Remember Bill Burkett's account of how he got his sleazy little paws on the phony-baloney Bush National Guard documents?  He claimed that he was given the documents from a still-unnamed source at a secret meeting, documents which were supposed to have been originally from Jerry Killian's file, but that he took the documents, made photocopies of them, and then destroyed the originals.  Well, Michael Smith has gone and done a Bill Burkett.  Smith claims to have obtained the eight highly-secret memos from a source whose identity, understandably, he had to protect.  So, a-la-Bill Burkett, not only did Smith "copy" the documents, he entirely re-typed the documents, and then destroyed the originals to further hide the identity of the source.

Thus, we are left only with Smith's word that the memos he has produced--admittedly his own physical creation--are actually true and correct representations of the "original" memos he claims to have obtained from some source inside the British government.  We'll never know.  According to the AP, copies of the memos were shown to "a senior British official" who "said their content appeared authentic."  Thus, the current maddening hoo-hah emanating from every frothing-mouth Democrat on Capital Hill--holding make-believe "hearings" because they have no authority to call their own real hearings--is based entirely upon a series of "memos," admittedly (at least) typed by "journalist" Michael Smith, allegedly verified by the AP through an unnamed "senior" British official who says the contents of the pages typed by Michael Smith "appeared authentic."  Is that good enough for you?  It shouldn't be. 

The so-called Downing Street memos (so-named for the location of Tony Blair's offices and residence) will never be anything more than unconfirmed and unconfirmable speculation.  Not only is the substance of their content a matter of speculation, but their authenticity is utterly impossible to verify.  Smith claims that his source, which must be someone in the interior confidential ranks of Downing Street, demanded anonymity.  No wonder.  Both the alleged source of Smith's alleged memos, and the "senior official" referred to by the AP, are likely subject to what is known under British law and the Official Secrets Act.  The disclosure of information covered by the Official Secrets Act is punishable by imprisonment of as much as two years, as well as a hefty fine.  It is likely that the so-called "Downing Street Memos," which, if real, appear to actually be minutes of meetings of various government officials relating to pre-Iraq War intelligence evaluations, are covered by the Act.  Both the source and the "verifier" noted by AP have committed crimes under British law, and could spend several years in prison for their violations.

We will never be able to know with any certainty if these memos are authentic, or simply the creation of Michael Smith's or some other journalists vivid and twisted imagination.  At best, if legitimate, they are recreations--how accurate, again, we'll never know--of copies of minutes of meetings not involving President Bush, but rank with second, third and fourth hand speculation of the pre-war calculations believed to be under way by officials and the leader of another government, not quoted or relied upon in the memos, brought to light and "verified" by officials of the British government who, if we are to believe the memos are authentic, must be accepted to be criminals under British law, and turncoats to their oaths of office. 

Now, violating one's oath of office, and allegiance to one's government and country has become something of a political sport in this country during recent history.  Such disloyalty and infidelity to one's promises, oaths and allegiances is hailed as brave and courageous acts by the Left and the Olde Media.  But does it really make the information related in the "memos" more or less credible?  Do we take Michael Smith's word for their authenticity, and for the fidelity with which he made his "copies," after his admission that he destroyed the originals? 

Do we take the word of the person who gave the memos to Smith that they are authentic, when in doing so that person hides in the shadows and commits criminal, and perhaps treasonous acts under British law?  Do we take the word of the person who allegedly verified for the AP that the content of the "copied" memos "appeared authentic," when that person as well is engaged in the commission of a crime under British law?  Do we accept as fact the second, third and fourth hand speculations of unnamed and unknown persons whose alleged statements are embodied by the minutes made by some secretary of meetings between officials and employees of another government, who may have been in no position to know about which they speak? 

And do we accept on faith--a task in-and-of-itself almost too mind-boggling to believe the Left has accomplished--the legitimacy of the "information" presented in the memos, when it is utterly impossible to assess the credibility, reliability, honesty, and ability to know, of whomever is responsible for creating and supplying the memos? 

I think, perhaps, Dan Rather will.  But, somehow, that doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence.