Response to Conyers post pulled off of KOS

In my post, I referenced this interview with Michael Smith (posted on DailyKOS and at one time on DowningStreetMemo.com. The interview confirms alot of the information I've been posting here.

Here is Conyers quote, as it appears that KOS removed alot of this.

The Facts (4.00 / 8)

If your concern is the semantics of the single line "facts fixed around the policy," then let me point you to the other seven documents leaked to the public in connection with the first Downing Street Minutes. There is no question that Britain's top defense and intelligence officials were convinced that the President of the United States was determined to invade Iraq at any cost. All eight documents have been verified as accurate and authentic by both British and American sources.

And if your concern is the fact that the documents actually delivered to the public were transcriptions of the originals, please let me direct you to this insightful interview journalist Michael Smith gave with Raw Story in early June. Smith was forced through some typewriter acrobatics in order to protect his source from the British Official Secrets Act. The original documents still exist. The transcriptions are completely accurate.

The argument here should not be with the people asking the questions, it should be with the Administration that refuses to answer

by Congressman John Conyers on Fri Jul 8th, 2005 at 16:14:24 PDT.

No need to go over alot of this. Most of what's being discussed here has already been posted.

However, my key point is that Conyers inaccurately referred to the May 1, 2005 memo as "the first". We've established quite easily (even admitted in the Michael Smith interview) that the first leaked memos were on September 18, 2004 in the Daily Telegraph. This directly contradicts Conyers first statement, right off the bat.

I noticed alot of other contradictions. Michael Smith says he does not have the originals - he gave them back to the government. He also states that he destroyed the photocopies he had. How can Conyers assert that the original documents still exist when they aren't in his hands or Smith's?

After reading this blog, the Michael Smith interview and thinking objectively, I'd think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that John Conyers wouldn't know "a fact" if it sat on his face.

If you want any background, or further info, you can still read my original posts (including the Rycroft email) in my blog.