By Nelson Guyther
June 26, 2005
Why would a man loyal to Tony Blair sit idly by as a newspaper printed an inaccurate fraudulent copy of a memo that he had authored?
Why would Matthew Rycroft let this story go unchallenged when by all accounts it was doing severe damage to his parties chances in the British election?
If you wrote a letter to the editor of your local paper and they changed the wording, especially if in doing so the letter they printed was damaging to you or your interests, I'm pretty sure you would complain.
Take that outrage and multiply it a thousand times and you would have the Downing Street Memo.
Yet Matthew Rycroft has been silent!
How simple would it be for him to come out and say that the memo printed in the Times of London was tampered with and was not an accurate word for word transcription of the original.
If the Downing Street Memo was fake, Matthew Rycroft, its author, would be motivated, and indeed obligated, to repudiate them publicly.
That my ditto head friend is a tacit admission of guilt.
The Times of London has been very clear and very up front about their handling of the memo. After receiving the memo, they photocopied it so as not to be in possession of top secret British government property. Then they RETURNED THE ORIGINALS, not as you erroneously claim had them destroyed. A secretary then transcribe the memo so the PHOTOCOPIES COULD BE DESTROYED because the photocopies could be used to reveal the identity of their source. This is by the way, one more reason why no one involved can deny the memo's authenticity; THE ORIGINAL IS STILL OUT THERE.
The truth is there for anyone to see, unless of course you have your eyes closed.
One final point - for someone who claims the memo DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING, you seem awfully upset that they exist.
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.