Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Have the MSM learned NOTHING from the Rather debacle? At the very least, trying to pass off re-typed copies as "documents" is bad journalism. At its most sinister interpretation, it's fraudulent. The reporter involved (British "reporter" Michael Smith) should, at a minimum, lose his job.
Captain's Quarters has more on the story.
You know, this reminds me of a time in my youth, when the stories that kept coming out about government seemed more and more unbelievable. Then, later, confirmation would appear, that made situations seem more bizarre than anything conspiracy theorists could dream up. For a time, my husband and I would jokingly say, in response to any odd event, "The CIA is behind that". We got a little spooked when our kidding around was confirmed by later documentation.
Now, I would be more suspicious about that "documentation". I would question whether it was fabricated to "confirm" liberal suspicions of conservative actions.
Wow - I better lay down. My head is starting to spin. Not unlike I'm sure the news media may do later today with this story.