I knew sooner or later I'd have to write this. A comment was posted recently on dKos that addressed a perceived lack of coordination between DowningStreetMemo.com--for which I've been acting as spokesperson--and AfterDowningStreet.org, which is the product of much work by John Bonifaz and the coalition he has assembled. In order to clarify, allow me to explain the relationship between our two sites and how it developed.
John initially contacted us as a potential home for the content you now see at AfterDowningStreet.org. John and I spoke on two occasions last week (Wed 5/25, and again on Thur 5/26), and here is where I have to offer up a huge mea culpa.
See, I hadn't read his memo to Congressman Conyers very closely before getting on the phone, and in fact didn't realize that the very title of it was, "RE: the President's Impeachable Offenses." We talked mostly about what needed to be done to move the issue forward, and to be honest I was rather caught up in the moment and not really thinking about what John's request entailed. I came away thinking we would simply put up a link to his Conyers letter and that would be that. John, on the other hand, thought he'd solved his web site problem and was moving on to other things.
Cut to the following evening when John was being interviewed by RawStory.com, and was going to tell them to visit DowningStreetMemo.com . I had by now read his letter to Conyers, and arrived at the conclusion that the "impeachment" term was just too volatile for the purpose of DSM.com. So, I called John back and told him that while we--the people behind DSM.com--supported what he was doing, we wouldn't be able to put a link up on the site. He was in fact on the phone with Raw Story when I called and was none too pleased to have to tell them that they'd have to wait for a web address to link to his letter and other material.
At this point, you're probably saying, no shit, I'd be pissed too. What the hell were you thinking? And you'd have every right to feel that way. I can tell you it's not an easy thing for me to recall my utter lameness, but I hope you'll now give me the chance to explain the decision I made .
First, let me say that John and I were of like mind in our desire for a Resolution of Inquiry to be introduced on the House floor. We both want to see Congress bring the administration to account. But the three individuals who initially developed DowningStreetMemo.com made what I think was a wise decision in avoiding overtly partisan or inflammatory language and specifically the word "impeach."
John pointed out that a Resolution of Inquiry's purpose in this case would be to find out if impeachable offenses had been committed, so there was really no getting around the term from an official standpoint. I agreed, but tried to convey that for our (DSM.com's) purposes, the word was radioactive and would potentially turn off the very people we were trying to reach--moderates, even Republicans, who were inquisitive enough to find out what the Downing Street Memo was all about by visiting our site.
John was understandably frustrated, mostly over having to now scramble to establish a separate presence on the web, but to his credit he never took it out on me personally. Here was a man who has sued the government on behalf of military families, written a book about it, and assembled a formidable coalition of brand-name organizations. He probably thought he was dealing with someone who had their shit together a little more than I did.
I am not an activist, and have zero experience in the political arena. I am a corporate communications manager who came home from a business trip one day to find his wife and two other Kossacks had created a terrific web site that suddenly needed a public point of contact. I offered to fill the hole. Since that time--an eternity of 10 days--I've been interviewed on the local TV news and Raw Story and am working now with a journalist at Foxnews.com. I'm learning as I go, but I remain convinced that the approach taken by our site is the right one for the purpose we have set for ourselves, namely to inform people so they can make up their own mind, and then provide them with a few easy ways to take action. The facts support our cause, so we think reasonable people will arrive at the "right" conclusion if given the opportunity. As for the unreasonable ones, well we weren't going to reach them anyway (you should see some of the email we've received).
I realize there are some in the dKos community who would question our bias toward a softer touch. But as I told John, this issue needs to be pushed from multiple angles. Democrats and progressives need to be mobilized, and sounding a call for impeachment may be just the ticket for that. But for this issue to get anywhere near a Congressional inquiry we're going to need a groundswell of support from across the political spectrum, and for that a whole lot of people first need to find out what the "Downing Street Memo" is. We support AfterDowningStreet.org--we're just fishing a little farther upstream.