Kos Success Story: www.downingstreetmemo.com

Okay folks I'm not here to pimp a webpage, I'm hear to tell you how this site helped myself and 2 other Kossaks spread some valuable news.

myself, Georgia10 and Highacidity created a great webpage in 2 days with great content and a clear message ( I Hope)

As Armando noted Paul Krugman wrote an article and linked to our site.....WOW (didn't think that would happen:)

The Result:  53 000 visits today, 82 000 Views and many more to come.  Why?

The article is the NYT most e-mailed story in the last 7 days.

UPDATEConyers is getting interviewed by CNN regarding the Downing Street Minutes http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/16/163943/717 More below the jump

We're exploring many options and working hard on the site and there is more to come.

To be honest if everything stopped today I'd be happy that some 50 000 people might have read those minutes for the first time because of our site.

Apian has been doind a great job at getting the word out also and all credit to him/her.

Here are the current stats as of 4:12pm eastern

Total 63,080    
   Average Per Day 2,649    
   Average Visit Length 1:53    
   Last Hour 4,465    
   Today 52,483    
   This Week 10,597    

  PAGE VIEWS

   Total 108,250    
   Average Per Day 6,066    
   Average Per Visit 2.3    
   Last Hour 7,050    
   Today 83,987    
   This Week 24,263

Take a look if you haven't seen it everyone can improve constant feedback is needed:)

•  The Dailykos has helped me

  have a outlet for my feelings on many issues and beyond that it has also given me a way to do things like that webpage and for that I have to say that dailykos is the best site on the web.....the right wing is right to fear us:)

  by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:15:05 PM PDT

  •  It's an awesome site

    I emailed it to my rep because I noticed he hadn't signed Conyers' letter.

    Thanks for all your hard work!

    And kudos on the Krugman plug!

    by LawStudent on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:20:25 PM PDT

    •  I have no idea how Krugman

      Found the site but I do believe that he must have thought it was valuable since he linked to it.....that in itself may be the biggest compliment we have recieved.

      by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:22:21 PM PDT

      •  He reads Daily Kos

        That's how.

        Betcha anything.

        by LawStudent on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:27:20 PM PDT

        •  And here's the proof (sort of)

          Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled, as 83% of journalists reported the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news-gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."

          The survey also found that journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%.

          New Survey Finds Huge Gap Between Press and Public on Many Issues

          by LawStudent on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:52:22 PM PDT

        •  I read Krugman on line

          early this morning and the link was directed to a diary at Kos... the link has been changed since then to link to your site...

          Can't prove it but memory says that this AM the link was to Kos.  

          by daveriegel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:25:51 PM PDT

          •  I knew it! ;-)

            by LawStudent on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:33:22 PM PDT

      •  Congratulations to you all,

        and thank you.

        by jane 2000 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:48:50 PM PDT

  •  Great work.

    Thanks to you all for your efforts to get the information out.

    by boadicea on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:20:36 PM PDT

  •  Great Work

    on the site. It looks great and I'm happy to hear that it has become so successful.
    

    On a related note I have posted the video of Rep. John Conyer's on CNN. His appearance lasted about a minute BUT the good news is that CNN has picked up on this story.
    

    Video Link
    

    by UL on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:49:22 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for posting that...

      ... I don't have cable so I really depend on hearing about things like this on dKos and elsewhere, then I can watch them online.

      by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:51:21 PM PDT

  •  Other Downing Street Documents

    You folks did a great job in just two days.  Well done!

    There were a few other related documents published with this memo.  Any chance you'll be able to get those up on your site as well?  

    I think it's important that people get the idea that this is more than a three page write-up of a meeting.  Shrubco can shrug off one memo but if we start throwing those other documents at them it'll be tougher to pass off as no big deal right?

    by Alegre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:07:55 PM PDT

  •  A suggestion

    Wonderful job! May I add a suggestion?

    You could add a page with quotes from Bush, Rice and other administration officials expounding on the WMD threat during the lead-up to the war. Or saying that they were trying every avenue of diplomacy  - anything that is contradicted by the memo. Have the date of the quotes clearly highlighted. You could put that sentence from the memo about  the thin case for WMDs on top of the page ( date of the memo emphasized). The administration lied. People need to see it clearly laid out. Here is what they knew, when they knew it and here is what they told us.

    by Coco Nut on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:41:45 PM PDT

  •  hi Mike

    Here's a good article I thought I'd bring to your attention. The New York Review of Books "will be the first American print publication" to publish the entire memo in their next issue.

    I couldn't find a contact link or addy on your page...

    by catnip on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:31:28 PM PDT

    •  Catnip..

      ... thank you for the link. Have you read the analysis yet? The author has posted it at tomdispatch.com

      I am looking forward to that issue.

      by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:39:21 PM PDT

      •  not yet...thanks n/t

        by catnip on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:48:57 PM PDT

•  Thanks for your great work...

  ... and please continue it!

  :)

  by rukkus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

•  Before DailyKos...

  ... I was a 98-pound weakling Independent/Liberal, wondering what to do to get the Big Right-Wing Bullies to stop kicking sand onto most of the people on the beach. But now, with the dKos Political-Muscle Development Program, I have found my voice and an avenue for expressing my opinions on how my nation is governed. And started deflecting that sand back onto the Thugs.

  Your results may vary...

  by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:21:22 PM PDT

  •  Atlas

    Ha ha! The Atlas Method! Might have to rename it the Krugman Method.

    by DavidNYC on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

  •  Dynamic Tension at it's best...

    Your analogy is incredibly accurate...

    I don't care if you are SKINNY or FAT - whether you are in your teens, twenties, forties or older.  Do you want glowing health? Do you want powerful STRENGTH that will make the others "take a back seat" whenever it comes to showing what a REAL PERSON can do? Well, my friend, I will show you how my complete revolutionary "DYNAMIC-TENSION®" course can quickly help you BE THAT KIND OF PERSON!

    dynamic tension... can't think of a better way to describe what we do.

    by SteveK on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:04:44 PM PDT

    •  Oh God...

      ... both of you!

      Are we all old enough to remember those ads at the back of the comic book?

      Thanks for finding that copy!

      by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:10:22 PM PDT

    •  Hey, you know what?

      Dynamic Tension. That sounds like a good name for an organization.

      by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:21:40 PM PDT

•  Put simply

  You guys rock. I've personally directed 10 people to downingstreetmemo.com just over the weekend. We will be heard, damnit!

  by jamfan on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:23:28 PM PDT

•  Hadn't seen this before

  but love the banner, put it up on my blog, and have linked to the DoningStreetMemo site. I shall also add that to my links section. Thanks.

  http://phillybits.blogspot.com/2005/05/downing-street-minutes.html

  by Stand Strong on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:24:30 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for that:)

    Link all you can....as long as people keep spreading this the more educated people become the better.

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

    •  Also thats why

      I would most an update like this.

      all the recommends and comments build a better website:)

      by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:35:36 PM PDT

  •  checked out your blog

    very nice.  thanks for the link, too!

    by georgia10 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:34:03 PM PDT

•  color suggestion - add green or blue

  or replace the red with green or blue. (personal aversion to the red-white-black color combination.) great site!

  by Errol on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:25:16 PM PDT

•  Supplemental timeline/tactic diary?

  I was really hoping the creators of downingstreetmemo.com would write a diary like this. You guys really did something amazing -- and (not to take away the hard work you guys did) I have to believe that a large part of the success of the project was simply the immediacy of the site's registration and the easy to remember URL. Thank God, because that's something we can all do.

  Now, did you contact Krugman alerting him to the site's existence? Did you contact the NYT or organize any drives to get the site publicized? I'm pretty sure someone did on dKos. Do you know how that was organized? Basically, I'm asking you for a psuedo-timeline of events and actions you guys took. That may be a pain in the ass to supply but it would be really helpful to provide a diary in a week or so detailing what you did to create and push a successful media blitzing strategy -- since you WERE successful and SO QUICKLY.

  Any tactical hints you could provide along those lines would be fantastically useful for dKos at large.

  by Addison on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:28:03 PM PDT

  •  Georgia10 had a diary

    Some of us commented on it and then we started e-mail each other.....the idea developed and we spread the word through e-mails links and posting a diary here.....

    We used research from various posters and our own work.

    Highacidity is the Web Master.....and very very quick.....we launched it without fan fair beyond Georgia's Diary....and people sent out the word and Krugman picked it up.....I think it had a good tone..

    From there we have had good luck by that artcle by Krugman being so big and I also think of having good luck in hitting the right tone.

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:31:59 PM PDT

    •  the diary was here

      diary link.  As you can tell from this diary, I was pissed off.  The diary Mike mentioned was a great thread with so many here bringing so many ideas to the table.  

      We emailed back and forth, and viola! A website up in basically a day and a half.  

      I think this is a great lesson in online activism.  The idea came from everyone in the thread. Then a small group coordinated, with everyone bringing their own talents to the table.  Highacidity did the web design, Mike scoured the Bushspeak, and I got the contact and some other concepts together.  

      The site has been picked up not only by Krugman, but by Springer, Mike Malloy, and dozens of other sites online. I think it's received so many hits (74,000 and counting, about 2,500 an hour) because there was a void that needed to be filled.

      This is a great lesson for online activism.  Community brainstorming, swift implementation of the ideas, and the production of a product that has wide-appeal.

      BUT, that being said, we're not done!  We've done well so far, but there's not enough time to pat ourselves on the back (ok, just for a second...then back to work).

      We are currently working with other Kossacks on expanding the marketing campaign. An interview is in the works, as are ideas on taking this to the next level (radio, print ads, etc.)

      Additionally, as Apian has stressed, we cannot let up with letters to the media and op-eds. The more coverage, the better.

      by georgia10 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:31:55 PM PDT

      •  Nope we are definatly not done:)

        Thanks Georgia

        Decided to put a little update online:)

        by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:43:00 PM PDT

        •  Impressive Site

          Like the font -- it's casual but readable.  The signpost/streetsign logos down the side are a great graphic idea.  But the word is -- what you did is important, because the organs of public discourse have remained mute.  They have done no service to the keep the public informed.  You stepped up and filled the breech.

          Now -- may I make suggestions?  Can you get pix of the "major players" in this scandal and post them as background/wallpaper on the front page?  I think a photo of the Sunday Times as it appears in hard copy with the story visible should be on your site.  Finally, is it within the scope of your intention to have a "wall" where individuals can post what they have done in the activist capacity?  This let's folks feel that they're part of your concerned web community and stimulates readers with new ideas for action.

          Not knowing your overarching concept, I understand the above may be inappropriate suggestions.  Just trying to help tweak an already outstanding web site.

          You three deserve everyone's gratitude.  You certainly have mine!  
          

          by Limelite on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:13:12 PM PDT

  •  there was a little more to it them that

    But above is the basics

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:36:13 PM PDT

•  I'd love to see a regular update

  on how the site is doing. Keep up the good work.

  by KingJames on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:28:14 PM PDT

•  Congrats

  It was a great effort by you guys!!!

  You are helping bring some sanity back into this f-ed up country of ours.

  Dissent Protects Democracy

  by cscs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:29:31 PM PDT

•  Excellent!

  Thanks for your fine work.

  by coloradobl on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:39:35 PM PDT

•  as yogi berra once said about dkos

  "nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded."

  by rasbobbo on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:44:54 PM PDT

•  Yes!

  (IMHO) This is exactly the right way to treat potentially explosive news that needs to be disseminated as far and wide as possible.
  

  by starkness on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

•  Good site

  but I'd suggest you change the red text color to blue or something like that.

  People with red color blindness will not be able to read your site.  Don't use green either - it works the same way for people with green color blindness.

  Just a tip...

  by mlk on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:47:12 PM PDT

  •  Thats the type of thing

    That we're looking for:)  I would have never had thought of that..

    Thanks:)
    

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:48:30 PM PDT

    •  No problem

      It's what I do for a living.  :-)  Glad I can help in even a small way.

      by mlk on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:46:30 PM PDT

  •  I'm no expert, but

    I believe that someone with red-green color blindness would still be able to read the site. It's not as if anything red completely disappears, it's that red is indistinguishable from green. If you were using red text on a green background, then that would be a problem. But simply using red text on white will not prevent a color blind person from reading it. I wouldn't worry about the red text (for this reason, at least).

    According to here, "the most common color perception problems are with certain color combinations such as yellow on green, green on red, red on green, blue on red, red on blue, and red on black."

    by rwm on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:23:56 PM PDT

    •  My thoughts regarding...

      ... this subject is that you make everything clear and nicely contrasting, then regardless of any color shifts for individual readers, everything is still legible and attractive. As in, what would this look like printed in grayscale? I think the layout works in that capacity.

      Glad you brought it up... I try my best to label all the images, etc. for screen readers and such too.

      by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:44:02 PM PDT

    •  From what I've read

      in web design books, red text can cause problems for people with color blindness regardless of the background color.  Now, they could be incorrect, but  better to be safe than sorry.

      by mlk on Tue May 17, 2005 at 06:02:42 AM PDT

•  contacting media?

  Have you done that yet?  Krugman is too swill for the Georgetown fraternity of the Corporate media (like Howard Fineman).  I'd love to see E. J. Dionne pick this up; if he writes about it, then maybe this story will work its way into the national conversation.  what do you think? Any6 thoughts on how to approach him?

  by KdmfromPhila on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:49:10 PM PDT

  •  correction

    "too shrill" for the Georgetown. I should not typce when I get worked up.

    by KdmfromPhila on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:50:00 PM PDT

    •  Freudian slip

      The gang of 500 is only interested in getting their swill from the corporate trough.

      by Ugluks Flea on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:44:59 PM PDT

  •  Shrill=truthful

    As Moyers said recently, anyone who tells the truth is considered "liberal" (or in this case, shrill).  

    And yes, I realize you are not yourself calling him shrill... simply describing how he is viewed in the beltway.  Gotcha.  

    by daveriegel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:29:35 PM PDT

•  Site Needs Response Option

  Folks should have an option to remark on what they've read on-site.  You may not have to reprint all remarks (trolling) but a good selection of thoughtful remarks would be a nice addition.

  by prophet on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:50:12 PM PDT

•  so glad to hear the good news!

  below is a nice (big) chunk of info to share from Luke who posted it this morning on Hunter's "If the political context were right, people would support regime change." thread.

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/173553/127

  "Here's a breakdown of the various people and officers mentioned in the memo - all of whom were at the meeting with the Prime Minister that this document was a record of.

  David Manning - Foreign Policy Advisor within the PM's office (US equivalent would be the National Security Advisor).
  Matthew Rycroft - an aide to Sir David Manning within the PM's office, he wrote up the minutes of the meeting.
  Defence Secretary - Geoff Hoon MP; senior minister at the Ministry of Defence (US equiv. is the DoD) and a member of the cabinet.
  Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw MP; senior minister at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (the US equiv. is the State Department) and a member of the cabinet.
  Attorney-General - Lord Goldsmith; the government's lawyer. Attends cabinet but isn't, strictly speaking, a member of the government - responsibilities include advising the govt on the legalities of proposed courses of action.
  Sir Richard Wilson - Cabinet Secretary; the most senior civil servant within the Cabinet Office. Has direct responsibility for running the cabinet secretariat, but is also first amongst equals for the civil service as a whole.
  John Scarlett - Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee; responsible for (amongst other things) providing intelligence summaries to the PM's office, the cabinet and the privy council.
  Francis Richards - Director of GCHQ; the UK's signals intelligence establishment (US equiv. is the NSA).
  CDS - Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff; the senior active duty officer within the UK armed forces (US equiv. is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs).
  C - Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of SIS (aka MI6); the UK's foreign intelligence service (US equiv. is the CIA).
  Jonathan Powell - Chief of Staff within the PM's office (Tony Blair's right-hand man and behind-the-scenes fixer - focused more on cabinet and the civil service, hence one of the two political advisers who has authority to supervise and direct civil servants within the Cabinet Office).
  Sally Morgan - Director of Political & Govt Relations within the PM's office (Tony Blair's right-hand woman and behind-the-scenes fixer - focused more on areas outside the executive such as the wider Labour Party, trade unions etc).
  Alastair Campbell - Head of Strategy within the PM's office (Tony Blair's other right hand man and front-of-scenes fixer - he coordinated media presentation and spin across the govt and thus was the other political adviser given authority to direct and supervise civil servants within the Cabinet Office).

  As is clearly evident once you unpack the job-titles and sort out who is responsible for what, this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government - you have three members of cabinet (including the PM), the nation's most senior bureaucrat, three out of the four top people from the intelligence community, the head of the armed forces and four of the innermost circle of the PM's political advisors. The relatively junior level of the author bears no relevance to the contents, which describe the thinking and opinions of the principals.

  Regards
  Luke"
  

  by jennifer poole on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:50:43 PM PDT

  •  Add a hyperlinked version of memo

    Could Downingstreetmemo.com have both the "original" memeo and a hyperlinked version with info such as that above and other explanatory material and citations? Great work!

    by lindabee in mt on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:15:08 PM PDT

  •  Jennifer, thanks again...

    ... that is a great idea to include links to background info. And the Goldsmith doc, and the "missing" third doc... trying to figure out if it is feasible to mention all that without diluting the effect of the site... we were aiming for a clean, big, direct hit. Hmmm.

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:30:02 PM PDT

  •  very secret document

    this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government

    this is a very good point not illustrated by the site well.

    the memo says:

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    that's "Top Secret" to you and me -- in a very non-cliche way.

    again an awesome site.
    

    by kiva on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:50:41 PM PDT

•  ideas for site

  on the page that compares the Memo with what Bush was saying at later dates:

  I think the date of the memo gets lost on the top the table, as the reader scrolls down. I would consider putting the memo date in each of the boxes in the left hand column.

  Great work !!

  by seesdifferent on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:52:51 PM PDT

  •  Thats A very good idea

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:52:07 PM PDT

•  Love the site...

  Love it so much that I have included a link to it in my signature on every other messageboard I post on (and there are quite a few).

  by Disillusioned on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:57:39 PM PDT

•  Important Site Suggestions...

  To improve ranking in Google, try the following:

  1.  Page titles should be first after <head>.  The title is key in google searches - try to use terms that would be popular in generic searches such as WMD and the Iraq War example:  "The Downing Street Memo: WMD and the Iraq War"

  We need to attract people who just happen to be searching on these (or other) related terms.

  2.  Graphic alt tags should also be descriptive, including key search terms.

  3.  Google is sometimes picky, use commas to separate key words.

  4.  I know money is an issue, but perhaps funds could be raised to buy good adwords.

  by landrew on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:01:16 PM PDT

•  The petition website

  is awful.  I have never had to click "no" to so many ads.  If you put that petition up, I suggest you find a new host.  If you didn't, I suggest you look for a different petition in support of the same goal and switch the link.  I'm now really fearful that I've just given my email address to more spammers, especially since there were all sorts of petitions up there.

  by Easy B Oven on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:04:48 PM PDT

  •  I should note

    that I loved the main site itself.  Oh, maybe you could have an "email to a friend" button.

    by Easy B Oven on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:05:56 PM PDT

  •  The petition has been moved...

    ... the link on the site reflects that.

    Our apologies for that, live and learn :-)

    (don't worry, the old petition is archived to add to the new one)

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:24:10 PM PDT

•  what are "page views"?

  And what's the difference between "views" and "visits"?

  Also, what is the "average visit length"?  [Like, does 1:53 mean one minute and 53 seconds?]

  Okay, I know this must be pretty basic, and I've seen these sorts of terms bandied about before... but this is the first time I've ever really gotten excited about knowing what they might mean!

  Thanks for all your work, guys.

  by Nate Roberts on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:04:50 PM PDT

  •  Site stats FAQ - bottom of this page

    Click on the rainbow-colored SiteMeter icon at the bottom of most pages of this site, then click on HELP (the FAQ) - see question #11.

    by JohnT on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:32:36 PM PDT

•  conyers on cnn

  I had just written my complaint letter to CNN today regarding the lack of coverage of the Downing St memo and the Conyer letter to the president....Do you think they are interviewing Conyer because of my complaint?  Wow! Wish we could always get these results.

  by dylanfan on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:06:42 PM PDT

•  Excellent job!!!

  NT

  by barbwires on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:08:21 PM PDT

•  NYT pah !

  All that traffic is beause i linked to it a few days ago !LOL

  See that's what happenes when you create something of value and great content. Awesome job.

  by Pounder on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:09:51 PM PDT

  •  Of course it is...

    ... and we thank you for it!

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:13:06 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the site

  It looks great, but I do have one suggestion.  Can you provide a list of reps who have signed?  I know that their sigs are on the pdf of the letter, but I can't read all of them.  I'm specifically looking to see if Norm Dicks signed it.

  by lapin on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:25:38 PM PDT

  •  I am brain dead right now...

    ... can someone post a link to a list I can copy/paste?

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:34:38 PM PDT

  •  Never mind...

    ... thanks,

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:39:54 PM PDT

  •  Norm Dicks did not sign

    There is a list up at Raw Story:

    Conyers Letter and List of Signatures

    This link will open a new window so you don't lose your place here.

    by Terre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:52:09 PM PDT

  •  This is done...

    .... remember to clear the cache of your browser if you don't see the changes when you first load the page.... thanks.

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:00:28 PM PDT

•  6th site on Google, way to go

  6th result for "Downing Street memo" on google

  the more places that link to this site with the following text.

  <a href="http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/">Bush Memo</a>

  maybe we can push the Rathergate links down and replace memo gate with this one

  Andrew

  by kidAG on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:29:04 PM PDT

  •  Nice:)

    Looking good folks, Thanks for the advice.....

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:45:11 PM PDT

  •  Now it's 5th on Google (n/t)

    A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

    by tmo on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:32:24 PM PDT

•  informationclearinghouse

  One of my favorite sites http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
  has links to www.downingstreetmemo, the Krugman comment, and Danner's article.

  by ybruti on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:58:31 PM PDT

•  Paul Krugman is one of the few real journalists

  Read all his articles here:

  http://www.pkarchive.org/

  by jfern on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:00:24 PM PDT

  •  Probably

    because he isn't a journalist. He is an economist with a column.

    But that of course is better than the rip-n-read characters from central casting that they use on TV.

    by mollyd on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:07:27 PM PDT

•  Need cartoons for your website?

  

  This cartoon by Mike Konopacki and others at Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

  by Juno on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:03:28 PM PDT

  •  I saw that in another thread...

    ... it is hilarious!

    But for the time being, we are aiming to keep it to "just the facts, ma'm" as much as possible... which is difficult, believe me.

    No delusions that the site is totally neutral, mind you...

    Is it okay to print it and pass it around, my workplace would love it...

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:08:47 PM PDT

    •  Pass it around by all means....

      Mike and his partner Gary are well-known in the labor movement (they've syndicated labor cartoons for over 20 years) and also do political cartoons for the Center for American Progress and other organizations.

      They take pride in the fact that they are two of the most ripped off cartoonists in the country, so copy and distribute by all means.  I'm sure they'd like your feedback, which you can send to them via their website (linked above).

      GOOD LUCK!

      by Juno on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

•  Olbermann gets on it

  Just found out the memo will be covered tonight on Countdown (about time, too!!). Wonder if they'll mention the site...

  by Hell Upside Down on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the heads up...

    I'll watch for sure

    by Juno on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:44:11 PM PDT

•  Alexa traffic graph and data

  Alexa tracks visit by browsers like IE or users who have installed the Alexa toolbar.

  

  Click on image for traffic details.

  by Felix Deutsch on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

  •  And don't forget

    that after clicking the image, and viewing the graphic, scroll down to the bottom where you can do this:

    I am familiar with this website and want to review it on Amazon.com. and

    E-mail a friend about this site.

    by Terre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:04:26 PM PDT

•  CONGRATULATIONS !!

  Even though I was very critical in a thread yesterday about the language being typical of weak Democratic communication.

  I still feel that way--yet I'm positively blown away by the success of getting a few-days-old site linked by KRUGMAN!

  Wonderful success story.

  by Gooserock on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:17:29 PM PDT

  •  We can disagree about language

    But I think it's important to release that if the language had been much stronger then Krugman would not have linked to our site.

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:31:12 PM PDT

•  Your site was excellent from the start and keeps

  getting better.  You've made some very good additions in the last few days.  I'd like to suggest one or two possible further additions--though I realize that you don't want the message to get too cluttered.

  One thing that would help people who are not well informed about the run-up to war would be a timeline, stating what happened when and what the US and UK governments where saying about their intentions and diplomacy.  Some of that is done by your comparison of the text of the minutes to statements by Bush.  But there are lots of other facts that many people cannot quite place--for example, when Congress was asked to authorize war, or when UN resolution 1441 was passed, or when weapons inspectors went back into Iraq.  Some people dislike timelines, others thrive on them.

  A second thing that would be worthwhile is a section on 'What we learn from the minutes'.  You could summarize rapidly the main things that this document demonstrates (for example: that Bush had decided on war while pretending to be seeking peaceful disarmament; that the war was intended to be about overthrowing Hussein, and not spreading democracy; that Bush had ordered the US military to make provocative attacks in Iraq, even before asking Congress to authorize war; that Iraq was not considered a threat; that intelligence was being manipulated from the start; that complaints about the access of UN weapons inspectors to alleged WMD sites in Iraq were part of a conspiracy to deceive the world).  Doing this explicitly would also serve to show why the document is news, and why answers are now required from Bush.  Of course, some of this is done by your comparison of the document's text and Bush's statements.  But I'm not sure if you can make all the most critical points in that way, or that the more distracted readers will be able to figure each of them out.  They'll get many of the main ideas, but I think it helps to spell things out explicitly whenever you can.

  I'd be willing to draft a short text on 'What we learn' for you, if that would help you out.

  Anyway, congratulations again on an excellent site.

  by smintheus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:43:49 PM PDT

  •  Smintheus...

    ... thanks for considered commentary, the idea and the offer. I'm gonna take you up on the offer, and maybe turn it into two....

    Could you possibly compile the "what we learn" list and a timeline? I realize the timeline would be quite a project, but what a great idea...

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:58:23 PM PDT

    •  Make it a hyperlinked timeline....

      Each entry on the timeline hyperlinked to the relevant article or portion of the memo that supports each bit. That's more work, of course, and I do think it more important to get a timeline up first, and then work on a hyperlinked version to upgrade.

      by My Philosophy on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:47:52 PM PDT

    •  I'll be happy to do one of those for you

      but unfortunately this week I have a job interview to prepare for (and write a talk for), so my time is very limited until Friday.  i could take on the 'What we learn' text this evening, and I think it would take only a few hours to draft.  But a really good timeline would take the better part of a day.  If you'd like me to do that as well, it would have to wait until Friday.

      I'd suggest asking Terre to do it.  Those links he/she provided are good, and they could be adapted by eliminating all but the most critical info.  Both timelines are pretty sparse before Sept. of 2002, and for our purposes it would be critical to cover the Feb. to July 2002 period well, esp. with regard to what Blair was doing and being advised in that period.  It would take a little time to pull that together, and interweave the comments (lies) of Bush and Blair about what they were doing.  I think Apian would do a bang-up job on a timeline as well, and she's always buzzing with information.

      Good idea about hyperlinks too.

      by smintheus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:44:56 PM PDT

    •  Ok, here is my draft of "What we learn"

      What do we learn about the path to war?

      These minutes from a top-secret war council held in London on July 23, 2002 record what the highest British officials had to say about their recent discussions with top officials in the Bush administration--including President Bush himself. The minutes are the most compelling evidence we have for the nature of the path to war in Iraq. For the sake of clarity, let's set aside all the other evidence (such as newly leaked documents, and public statements by former government officials, some of whom the Bush administration has tried to discredit) and just concentrate on these official minutes recorded by our British allies. From them we learn the following things with a high degree of certainty:

      Eight months before the start of the war, and two months before he requested Congress to give him authorization to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq of WMDs, President Bush had already decided to overthrown Saddam Hussein by military means.  He had decided that "war was inevitable."  He had instructed the U.S. military to develop plans to initiate the war, though apparently there was little concern about planning what to do with Iraq once the war had ended.  There was even a tentative timetable for the war.  The build-up to war was to be scheduled around the fall election, with the actual invasion of Iraq starting a few months later.

      President Bush had also instructed the U.S. military to provoke confrontations with the Iraqi defense forces ("spikes of activity"), apparently to create conditions favorable to war.  Those provocations had already started by July 2002.  One strategy under consideration was to allow those small-scale conflicts to escalate step by step into a full-blown invasion of Iraq.

      President Bush's reason for seeking war had nothing to do with spreading democracy.  It was simply to overthrow Hussein ("regime change"). It is not permitted under international law to invade a country in order to topple its government.  Therefore the justification that President Bush was planning to give in public for the impending war would involve allegations of Iraqi terrorism and WMDs.

      To make the case for that seem credible, the Bush administration was already doing what it would later be accused of having done--manipulating the evidence and intelligence reports.  The situation was so extreme that the head of British Intelligence (equivalent to CIA director) warned his colleagues that the Bush administration's case for war was a charade ("the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy").  At a minimum, this statement means that, by his observation, U.S. government officials were being pressured to overestimate the strength of any evidence or intelligence that might be made to suggest Hussein was active in terrorism and WMDs; and to ignore or undervalue any evidence that contradicted Bush's policy.

      The manipulation of evidence was intended to provide a pretext for starting the war, which both the British and U.S. governments were eagerly looking for. It was generally accepted that Saddam Hussein was not in fact threatening any of his neighbors.  Also, his WMD capability, if any, was not an especially grave threat.  It was reckoned to be less than the capability even of Libya.

      The British leaders were working to help the Bush administration to fabricate a pretext for war. They could not deny that the case for attacking Iraq was "thin," and they feared they would be held accountable if the public knew that the goal was overthrowing Hussein--for which there was no legal basis.  But President Bush already had a secret commitment from Prime Minister Blair that he would commit British troops to the war in Iraq. So the British developed a duplicitous plan to convince the U.N. to demand that Hussein allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.  The demand was not intended to uncover WMDs in Iraq in the first place. Instead, it was hoped that Hussein would refuse to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq, providing the U.K. and U.S. with an excuse for overthrowing Saddam.

      In short, we now know with a high degree of certainty that by the summer of 2002 President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their administration had begun a campaign to deceive the public about:

      The nature of the threat, if any, posed by Iraqi WMDs (they repeatedly suggested that Hussein was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons);

      What connections Saddam Hussein had to terrorism (none, at least as known to the British officials at the July meeting);

      The strength of the evidence that the government was depending upon (they often claimed to have certain knowledge of things that in fact they were guessing about);

      The reasons for the war;

      The purpose of pre-war diplomacy at the U.N. (it was a travesty intended to provide cover for the impending invasion, rather than a serious attempt to disarm Hussein);

      The purpose of the Congressional vote (President Bush claimed that he would use military force only as a last resort, though he had already decided to use it);

      The timing of the decision to go to war (both Bush and Blair insisted up until the eve of war that no decision had yet been made).

      Many in the U.S. have speculated in the past about some of the foregoing things, based upon such information as has been available to us. Now, however, we suddenly have unimpeachable evidence of wrongdoing from President Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is the purpose of this website to clarify the significance of this new evidence for a public that has been misled about the path we took to war in Iraq. If you believe these deceptions cannot be tolerated, then please consider taking action to make your thoughts heard.
      

      by smintheus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:40:44 PM PDT

      •  Let me rewrite one of those paragraphs

        which looks a little bit awkward now (funny, it was all fine when I first wrote it).  Anyway, here is a slightly better version of that paragraph...please substitute it:

        To make the case for that seem credible, the Bush administration had begun doing precisely what it would later be accused of--manipulating the evidence and intelligence.  The situation was so extreme that the head of British Intelligence (equivalent to CIA director) warned his colleagues that the Bush administration's case for war was a charade ("the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy").  At a minimum, this statement means that, to his knowledge, U.S. government officials were being pressured to overstate the strength of any evidence or intelligence that might suggest Hussein was active in terrorism and WMDs; and to ignore or undervalue any evidence that contradicted Bush's public stance.

        by smintheus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:11:38 PM PDT

      •  That is incredible.

        I just love the level of thinking that can happen here... I need to break off from here soon, but I will take up your excellent analysis tomorrow. Great work.

        by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:23:48 PM PDT

  •  I posted a couple on other threads

    and here are just two with the limited Googling I did:

    Iraq Timeline: 2002-Present (opens new window)
    Also, click the link at the top for 19202's - 1999 for one entry at the bottom.

    Another one I found this morning that only goes through Nov 2004:

    Attacking Iraq - Countdown Timeline (opens new window)
    The above also has an applet at the bottom that has been counting the number of days since the war started.  Kinda funky looking, but interesting in terms of how many days tick since the letter was sent to the WH?

    Are these the kind of timeline(s) you were thinking of smintheus?

    by Terre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:23:26 PM PDT

    •  Terre, see my response to highacidity

      below.  Those timelines are excellent, esp. the second one.  Our timeline, though, will need to include a lot of pointed things that show Bush and Blair lying about their plans, and other things related to the early thinking in Britain (such as Goldsmith's various memos).  Would you (or perhaps Apian) be willing to draft it?

      by smintheus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:51:45 PM PDT

      •  I would be happy to start something

        but I'll admit that I don't know ALL the players, just the obvious ones.  Though I imagine after the research, I'll probably be dreaming of them all.  ::bleech::

        This will take some time to put together, since I'm in and out during the day, but I'll try to get as much together as I can in the next few days.

        So, to be clear - are we wanting to start with say, Feb. 2002 through when? March, April, May, 2003?

        by Terre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:02:05 PM PDT

        •  I would suggest concentrating on

          Feb. 2002 to Mar. 2003, but since the idea is to reveal the extent of Bush's deception about WMDs, it would also help to carry a little forward and note how the administration slowly admitted there was nothing in Iraq.  It might even be good to note Bush's comedy routine in front of the press, looking under tables for non-existent WMDs. I don't remember the date of it, but plenty of commenters here do I'm sure.

          by smintheus on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:51:06 PM PDT

•  I emailed the link to my list frist... ; P

  after I saw georgia10's initial post... before that mensch, Krugman, even mentioned it in his column...

  thanks georgia10... and Paul...

  by lobezno on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:04:56 PM PDT

  •  And Mikecan1978, and Highacidity... Thanks

    by lobezno on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:08:04 PM PDT

•  Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.

  Great work.

  by Volvo Liberal on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:29:23 PM PDT

•  I went to your site and emailed

  it to as many as I could.  Thanks for doing the thing that needed to be done.  YOu guys/gals are just terrific.  A big, no huge, applaude for you all!!!!!!

  by brenda stewart on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:07:41 PM PDT

•  I diaried this earlier today...

  and got not one comment!! http://kpstoia.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/16/102141/443

  So I guess I am pimping my diary too :)

  Oh well, I am ecstatic for you guys!

  Great work!

  by kpstoia on Mon May 16, 2005 at 05:09:06 PM PDT

•  Olberman Video on the Memo

  http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/16.html#a2974
  has the segment.

  by Jamato on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:20:02 PM PDT

•  Well Done

  I hope this is the beginning of something.

  Good work you guys.

  I am very proud of you.

  by fratdog on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:58:36 PM PDT

•  White House Canned Response to the Memo..

  Just caught this on CNN.com.

  White House Refutes UK Iraq Memo

  "The president of the United States, in a very public way, reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner," McClellan said.

  "Saddam Hussein was the one, in the end, who chose continued defiance. And only then was the decision made, as a last resort, to go into Iraq."

  I fervently hope this memo gathers the necessary momentum to bring constant, intense scrutiny on the actions of WH braintrust leading to the war.

  by jeeves on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:16:21 PM PDT

•  random 0.02 on the memo:

  his [saddam's] WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

  * that * is the smoking gun.  the rest is all folderol. to wit:

  War on Terra To Do List

  Iraq
  

  • Turrrist - maybe yes
    
  • WMD - maybe yes

  Libya
  

  • Turrrist - very yes
    
  • WMD - yes

  North Korea
  

  • Turrrist - well, they're scary and really hate us
    
  • WMD - very yes

  Iran
  

  • Turrrist - very yes
    
  • WMD - yes
    

  by Cedwyn on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:19:20 PM PDT

•  Good job!

  I like the .gif banner; it really grabs your attention.

  Maybe someone could show me how to use it (post the banner so that if you click on it, it takes you to the downingstreetmemo.com.)  :^)

  by East Bay Molly Girl on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:20:46 PM PDT

•  you guys rock!!!

  Finding the Daily Kos has been great for me!  Before, I kept thinking of the lyrics from that Green Day song...

  "I walk this empty street
  On the Boulevard of Broken Dreams
  Where the city sleeps
  and I'm the only one and I walk alone
  I walk alone"

  No I realize that I don't walk alone...

  Thank you everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!
  

  by Darth Codis on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:27:21 PM PDT

•  Something's happening

  Just flipping around the channels and saw a report on the Downing Street Memo on my local Fox-owned Fox affiliate. Two weeks late in being reported but it's  getting out, and the two-weeks-late aspect is part of the story.

  Also, I don't know anything about the site--and it looks a bit dodgy--but here's a new one:

  http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/eland/2005/eland051605.htm

  Authored by one Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty in Oakland, CA...
  

  by gruntled on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:39:33 PM PDT

  •  They are shills...

    ... we found a lot of slimy stuff there when investigating the Guckert/Gannon stuff.

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 07:42:22 PM PDT

•  Here's what attracted me last week...

  I think I posted about downinstreetmemo.com as soon as I first read it.  As an old school webmaster / new school blogmaster, here's what attracted me.

  1. Clean
     
  2. To the point
     
  3. Simple / easy to understand.  The "Why Care?" tables are incredible.
     
  4. Actionable.

  I know you're getting a ton of great suggestions on additions / whistles / bells, etc., but I honestly think it's close to perfecto right now.

  I've added the animated .gif banner to the top of All Spin Zone.  Your site is so important on finally moving this memo and its importance into the mainstream.  Please continue the fine work.

  by Richard Cranium on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:13:14 PM PDT

  •  I agree with you completely

    All 4 of your reasons are exactly why I like it so much.

    I don't think there should be anymore sign posts than there already are, and definitely no background graphics either.

    Right now I'm in the baby stages of a timeline, which could be put in an inconspicuous place, on say, the Why Care page (as a text or small button link) if the reader cared to dig a bit deeper.  OTOH, we don't even have to use it.

    Hyperlinks have been mentioned, and while I think that idea is useful, I'd also hate to see a page cluttered with clickable word links.  That's one thing that personally drives me nuts.

    by Terre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:57:57 PM PDT

    •  Terre, good idea...

      I am happy you are taking that on! I believe we can flesh things out and still keep the "look" like making this additional/more in-depth material linked "from" the Why Care page as you mention, or there are other ideas. I like the timeline idea a lot.

      The feedback from the email I have received has been very positive regarding the usability, which is great.

      by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:32:38 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for your critique.

    We'll do our best to stay away from unnecessary bells and whistles. The banner looks good on your site! Thank you for that too.

    I admit the Newsweek mess had me down for a bit but I'll keep on keeping on :-)

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:36:42 PM PDT

    •  I've been a bit side-tracked as well

      with the Newsweek fiasco, spending the last hour or so reading posts.

      During my computer time tomorrow, it's gonna be hell trying to stay away from here, and elsewhere, keeping an eye out for the latest news.

      Maybe I'll just stick with AAR and C-span, and keep my fingers crossed that nothing major breaks.

      by Terre on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:36:31 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, I need to do some "real" work...

        ... tomorrow. My employer was understanding of my personal time off today, but I need to "get some product out" tomorrow :-)

        Did you read smintheus' analysis up thread? Wow!

        I have to find a place for that, it is beautiful.

        Try to sneak a call in to AAR!

        by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:58:38 PM PDT

•  You guys rock!

  The website is very impressive. You are true patriots! I emailed it to everyone in my address book. The only comment I got from someone (I had no idea of this person's politics) was questioning its authenticity, even though it says on the front page (in bright red, for Christ's Sake!) that the British government didn't deny its contents. Is there any way to make it any clearer? Is there an actual quote from a British offical confirming the contents/authenticity? I don't know if this person was just a Bushhead who will deny the undeniable, or she just was being gun shy after Rathergate. Everyone else that I have emailed it to has been strangely quiet...

  by Cat Nerd on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:13:18 PM PDT

•  Well Done!!

  Another example of how influential Kossacks have become on a national level.  We can make a difference if we keep trying.  

  Will you be taking donations?  I'd love to make a contribution.  

  by standingup on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:21:30 PM PDT

•  Why care? Illegal war.

  Site is awesome, especially the Why Care? section.

  However, I suggest that you add the memo's content regarding the explicit discussion of the legality aspects -- it shows that they knew it was wrong (i.e., criminal intent?) and did not deal with it.

  The memo:

  The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

  [...]

  Conclusion (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

  As you know they did not get UN Security Council authorization.  Your counter-quote:  Kofi Annan, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and head of the UN, said in Sept 2004 (full interview):

  From our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal.

  Also telling is Powell's response to Annan's quote (i.e., a big "who cares"):

  "What does [Annan's statement that the Iraq war was illegal] gain anyone? We should all be gathering around the idea of helping the Iraqis, not getting into these kinds of side issues," Powell said in an interview with the Washington Times.

  You could throw in the Pope's statement too (event coverage and analysis):

  The Pope made clear his reasons for opposing the war in a March 2003 letter to President Bush in which he stated that the impending conflict was "immoral, illegal, [and] unjust."

  by kiva on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:41:46 PM PDT

•  Kudos, Mike

  Great job!  I saw today that CNN covered the White House refuting the memo.  And the LA Times had a story 4 days ago.

  It's small, but it's a start...

  I have been blogging about this and letting everyone I know about it.  Hope this story gains traction.  This proves what most of us have been saying all along!

  by ripwellstone on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:31:47 PM PDT

  •  I like your sig :-)

    And thank you.

    by highacidity on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:02:07 PM PDT