Another "Fake but Accurate" Memo

The supposedly leaked "secret" Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

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.

Destroy the originals? How can a copied (typed) original be seen as "authentic" on what Blair and Bush had to say about the war? Does destroying the orginal undermine the whole concept on the authenticity of the source? As far as anybody is concerned, this is nothing more than another "fake but accurate" memo when anybody can type up a memo.