Yesterday I said "DSM has gained such prominence that the hacks have emerged bearing their talking points. A battle to bury DSM has begun in earnest, and it is fueled largely by outright lies at the moment." After Bush's press conference, however, this statement needs updating. Republicans introduced their TPs several days ago; they involve lots of lying/half-truths about DSM; and we saw some of them at the Ppc. Curiously, Bush trod them into the dust in his blunderful and jittery statement. That will make it hard to resurrect the TPs, as I discuss below the fold (with a dissection of the press conference).
Here is the new list of three media outlets to contact. Please write, call, or fax all three today (EVEN IF you've done so before), and check back tomorrow for the next installment:
(A) National Public Radio, Ombudsman Jeff Dvorkin. email: ombudsman@npr.org phone: 202-513-2000 fax: 202-513-3329
The other two media contacts are listed below the fold.
(B) Philadelphia Inquirer, Deputy Managing Editor/News Carl Lavin. email: clavin@phillynews.com phone: 215-854-4562
OR National News Editor Ned Warwick. email: nwarwick@phillynews.com
(C) ABC World News Tonight. email: PeterJennings@abcnews.com phone: 212-456-4040 fax: 212-456-2795
Note: We made ABC News a target last week, without any measurable impact so far. Last night they gave no attention to the discussion of DSM at the Presidential press conference. On-line they have an AP report by Jennifer Loven with a brief, and grossly inaccurate, mention of DSM. As for NPR, last night Don Gagne gave a brief but good dissection of the responses of Bush and Blair, saying it was just the same old thing they've been saying. This may be the first significant mention of DSM on NPR, and they certainly need to give listeners far more detail (ask that Gagne do a full story to clarify what it is about DSM that the Bush/Blair statements did not respond to).
For those who are new participants, at the end of this diary you'll find a lengthy section with introductory materials and advice about how to help in this media campaign.
The Press Conference dissected
I fancy that yesterday's press conference will come to be considered one of Bush's greatest PR disasters. He bungled the DSM question in a way that I think will come back to haunt him. The recently developed talking-points were never great, but they are going to be much less use now in getting him clear of this scandal. For one thing, he failed to challenge the credibility of DSM--at least not in a way comprehensible to the general public. Thus hereafter it will be very difficult for his cheerleaders to argue that DSM is forged, or 4th hand, or incompetently drafted. The first, of course, is what freepers would expect to be able to play with; they must've been miffed to see Bush smash up their game by treating it seriously.
Worse yet, Bush made an unforced error that will help the truth brigade to wrap this scandal around his shoulders. He made a statement so egregiously at odds with the entire tenor of DSM, and with many of its specific statements, and so implausible on the face of it, that it focuses attention almost inevitably upon Bush's credibility. It should suck the air out of the remaining talking-points pretty effectively, and concentrate attention on how Bush can explain his implausible statement. Worse still, in this statement Bush claimed to have worked for what many Americans now yearn for--a peaceful solution. Peacemaking is Bush's weakest suit, and it has been since the first mutterings about an Iraq war. Bush now has made his weakest suit the focus of what is likely to become a liar-liar-pants-on-fire story in the news media. At least, we need to ensure that the story turns in that direction.
It should not be that difficult to do. Bush stated, "And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth. My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do." Nothing could be farther from the truth, yes indeed. There is virtually nothing in DSM that has to do with a genuine peace effort (the UN route was hoped to provide a pretext for war), and certainly nothing in any of the descriptions in DSM of the Bush administration's planning that would show he had any interest in peace--much less that he had discussed a peaceful solution (to what, exactly? non-existent WMDs?) with Blair. Bush's weird statement "My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully," tries to persuade us that he had discussed nothing but peaceful means with Blair--which is frankly laughable. It is out of character for Bush; it is contradicted by plenty of other evidence; DSM shows that Bush already had fairly developed war plans that the British were pouring over; and there had been "spikes of activity" that the British knew about and were taking part in. What is worse, the British talk about the need, and the difficulty, of persuading the Bush administration to pursue the UN route. Where in all this is there any evidence whatever that Bush talked with Blair about "how to do this peacefully"?
Here is the full text of that part of the press conference, with my comments in brackets:
Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002
says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam
through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could
both of you respond?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts
were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.
[Straw man. Blair immediately repackages what the minutes say ("fixed around"), omits the most awkward part (the intelligence), and pretends that DSM says the facts (alone) were being fixed or fabricated. Whether or not any facts or intelligence was being fabricated, that is not the issue. The issue is whether they were being manipulated or cherry-picked to buttress the Bush administration's case for overthrowing Saddam. Curiously, Blair does not explain why he allowed the minutes to stand as submitted to him by Rycroft, if they contained a statement that he now says was blatantly false.]
And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me.
[Here Blair is blurring chronology. "At that time" means "in the weeks and months after DSM". Since DSM does not discuss negotiations that occurred subsequent to itself, it is irrelevant that Blair knows more about them than, presumably, Rycroft.]
And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law.
[But that was not the reason why Blair went to the UN. Instead, he wanted to give Saddam a chance to refuse to comply with a UN resolution, so that this would create the context in which people would support regime change. As DSM says, "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors...If the political context were right, people would support regime change. This is one of the Republican talking points, as we saw on the Monday DSM debate on MSNBC Connected: `Pay no attention to DSM because it says the US/NSC does not want to go to the UN, but look, we did go. So DSM is wholly unreliable.' What this TP suppresses is the fact that DSM describes the Brits as intent on getting their way about using the UN to provide a pretext for war. For example, DSM says the British Defense Secretary "cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush."]
He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.
[False, though often repeated by Bush and Blair. Hussein did cooperate with weapons inspectors, who were allowed to visit every site that the Bush administration identified as suspect. After they found nothing, Bush declared himself dissatisfied and forced their withdrawal from Iraq by beginning the war.]
But all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way
of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to
do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam
Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted.
[Obviously this is contradicted by DSM: "C (Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD... (the Foreign Secretary said) It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."]
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of
the memo,
[Evidently this is Bush's way of trying to suggest that the text we have is at three or four removes from actual knowledge, that Rycroft was an ignorant twerp. It has been one of the talking-points for Republicans. I doubt that anybody not familiar with their TPs would be able to draw any inferences whatever from this convoluted statement beyond the obvious one, that Bush is nervous and doesn't know how to handle this question.]
particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.)
[Another talking point, that the leak of DSM was a `smear' of Blair. How an authentic document can be considered a `smear' is beyond me. This is a splendid exposition of Bush's attitude toward government secrecy--it keeps the people from blaming us for what we are doing. Bush's non-sequitur seems to be a veiled warning to the press not to mess with him over DSM, because he's the kind of politician who takes names.]
And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.
[Bush uses the truth in his first sentence, to set up the lie in the second. Somebody did say that, as I quote above; Bush does not want to talk about who precisely that is, because that would acknowledge that high-ranking officials were stating this. Instead, he implies that DSM really is not worth reading, at least not carefully.]
My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do.
[There is no evidence in DSM, nothing at all, that would indicate that Bush ever discussed `doing this peacefully.' (what? overthrowing Hussein? taking away his non-existent WMDs? Bush has good reasons to avoid stating what `this' is) DSM is a discussion of how to fight a war against Hussein, how to get it started, and how to justify it to the world. Bush does not quite state, though he implies, that his conversation (singular?) with Blair until July 2002 consisted only of talk about a peaceful solution. The idea is preposterous on the face of it.]
And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations.
[Bush is headed toward the same TP as Blair used (`DSM got it all wrong, look we did go the UN route'). But Bush decides he wants to look like he was in charge of making this decision, so he cuts Blair out as an afterthought. This merely underlines the fact that it was the British who talk in DSM of urging a reluctant Bush administration to go to the UN: "But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN."]
And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult. The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have -- and it's the last option I know my friend had, as well.
[The mind boggles. When has Bush ever appeared at any funeral for a dead soldier? He is using the grief of bereaved families to cloak his lie in a mantle of sincerity. DSM shows that he did not make war the last option, as my quotation above demonstrates.]
And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully,
take a -- put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks,
and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously.
He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in
power.
[This does not related directly to DSM, so I will simply note that the world was not united in attacking Iraq. Nor did Hussein ignore UN Res. 1441, so it is unclear what decision Hussein made. Just before the war Bush stated that Hussein had decided the question of whether the US would invade Iraq. A chilling idea, that foreign dictators now get to decide whether the US goes to war. Bush knew long before DSM that the world would be better off with Hussein gone; if that was his reason for invading Iraq, then why did he lie about his plans to the nation?]
Other media news and a diary you should have read
The press conference has forever blown the lid off the DSM story. It will help if we can cultivate the perspective that Bush was flagrantly dishonest in saying that he discussed only a peaceful resolution with Blair before July 2002. But anyhow the pressure has been building on the MSM to treat this story seriously, and cracks in the news blackout have appeared over the last several days. The MSM was primed to run with the DSM story once it became hot news, and yesterday it was finally and undeniably hot. CBS Evening News obliged us (you should write them again and thank them for the coverage: evening@cbsnews.com). I haven't seen their coverage of the story, but reportedly it was a solid story. There was also a brief mention on NBC, of no great insight.
Both those clips, as well as past and future DSM clips, are going to be available at http://www.dembloggers.com/section/downingstreetmemo My thanks to Mark Williams for offering to do that to help us publicize this campaign.
On PBS NewsHour there was something of a fiasco as Gwen Ifill interviewed Blair:
GWEN IFILL: I have to ask you about something which is finally, belatedly, getting some attention here, and got a great deal of attention in Britain and that's the so-called "Downing Street Memo," which surfaced as a memo that was very critical of the Iraq War. In fact, I'll read part of it, where it says that Bush had made up his mind to take military action even if the timing was not yet decided but the case was thin, that is, the case for war in Iraq, which of course you were one of the president's staunchest supporters on this. What do you make of that memo? Did you know about it?
Did Blair know about the minutes from his own damn meeting??! I wonder whose fault it might be, Gwen, that DSM is "finally, belatedly, getting some attention here"? She didn't exactly strain herself quoting lengthy passages, now that she's gotten around to discussing it. Nor did she bother to press Blair for answers about anything that mattered. He, predictably, babbled on about how the US and UK went to the UN; and it was hard work. Then Ifill just traipsed on to another subject, none the wiser about what if anything DSM signifies. I suppose it's a victory to get DSM mentioned on PBS, if it opens the floodgates. If on the other hand they think they've now appeased those who are demanding coverage, they'll be rather disappointed. Ifill gave the distinct impression that she'd done all of ten minutes' research on this topic.
ABC had no story at all last evening. On-line, they have an AP story by Jennifer Loven that briefly mentions DSM. She bungles the job of explaining the document : a "memo to the prime minister from a top British intelligence official suggesting that the U.S. had bent intelligence to justify a decision to invade Iraq and sought British cooperation in doing so." This is bad enough that you might just want to complain to AP immediately that they need to give the public a complete and accurate picture of DSM (info@ap.org). It is a document that summarizes what the highest intelligence official said in a meeting with the prime minister!There is no reason under the sun why this reporter could not have quoted the document, or at least paraphrased it correctly. Cooperation in what--bending intelligence? Where does that appear in DSM? Loven doesn't even quote Bush's statement accurately.
The WaPo published another story yesterday on DSM, this time by Jefferson Morley, The Downing Street Memo Won't Die. The title indicates the contents; it is very good press indeed for our side, and it makes among other things the connection between the Bolton-bashes-Bursani story and DSM (on which see yesterday's Awaken the MSM diary). I learned about this article from MH in PA's diary.
Another diary that you should have read last night was by My Philosophy, who argues that we must seize this moment in the collapse of Bush's popularity to obliterate completely the perverse picture of the Iraq war that he's foisted on the nation. DSM is a tool for writing a new and truthful narrative about why and how we went to war, as the first step in revising what many people think they know about the conflict and where we are headed.
Volunteers needed
We're seeking volunteers for (a) debunking and fact-checking, and (b) tracking the impact of the `Awaken the MSM' campaign.
(a) The website downingstreetmemo.com is growing, along with the workload. We're seeking to discredit the more absurd claims that have been made about DSM, and with them, those who make such claims. We also want to provide a Media Matters style expose of any nonsense about DSM that the MSM has promulgated or permitted itself to be used to promote. If you come across examples of either, would you please post them on one of these diaries with the subject line `Debunked' (for ridiculous claims made by Bush cheerleaders) or `Exposed' (for ridiculous claims printed or broadcast without correction by MSM). We'll collect the info you post and store it up; some of it will get posted on the website.
(b) I'm also looking for any help I can get keeping an eye on the various media outlets we've already targeted. We need to know whether they have published or broadcast any stories on DSM after we contacted them. I'd like each volunteer to track one of the outlets on this list on a fairly regular basis. Those with an asterisk have had at least one story mentioning DSM since we contacted them: *Associated Press; *C-Span; *CBS Evening News; CBS 60 Minutes; ABC World News; ABC Nightline; *NBC Nightly News; *PBS NewsHour; Newsweek; Baltimore Sun; Chicago Tribune; Toledo Blade, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, *Washington Post. Any takers?
I mentioned this yesterday, but the diary did not stick around for long so many may not have noted this Gerald Ford moment in Ken Mehlman's comments on Meet The Press: "I would also, though, disagree, as I said a moment ago, with the notion that Iraq was somehow less of a threat. Iran and North Korea hadn't invaded their neighbors." I can think of some vets of the Korean War who will be puzzled to hear that.
Everything hereafter is repeated from previous diaries for the benefit of first-time participants.
ORIENTATION FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS
This series of diaries aims to lift the virtual news blackout in the US on the Downing Street Minutes. We're trying to unite the strength of DSM coalitions for a targeted campaign. For a full month many of us here at dKos as well as other web-based activists (such as FAIR, MoveOn, and the Big Brass Alliance of bloggers) have been appealing for greater coverage of DSM by the news media, but with only limited success. We will need to focus, coordinate, and sustain our efforts if we wish to get their attention.
Therefore every weekday this month I will post a diary listing three news outlets. Please email or call all three on that day requesting politely that they report on DSM. The first diary in this series gives a lengthier discussion of this media campaign and its background. I also talked there about how we should treat allegations that this is stale news that the public has no interest in. Such allegations are misguided if not tendentious.
My main point was that too often our attempts to compel the news media to report on DSM have been scatter-shot. Generally we've been contacting virtually every media outlet, rather than focusing our effort. When we have focused on an individual news outlet, such as the Washington Post, results have been impressive. So it's high time that we begin an organized, focused, and sustained campaign on the media. I'm confident that we can still force news outlets to pay attention if we inundate them, one by one, with letters and calls requesting that they report on this important story.
This media campaign
This campaign will try to wake up various news outlets to the realization that very many people want and expect them to report on the Downing Street Memo. Every day it will concentrate on just three targets, and if any targeted news outlets don't respond with serious coverage, it will revisit them several days later. There will be a new trio of media contacts posted every weekday. The list will be diaried here around 8 AM EST, and will be crossposted at other sites. The surest place to find it will be at www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html.
I welcome other activist groups and blogs that wish to collaborate on this campaign, and I urge all who are in a position to do so to publicize it as best they can--especially by posting the daily lists at their own sites or by linking to the updated list. These diaries will be a useful place to share information about coordinating our efforts. Several bloggers have already given me considerable help to get this off the ground, so I'd like to know how I can help others now with their efforts.
Advice on writing a letter to the media
Please write your own letter, rather than sending a form letter. Individualized letters have much more impact. You can easily re-use that letter again and again once you've composed it, and it need not be long or detailed since each target will be receiving dozens or hundreds of such letters that day (they'll soon figure out what the DSM is all about). The most important thing will be to maximize numbers, and to ensure that every target receives an equally large number of letters. Phone calls typically make a bigger impression than an email.
Angry, condescending, hyperbolic, or overblown letters are likely to carry much less weight than polite, precise, succinct ones. Try to appeal to the better nature of the journalist you contact (put yourself in his/her shoes). You might want to state briefly why you believe the leaked document is significant for democracy in the US, or mention Rep. Conyers' letter to President Bush seeking clarification regarding DSM. If you are at a loss about what to say about the significance of DSM, you're welcome to plunder bits of this old diary on what we learn from the Downing Street Minutes.
You might also think of including links to one or two of the following articles concerning the leaked minutes. But do not simply paste these articles into your letter:
Text of the Downing Street Memo:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
London Time article on "spikes of activity" against Iraq in summer of 2002:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html
Knight Ridder article by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott (5/5):
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.html
Chicago Tribune article by Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva (5/17):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505170052may17,1,5984426.story
NY Times article by Douglas Jehl (5/20):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?ex=1117684800&en=c7e3b449bae71b66&
ei=5070&oref=login
Please email the letter separately to each of the day's three contacts. Do not CC all addressees in one email--that's the kind of thing you'd expect from right-wing swarms. And most importantly, come back the next day to send out three more letters. If you miss a diary at DailyKos, the same list will be up all day at www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html.
If you missed them, yesterday's trio of targets were:
(A) Washington Post Ombudsman, Michael Getler. email: ombudsman@washpost.com phone: 202-334-7582 fax: 202-334-5269
(B) USA Today Managing Editor of News, Carol Stevens. phone: 800-872-0001 or 703-854-3400 fax: 703-854-2165 email: editor@usatoday.com
(C) Toledo Blade Ombudsman, Jack Lessenberry. email: omblade@aol.com phone: 419-724-6200