ref. 26. Reference 26 verifies the claim "A coalition of citizen groups known as After Downing Street, co-founded by a group of longtime progressive and/or Democratic Party activists", and the source links to the site's list of co-founders. I can think of no better source for the list of co-founders of a site than the site itself. Kevin Baas^talk 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This article has more citations than many articles have, and the quality is also higher than most. Context is indeed important. The larger question is if a list of the co-founders of a site belongs in an encyclopedia? How does this information assist the Reader to get a summarized (encyclopedic) understanding of the Downing Street memo? Raggz 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that we put a list of the co-founders of afterdowningstreet.org in the article, I would argue that it is not really all that pertinent to the downing street memo. Such a list would only be appropriate on an article about the website itself. In fact, I think the mention should be made smaller: I think the part of the sentence that identifies the co-founders as liberals should be removed, as the sources cited do not provide any verification for this claim, and their political orientation is rather immaterial, anyways.

In any event, that was just an example that I gave about how it would be very helpful if you would be so kind as to list the numbers identifing the particular citations that you are challenging. You seem to have confused an example demonstrating my point with my actual point. I was asking you to list the citation 'numbers so that we can see how the sources you challenge are used in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the4se should have been included and I will at some point, add them Raggz 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ENCYCLOPEDIC ORGANIZATION

What do I mean when I suggest a more encyclopedic approach to this topic? Rather than try to explain, I offer an alternative Table of Contents below, as an illustration. Raggz 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents PRESENTLY

1 Introduction

2 Outline

3 Reaction

3.1 Proponents of an inquiry

3.2 US Congress

3.3 Internet

3.4 Pundits

3.5 Citizens

4 News coverage

4.1 Veracity of the memo

4.2 US President George Bush

4.3 UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

4.4 White House spokesman Scott McClellan

4.5 US Secretary of State Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Straw

5 Additional documents

6 Criticism of the Memo

6.1 "Fixed"

7 References

8 See also

9 Wikisource links

10 External links

10.1 Michael Smith

10.2 Petitions

10.3 Mainstream media coverage

10.4 Downing Street memo websites

  SUGGESTED ORGANIZATION

1. SUMMARY.

2. WHAT THE MEMOS SAY.

3. VERACITY OF THE MEMOS.

3.1 Veracity Confirmed by the UK Government.

4. ARE THE MEMOS ACCURATE?

4.1 Response of the UK regarding accuracy.

4.2 Response of the US regarding accuracy.

4.3 Semantics – US vs. UK English.

4.4 Response of the Media regarding accuracy.

5. PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND REACTIONS.

5.1 Response within the UK.

5.1.1 Impact upon the UK Elections.

5.1.2 Reactions by the UK Media.

5.2 Response within the US.

5.2.1 Petitions.

5.2.2 US Congress.

5.2.3 US Media.

5.3 Response within the International Community.

5.2.3 International Media.

6. REFERENCES.

7. LINKS.

Response

This proposal is transparently unencyclopedic. 'Are the memos accurate?' 'Public perception?' Terrible, simply terrible. The current framework is neutral; whereas yours is skew-whiff. I'm literally stunned that you have put this forward as a serious proposal. I think you have a valid point in regard to the lead section. We should put something up there to the effect that Tony Blair disagrees with the majority view drawn from the documents, but I will resist vigorously any attempt at POV pushing. smb 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When I opened this article I just wanted to understand this subject and I expected a summarized encyclopedic approach. I wanted to know if the memos were (1) real and (2) accurate reflections of US/UK pre-Iraq War policy. The present organization does not facilitate answers to the questions that Readers (like I was) have about the Downing Street memos. One need read the entire lengthy article, and even then these are not clearly and succinctly addressed. What is wrong with the question: "are the Downing Street memos accurate reflections of the actual US/UK pre-Iraq War policy?" Why is this question objectional?

smb, are the Downing Street memos accurate reflections of the actual US/UK pre-Iraq War policy? Where does the article succinctly state yes, no, or maybe? If we disregard opinion but focus upon evidence, is there any direct evidence to suggest that they are accurate? If not, we should state this. If so, we should detail this evidence. This proposed section will not shift the pov at all, if you just list the direct evidence that supports the accuracy of these memos. It would only produce a pov shift if we don't list this direct evidence. So, why not just help the Reader?

I'm fine with any different outline that better helps the Reader, one that is not so "transparently unencyclopedic". It seems however that you strongly prefer the present outline - and believe that it best serves the Reader? Is this "your final answer"? Raggz 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Raggz: When I opened this article I just wanted to understand this subject and I expected a summarized encyclopedic approach. Your dispute on 2003 invasion of Iraq and Legality of the Iraq War‎ suggests you are working backwards. [9]

Raggz: I wanted to know if the memos were (1) real and (2) accurate reflections of US/UK pre-Iraq War policy. The present organization does not facilitate answers to the questions. You are in obvious error. Veracity of the memo deals with your first point, as was pointed out to you twice above. Your second question can only be answered by carefully reading this entry and several others, yet you wish to forgo neutrality for pure troll bait: "ARE THE MEMOS ACCURATE?"

Raggz: One need read the entire lengthy article, and even then these are not clearly and succinctly addressed. That is correct; one need read the article (such a bore). What were you expecting - an immediate binary answer?

Raggz: Where does the article succinctly state yes, no, or maybe? Oh dear. Please read WP:NPOV smb 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with "troll bait". I do not agree that Veracity of the memo adequately addresses this question, but I will read them a fourth time. I do not understand why neutrality (NPOV) would be compromised, this is not clear at all. Raggz 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why we open an encyclopedia (in my opinion), to get a summarized and footnoted review. The evidence should permit a trinary answer, (yes/no/maybe). We cannot of course answer if the memos are accurate, just if they are proven accurate or if this claim is unproven. Truth is certainly not important to the WP mission, (only because it is impractical) accuracy and NPOV certainly are part of it. Are you focused upon truth?Raggz 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I need more detail. What part of WP:NPOV? I just read it again. It preclude simple summarized answers? I missed that part. Raggz 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-read [[Downing Street memo#Veracity of the memo|]], it could be simplified to something a bit more complicated than Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed on DATE that the transcript published was in fact a copy of an official memo. He denied that the original memo was an accurate summary and did not describe which part or parts he believed were inaccurate. On 16 May, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that the memo's statement that intelligence was "being fixed" to support a decision to invade Iraq was "flat out wrong".

This (above) makes the veracity and significances points more clearly? Is there direct evidence for - or against omitted? If so, then we should include it. If not, why should we include irrelevancies? I suppose that we could have a section for indirect evidence, if you think indirect evidence is important, likely some Readers might as well. Raggz 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you kindly reorder your reply of 02:11, 24 September so my preceding comment is not cut apart. I will reply when you have done that. Thankyou. smb 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. There are several with that time stamp, and I am now confused. When I figure it out, I shall. I do regret the inadvertant dissection.Raggz 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that cut and paste managed to rearrange things adequately?

As for your "working backwards" comment incorrectly suggests an agenda. The Downing Street memos came up, so I got here by researching these. Is this what you meant? Raggz 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Nickhh resists any changes whatever, and opposes all of my edits regardless. smb resists any changes, other than to develop an improved summary (with Tony Blair's comments included.) There seems no probability that nickhh will consent to consensus with smb and I? Have we reached the point where smb and I should seek arbitration? Does this state where we are? Raggz 09:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're refering to, but the latest revert of your edits that I can see from Nickhh is entirely justified. The edit was misleading, unjustified and badly spelled. Skimming this TalkPage earlier, I didn't feel he was the one holding up progress. PR^talk 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

After consideration, if Raggz believes other editors are being unreasonable, then perhaps he/she would like to file a request for comment. smb 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved (perhaps neutral) observer. If Raggz makes a case that there is unreasonable behaviour going on here then I'll look at it. PR^talk 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Thankyou. smb 20:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Raggz, please stop mis-representing what I have said by claiming I am "resist[ing] any changes whatever" (this is not the first time of course - last time you claimed I had "expressed a strong preference for making the necessary edits", which was equally wrong). I have acknowledged for example that the intro "could probably be improved in terms of how it's written" and that it needs an additional citation for the reference to the "smoking gun memo". The only point I've ever made is that I'm not sure your suggestions for "improvements" are the right ones, in this article and several others. --Nickhh 08:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Conyers Hearing

I changed the language on the section regarding the unoffical hearing held by Rep. Conyers regarding the issue from: "The House Republican leadership, including then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, compelled Conyers to hold the hearing in the basement." To: "Because the hearing was unofficial, Conyers was not allowed to use an official hearing room and instead held in the hearing in the basement." The change was then reverted with the claim that: "neutrality does not mean to remove information". I have restored my language. It seems to me that the original language was designed to present the POV notion that Conyers' hearing was held in the basement due to an underhanded illegitimate trick by the Republican leadership. The truth of the matter, however, is that the "hearing" was denied a hearing room because it was unoffical and therefore could not use offical rooms, which isn't terribly underhanded. Since my edit was contested, I'm bringing the issue here. Lordjeff06 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for your "unofficial" claim? --Raphael1 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

well, the BBC calls it an "informal" hearing here [10], SFgate calls it "unoffical" here [11], the NYTimes makes sure to call it an "informational forum" and not a hearing here [12], the Washington Post refers to the hearing as "playing house" here [13], CommonDreams (an incredibly liberal site) makes the point that it was not an offical hearing here [14], the NYTimes call it unofficial here [15], and Randi Rhodes explains that it was unoffical and was in the basement because it wasn't a real hearing here [16]. The point that you want to make is that the Republicans refused to hold hearing on the issue and, because the minority was not able to call hearings themselves, they had to hold unofficial forums. Which might be a fair point, but at the same time, the reason the Whitewater hearings didn't really take off until there was a Republican majority for much of the same reason, so maybe it's just politics. Lordjeff06 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your long answer. Yes it is politics. I wonder whether one of your links should got to the article. --Raphael1 23:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Vio??

Much of this page is a identical to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/may2006/downing_street.html in both structure and content. I'm not going to tag it as a copyvio because it's not clear which came first, but if anyone is more knowledgable than me, it might be worth looking into.Lordjeff06 (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above linked external page [17] is easily identifiable as an old revision of this page. [18] The site owner has copied several other Wikipedia pages. [19] smb (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that it's easily identifiable as a previous version of the page. The thing is that the other pages the site owner copied are cited as coming from wikipedia; this one is not. The other thing, not to soapbox too much, is that this article seems to have an anti-Bush/anti-Blair tint that seems more appropriate to the external website than to wikipedia. On the other hand, it doesn't look as if the external website has ever posted anything it didn't copy from somewhere else. Lordjeff06 (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Revisited

I've moved the main discussion of "fixed" away from the Outline section and into the Criticism section, which already has a subsection regarding the topic. In fact the discussion in the Outline section was considerably more detailed than that in the Criticism section, and I think both sections are the better for the move. In doing so, I refactored the prose slightly for readability in the new context. Apologies if I've trodden on anyone's toes here, but it seems fairly clear the change drastically improves the readability of the Outline section, at least. If some competent editor could pronounce on this, I'd be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.186.62 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "minutes" probably inappropriate.

I notice the word minutes appears in at least several several places in the article, and it's important as it cuts to the core of the issue of Blair saying the "memo" is legitimate but inaccurate. Minutes are an official record of an event, usually containing only the verbatim statements of those present. Any additional narrative is kept to that necessary for context and physical goings on that aren't conveyed by the words themselves. Such as "President Bush returns from lunch,meeting begins". This is obviously not the case with these documents, which contain numerous subjective additional comments by the author, of his personal view or take on what their statements meant. I think "minutes" is misleading as it implies these are the official recordings of this, not the personal views of a person who was there. Batvette (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downing Street memo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Downing Street memo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/07/national/w152752D27.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/47330.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429094859/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece to http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=951
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46412.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sundayherald.com/44911
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429094859/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece to http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=951
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429094859/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece to http://www.michaelsmithwriter.com/memos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Downing Street memo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2005%2F06%2F07%2Fnational%2Fw152752D27.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221073216/http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=951 to http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=951

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)