Daily Kos

Downing Street Memo clip

by kos

Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Downing Street Memo clipTweet this submit to reddit

Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:53:31 PM PDT

Powerful clip from documentary on how this administration fixed its intelligence and facts based on their stated policy of invading Iraq.

A good primer on why the Downing Street Memos matter.

From the documentary Hijacking Catastrophe.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 103 comments

  •  excellent! (4.00 / 2)

    thanks for posting this.

    Visit the incredibly useful Pacific Northwest Portal, the regional media & information gateway for progressives

    by archerhouse on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:58:17 PM PDT

    •  Preaching to the converted. (none / 0)

      There are probably 50% of Americans that are already opposed to the war in Iraq.  (By some estimates, including the recent Gallup poll, this number is closer to 60%.)

      This documentary makes excellent points and its focus on the use of "fear" to sell the Iraq war is right on target.  Unfortunately, the slant of this documentary makes it unpalatable to a good portion of the mainstream U.S. audience.  It is only directed at a portion of the 50% of Americans that ALREADY are against the war.

      To end the Iraq catastrophe, we need to reach an additional 15-20% of Americans that comprise a different demographic.  Just imagine if 70-80% of Americans began demanding our immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

      To reach these Americans, a different message and messenger are needed.

      I invite you all to check out www.neoconned.com.

      by We were neoCONNED on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:54:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (none / 0)

        The lie is a fact. But people have to care about it. And at least half the American people don't care. The NeoCon, Right Wingnut, Christian Fundamentalist Axis of Weasel hit a ball park homer with this. I think the only thing that can turn this around is if George Bush confesses himself and that will never happen.

        I submit we are engaged in a civil war between those who support the Constitution and those who would destroy it.

        by victor lazlo on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:41:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just another thought (none / 0)

          Maybe blogs like this are part of the problem and not part of the solution. You get mad, you come here and whine and commiserate with people who think just like you then you log off instead of getting mad, going out and protesting, and burning things, and blowing up things, and getting in the news and TV like they did during the Vietnam War.  The right wing media machine has already marginalized blogs like this in the public mind by sticking the liberal label on them.  

          I submit we are engaged in a civil war between those who support the Constitution and those who would destroy it.

          by victor lazlo on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:52:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (none / 0)

            I think blogs are young.  They have yet to organize in a way that promotes organized offline activity.

            However, I have to say that dKos is fantastic.  The breadth of knowledge and the commitment of the community continually impresses, astounds and fascinates me.  I think it is an awesome resource.

            Next step: dKos self-organizes into a powerful political force.  I think there are signs that is happening.  Can't happen soon enough.

            by We were neoCONNED on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:36:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I get nervous (none / 0)

    when a documentarian promotes Noam Chomsky so prominantly.  He's a lighting rod.  There are so many other more moderate voices who are now driven to passionate criticism of this administration.

    Hell, you can count the likes of Paul O'Neill in their ranks.

    Noam just makes this another liberal diatribe.

    But I think we do need to seriously question this nation's response to the 9/11 attacks and this Administration's will to prosecute al Qaeda.

    But I really don't see a mainstream film the likes of F. 9/11 here.

    Maybe I'll be wrong.

    by suzq on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:58:22 PM PDT

    •  Noam speaks the truth. (4.00 / 8)

      Has he ever lied? I know of no time he has.

      He scares stupid people because he uses big words and statistics. I refuse to stop citing him because people are stupid.

      Noam Chomsky is one of the left's most valuable minds. I get pissed when people dismiss him.

      We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution. - Bill Hicks

      by rjo on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:01:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, but (none / 0)

        …you're not holding up your part of the deal.

        Or wasn't it you who flogged the stupid Pentagon plane conspiracy shit just recently on this site?

        our own correspondent is sorry to tell of an uneasy time that all is not well…

        by Felix Deutsch on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:15:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none / 1)

        Noam knows exactly what's going on and it's a tragedy more people don't read his books and listen to what he has to say.

        But there we are.

        Americans are stupid.

        We can't win by quoting intelligent people.

        And likewise... has anyone ever heard of makeup? What's up with liberals on documentaries being all sweaty and weird looking (the last two guys).

        We need some marketing... Americans believe barbie and ken dolls, not real looking people.

        But substantively... god bless them for making it.

        "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Alright, hold on (none / 0)

          Americans are not stupid.  In fact, I doubt Chomsky would agree (not that I'm qualified to speak for anybody).  From what I've read, he might suggest that they are ill-informed, poorly educated (especially the ones with degrees), and susceptible to all kinds of misinformation and distraction.  But please don't call a general group of folks stupid.

          The orignial comment said that Chomsky's presence makes the film "another liberal diatribe" (maybe not the exact quote).  But if my reading of Chomsky is correct, and tell me if I'm wrong, he consistently criticizes so-called liberals from Kennedy to Carter to Clinton.

          "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs

          by matthewc on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:38:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  darnit... (none / 0)

            This would have been a good conversation to have. Sorry I got back to it so late...

            stu·pid

               1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
               2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
               3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
               4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
               5. Pointless; worthless

            I think GWB and the vast herds of people that voted for him are probably most if not all of the things above. I would go on to say that the majority of non-voting Americans fit more than 3 of these definitions far in excess of most cultures.

            I think from the above definitions, one could say that stupidity has less to do with the information that is available but more to do with how well one learns and how attentive they are to their surrounds. I would also go on to say that with the dependence on television and the personal and cultural isoaltion (no cafes) that most Americans exhibit, their ability to learn is far deficient to most people on our planet.

            Do you disagree?

            "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

            King Lear

            by Norwell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:12:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes... (none / 0)

            Chomsky criticizes most politicians for the mistakes they've made. In fact since his premises go deeper, toward the fundamental fabric of our country's archetypes; so it seems quite likely that those things that spring from these archetypes: Kennedy, Carter, Clinton would be tainted. I think we can see politics as a grey scale where some of us have evolved since the slave days. Republicans ufortunately are a bit "slow." It'll take time but there's only two ways to go on a grey-scale and the general move has been toward evolution rather than devolution. Probably both will be required in order to get back on the best tree-branch. So be glad that Republicans also have a role as destroyers... since we're stuck with them. But we all need to understand what the Republican Party has become.

            Chomsky's view of the world seems to me to be mostly centered around the problems of large Corporate power. I think he's write to look there and right to criticize the American ethos as the culprit that brought about Global Corporatism.

            "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

            King Lear

            by Norwell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:20:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Perception == Reality (none / 0)

        It doesn't matter whether Chomsky is correct on any of this, the right has created this image of him as an America hating liberal academic.  Is the image false?  Of course, but it's important for this message to get beyond the people who have some respect for Chomsky.  

        What happens is that people see a series of arguments being made and the validity of those arguments begins to sink in.  Then they hear "Chomsky" and this wall goes up as they think, "oh this must be hogwash, I've heard of that Chomsky guy".  It's similar to the way that I would be immediately suspect of anything associated with Bill O'reilley (not to suggest that O'reilley and Chomsky are vaguely alike, but I couldn't think of a right wing academic).  

        If you can make an argument using fairly neutral sources, you can access a broader audience.  You get them to understand these issues in a way that won't immediately turn them off.  Then you can whip a little Chomsky on them and show them he's got some merit.  

        ---
        Photography, Politics, and Chicago

        by sterno on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:47:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry (none / 1)

          I'm personally indifferent to the question whether Chomsky should have been highlighted or not.  The critical facts are the actual facts, not the packaging.  To suppose that his presence diminishes those facts is simply mindless.  We are not selling soap here, folks.  This is the real stuff.  If you think a message is damaged because of the messenger, then you can forget about putting out any message, because you essentially accept the Right's right to stop the message by tarnishing the messenger.  

          You can't always live in fear.

          Knut

          by Knut Wicksell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:40:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  More. (4.00 / 2)

      Have you ever read Manufacturing Consent? The media is the biggest reason we're in the mess we are today. Money in politics and money in news reporting allows great evil to be commited in the name of money.

      If you haven't read it yet, please do. If you have, and you still bash Noam Chompsky, what the hell is wrong with you?

      We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution. - Bill Hicks

      by rjo on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not bashing Noam. (none / 0)

        I've read him and listened to several of his speeches.  Please don't mistake me for some bloggers, who will remain nameless, who fly off the handle everytime his name comes up.

        While I reach many of his same conclusions, I don't always agree with every single accusation he makes.

        I just point out that he's a lightning rod for the other side.  Any documentary that features him prominantly will be dismissed as a liberal diatribe.

        Morever, Noam is not always the easiest person to understand.  He's an academic, so he's more focussed on framing the connections and relationships than he is on his delivery and presentation.  He is useful to us, who are trying to make sense of it all, but if we are to reach out beyond "intellectual America" I think we need better spokespeople.

        This doc certainly had its share of those people, but I also think that it's fundamentally intellectual approach is why it got lost last year.

        But I digressed from Kos' original point about this doc, which is that it illustrates how important the DSM is.  There is a diary or two out there begging all of us to drive the connection from Downing Street all the way to January, 2001.  There's a lot of evidence out there already.  

        by suzq on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:23:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree and disagree (4.00 / 3)

          On one hand, you are right--Noam IS a lightning rod, and many valuable critiques will be dismissed out of hand simply because he is involved.

          BUT...as advocates on the left, we can't let the right dictate who we let speak for us, so I'm hesitant to go all the way with the "people criticize him, therefore he should not be a very prominent spokesman."

          "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."--PJ O'Rourke

          by David J on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:40:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Know your audience (none / 0)

            On some level, a lot of this comes down to teaching people.  When you are trying to teach people something you need to teach to their level.  Trying to teach Calculus to somebody that doesn't know Algebra isn't going to work.  It doesn't mean there's something wrong with Calculus, it just means you have to teach Algebra first.

            It isn't so much a matter of letting the right dictate who we let speak, but rather, finding a messenger that can deliver the message to people in a way that they'll accept.  If you take an average, moderate crowd, and try to get them to understand a more liberal perspective, starting with Chomsky is going to be too much.  You have to work past the complexity of his arguments and the stigma attached to him and it makes getting your point accross that much more difficult.

            A case in point would be Clinton.  The Republicans attacked Clinton so mercilessly because they recognized the threat he posed.  He was somebody who could communicate liberal values in a way that appealed to average people.  Just imagine where progressive politics would be today if that whole blowjob thing hasn't happened.

            To use a Clinton as a messenger instead of Chomsky, isn't bending to the will of the Republican party, it's recognizing that there are different ways to communicate a message to different audiences.  It's also recognizing that the medium, i.e. the person carrying the message, is as important as the message itself.  

             

            ---
            Photography, Politics, and Chicago

            by sterno on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:00:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Know your audience? (none / 0)

               Oh, please.

               How many people actually know Noah Chomsky from Noah in the Bible? Sure, informed, plugged in people do. The majority of Americans probably don't know and don't have a picture of him as anything.

               If you were to go out on the street in any big city and ask 100 people at random, 'Do you know who Noah Chomsky is?', I'd bet hard money that 75-80 wouldn't have a clue.

               That's the audience you have to convince.

              The cake is a lie.

              by Anderson Republican on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:37:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough (none / 0)

              And while we're on the subject, isn't it interesting that we have not got a peep out of Clinton on any of this, as compared to Carter, who has spoken out.  What is it about the Big Dog that he has to keep his mouth shut on the most important question of our time?

              Knut

              by Knut Wicksell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:42:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I Don't Think Noam Has a Lot to Do With It (4.00 / 3)

          I think it's the truth of what he speaks.

          You are playing into their hands, allowing them to manipulate you into discrediting your own information sources because they don't like them.

          It's one of the worst traits we have, and it is very different from them.  They exploit it, you know.  Just ask Howard Dean.  Or Michael Moore.  Or, hell, a HUNDRED other people who get tarred by them and thereby discredited by you.

          Please try to resist the appeal to ad hominem attacks.  They are a logical fallacy, and the biggest GOP weapon of them all.

          In fact, that they must discredit Chomsky means he is speaking truth.

          -6.88, -3.44

          by Bluesee on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:41:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Moreover, Noam is not always the easiest person... (none / 0)

          to understand."

          Within this documentary, he's perfectly easy to understand.

          As to the piece getting lost last year, one can well understand. Just look at the reception the DSMs are getting, that is apart from this site.  And what are we now, an additional eight hundred American bodies down the road?

          by manowar on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:54:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  the assymetry of worry (none / 0)

      Do the Republicans worry that their mouthpieces are "lightning rods"?

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:12:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not downloading RealPlayer, (none / 0)

    and RealPlayer Alternative + Firefox aren't letting me view this.

    Any suggestions?

    We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution. - Bill Hicks

    by rjo on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:59:25 PM PDT

  •  Jenson from the video is on MSNBC now (none / 1)

    and Monica Crowley is about to blow a gasket.  She reminds me more of Julie Nixon every day.

    "Can I be quoted as yawning?" --Eric Jotkoff, Florida Democratic Party, on the shocking news that Democrats want to expose Republican corruption.

    by Susan S on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:14:24 PM PDT

    •  One Thing Crowley Learned From Nixon Was . . . (none / 1)

      One thing Crowley learned from Nixon was to never let the truth get in the way of trying to prove a point.

      It makes me crazy to hear her to try to speak authoritatively about things that occured before she was even born or while she was still in diapers.

      Granted, Ron Reagan needs a job, but he needs to disassociate him from that dirt bag.  

      by freepress4all on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:26:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  yee-ouch (none / 1)

    i am so gonna get me that video.

    sometimes the best way to convince others of your point is with the clever use of media, and this is it.

    a documentary, clip, whatever, can often work a thousand times better than an email, or a discussion in the hallway at work.

    i say again, "yee-ouch".

    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

    by chopper on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:15:40 PM PDT

    •  PNAC (none / 0)

      The PNAC clip on that site is the scary one...

      the unequivocal notion

      by FlawedAI on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:25:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The full version (none / 0)

      of Hijacking Catastrophe is available here:

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm

      to watch online or download (BitTorrent).

      The link came from a diary here at dKos a couple of days ago..kudos to the poster...

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:31:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  torrent (none / 0)

        The torrent doesn't seem to be working - not for me, anyway.

        Others?  I'm geting a 404 not found error.

        John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

        by MRL on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  About this clip... (none / 0)

        One of the first talking heads to appear on this clip belongs to Robert Jensen, the University of Texas journalism professor. My first encounter with this dipshit was on Inauguration Day 2001 at the State Capitol in Austin, when he hosted a stage full of speakers from TARAL, the NAACP, and elsewhere from around Texas. The theme for the day was "NOT my president".

        True to the speakers I remember from marches in the 60's, the ones in Austin that day were focused on the single issue that had united us: that Bush had stolen the election from Gore, the rightful winner, just a few weeks before. Their focus, like ours, was on Bush, the slime who was NOT our president and never would be.

        Not Robert Jensen's focus, though. After leading the crowd assembled on the Capitol's grassy lawn in a "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" cheer, Jensen told us: Bush is not my president, that's for sure. But if Gore were being inaugurated today, he wouldn't be my president either. I can't tell you the color of the party of the man I voted for (pause for a smirk), but it wouldn't have been Bush or Gore.

        My friends and I were stunned. I turned to my friend Tara and asked her, "Did you hear what that fuckwad just said?" The rally's principal spokesperson had just dissed the candidate of probably 90% of the people assembled there. We were livid. There was a quick exodus of scores of people before the next speaker was introduced.

        I wrote Jensen an email that night and asked him to explain why he alone of all the speakers had chosen to emphasize his personal minority political agenda by putting down Gore, a man most of those present at the rally had worked so hard to elect. His response was that he was free under the Constitution to say whatever he liked.  

        It is good to trust people; but it is better not to.

        by choff on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:39:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You know what memo I want to see? (none / 0)

    The one where Bush and the Cabinet discuss their calculated policy of encouraging an Al Qaeda attack through willful ignorance of intelligence and drawn-down defenses.  That pins PNAC's Pearl Harbor plan on the regime in power.  That, plus their designs on Iraq which alarmed O'Neill as early 2001, will put these guys in stripes.

    Show of hands... who would join Kucinich's effort to impeach VP Cheney?

    by Mogolori on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:17:27 PM PDT

    •  Suskind had it on his website (none / 0)

      but the White House embargoed it.

      What you see now is the memo listing the agenda for that meeting.  It is proof the meeting was held, but provides no details on the topics discussed.  I think #3 is Military/Political Strategies for Iraq... or something to that effect.

      I suppose if you could find yourself a copy of CBS 60 Minutes where Suskind and O'Neill previewed the book, you could freeze the frame where they show several pages of the document.  There is a map with Iraqi oil fields and a list of oil companies.

      by suzq on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:27:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also... (none / 1)

      A book was published in late 2002 titled FORBIDDEN TRUTH : U.S. -Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie.

      It was a smash hit in Europe and got some press coverage in the US, but not much.  Critics were very quick to dismiss many of the allegations as "far fetched."

      We should crack some of these open now:

        *  America threatened to bomb the Taliban during negotiations over a pipeline through Afghanistan.  We negotiated with the Taliban throughout the summer of 2001.  At one point, US officials threatened to bomb them if they did not cooperate.

         * The US government dismantled the FBI office that had been set up under Clinton Adm. to investigate al Qaeda--perahps at the request of the Saudi Government.

         * BCCI provided a financial front for many of the terrorists.

      Let's see now if these are so far fetched.

      by suzq on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do the Downing Street Memo's Matter? (3.25 / 4)

    Sometimes DKOS feels like coming home to Mom and Dad after a bad little league game - they tell you what you want to hear (assuming your Dad wasn't one of those sports nuts Dads.)  From what I can see no one outside the liberal activist community cares about the Memos.

    Perhaps the problem is that people don't want to know they were misled because they don't want to feel that stupid.  Perhaps they agreed with the Preznit at the time and can't deal with the mockery he made of our armed forces.  I don't know the exact reasons, but people don't want to look at this stuff.

    All of the excitement around here seems misplaced.  The media doesn't have the stomach to push the story, and the Republican Congress certainly isn't going to do anything.  

    Can't we channel all of this energy into new directions for the party, or local races, or fund raising, or whatever....as long as its productive?    

    Good politics is rarely good policy - true or false? Discuss!

    by Matty NYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:17:49 PM PDT

    •  Political activity (none / 1)

      is the dissemination of information. Getting something like this available to everybody is dissemniation of information ergo political activity.

      by CSTAR on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:26:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but is it productive? (none / 0)

        What good is political activity with no audience?

        Good politics is rarely good policy - true or false? Discuss!

        by Matty NYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:29:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  re no audience (none / 0)

          What good is political activity with no audience?

          Someone is listening, 6 in 10 Americans now say the IRAQ war isn't worth it.

          by CoolAqua on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:51:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Target audience. (none / 0)

            I think we can all agree that if 70% of Americans begin demanding immediate withdrawal from Iraq, that would be news.

            We are already at 50% plus.

            However, a documentary with this slant and this title is not going to reach the last 20%.

            Those final 20% are independents and/or Republicans.  

            We need a different message to reach them, and a different messenger.

            I invite you to check out www.neoconned.com.

            by We were neoCONNED on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:42:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Republicans and "Independents" (none / 0)

              However, a documentary with this slant and this title is not going to reach the last 20%.

              Those final 20% are independents and/or Republicans.  

              We need a different message to reach them, and a different messenger.

              I disagree... I think they just listen to LOTS OF THE SAME THING BEING SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Keep hammering at it, and the numbers will keep dropping.

              --
              Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

              by sacrelicious on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:18:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Amplification of message. (none / 0)

                I absolutely agree with you that quantity and intensity are huge factors.  

                I just think that the "channels" issue is also important.  For instance, Air America could be talking about this documentary every minute of every day for the next 4 years and it would not reach the people we need to start reaching.  On the other hand, if Fox starts talking about it, then we got something.

                by We were neoCONNED on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:29:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I doubt its the Memos (none / 1)

            that are pulling down Bush's poll numbers.  His numbers have been dropping pretty steadily for months.

            Also, did my post really deserve a troll rating from you?

            Good politics is rarely good policy - true or false? Discuss!

            by Matty NYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:47:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you (4.00 / 2)

      which is why we need to drive this all the way back to before 9/11.  Part of DSM says that intellegence was being fixed to support an invasion.  Casual observers would conclude that was so that Bush could use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq.

      But Bush NEVER cared about al Qaeda.  He still doesn't.  

      Perhaps the real message to drive home is that the Bush family is closer to the bin Ladens than they are to the Cheneys.  

      Did Dick ever bail George out of a failed business?  Did Dick ever promote George's dad to the board of one of his firms?  Did Dick have breakfast with George's dad on the morning of 9/11/01?  

      No.  But the bin Ladens did.

      The Bushes are closer to the Saudis than they are to any other Americans.  They are like family.

      by suzq on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:47:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, so what? (none / 1)

        You and I can get outraged about the Saudi connection, and Michael Moore already did his part, and what became of this?

        For whatever reasons, people don't care.  Nothing we do is going to make them care about this.  

        But I'm not a pessimist.  You just move on and fight the next battle - the Bush part of the war may already be lost - the battle for control of this country will never end.

        Good politics is rarely good policy - true or false? Discuss!

        by Matty NYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:51:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No (none / 1)

      This is an excellent issue and people really like jumping on bandwagons. We just have to frame it in such a way that makes people want to jump on the bandwagon waaayyyyy late and say "I knew it all along" when in actuality they were going along with the pres.

      Regardless, there are issues that really are more important than winning elections and helping the troops get home earlier is one of those. I'm near Fort Bragg and know quite a few soldiers wives that feel similarly.

      Everyone's always in favor of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, oh! Suddenly you've gone too far!-Futurama

      by McJagger on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:24:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it helps bring the troops back safely... (none / 0)

        yes, its worth it.  I don't see that happening, only because a pull-out now is the worst thing for Mid-east stability, but we can hope.

        Good politics is rarely good policy - true or false? Discuss!

        by Matty NYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:43:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You certainly don't deserve (none / 0)

      a troll rating.  However, the problem isn't that "the people" don't want to hear this, it's that they AREN'T hearing it.  The various groups, organizations, and individuals umbrella'd under the term "liberal activists" are aflame over the DSMs -- and no one else is talking (well, I imagine there are the usual howlings and slobberings over at the Free Republic).  Most "mainstream" Americans know nothing about the memos/minutes, and what they're hearing sounds like a lot of policy wonk.

      I've said over and over again that until Dems and liberals can figure out a way to be heard on the mainstream media outlets, it doesn't matter a good goddamn what the Bushistas do, they'll continue to wield power without check.  Radio networks like Air America are a start, but only a start.  I don't know what's happening with "Gore TV," but I'd like to see a progressive group with deep pockets buy a cable outlet and start counterprogramming -- the "antiFox," if you would.  (The usual caveats apply: stick to the truth and don't dumb down your news presentations like the Foxies do.)  We've seen Fox's videos and style bleed over into the more mainstream programming.  I think something like that could happen if "Prog TV" (ecch -- better name needed) produced some hard-hitting film bits that could air on NBC, CBS, etc. to hammer on just such issues as the DSM.

      While we're waiting for such a network to launch, I'll bequeath you with a 4 to help save your TU status. :-)

      Beating back the GOP one fact at a time.

      by Black Max on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:30:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A progressive media outlet isnt the answer (none / 0)

        Very few people, as TV ratings go, watch Fox News.  Its our boogeyman, but only because the MSM media tends to follow Fox's lead.  

        Perhaps progressive media can do the same, but its really about making the news of the day sexy enough to keep up with Michael Jackson or the missing white woman of the week.

        I have no clue how to do this, but its something I've been pondering.

        As for the troll rating, I don't really care, but I was curious what Aqua's intention was.

        Good politics is rarely good policy - true or false? Discuss!

        by Matty NYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 07:27:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, Fox's ratings aren't so hot (none / 0)

          but that's not the point.  As you said, it's the Fox influence on the rest of the media -- they often follow Fox's lead.  The most egregrious example is in November 2000, when Fox called the presidential race for Bush prematurely, leading other networks to jump on the Fox bandwagon and coloring coverage for the entire recount debacle.  You can go back a few more years (before Fox) and remember how thoroughly the media was "played" by right-wing media manipulators "leaking" bullshit stories to the media by planting them in fringe publications and then making a racket about them.  The Dems knew what was happening but never figured out how to counter it.  They still haven't, though I think Dean is trying.

          News networks play follow-the-leader.  If Fox "breaks" a story, particularly with a juicy video clip, it's likely to get at least some coverage on the more mainstream news outlets.  We could do the same, and try to skew coverage in a more favorable (for us) direction.

          I think the days of a so-called "non-partisan" US media are done.  The only way to counter their message saturating the airwaves is to put up our own messages.  Air America is having an effect by countering right-wing talk radio.  Not only are some stories broken and pushed by AAR getting at least a little coverage, more importantly, AAR is forcing itself into the talk-radio schema, getting itself heard at the expense of some of the right-wing jackasses who formerly had talk radio all to themselves.

          It's not just numbers, it's getting out the message.

          Beating back the GOP one fact at a time.

          by Black Max on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:28:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Reasons for Impeachment (4.00 / 3)

    In 1974 the House prepard a report on the reasons for impeachment.

    It should be required reading

    String Quartets #7 & #8

    by Stirling Newberry on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:23:27 PM PDT

  •  Ya know who's laughing his ass off? (4.00 / 4)

    Osama bin Laden.

    by steelman on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:28:53 PM PDT

    •  Yep (none / 0)

      He robbed the store while the managers were arguing over oil and then walked out and apparently there's no videotape and noone knows where he is and even more alarmingly is that noone cares.

      Basically the guy walked out and we've been looking at sadam for over a year now. I haven't seen Osamas name in the news for several months.

      I guess people are tired of hearing about real terrorists.

      Everyone's always in favor of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, oh! Suddenly you've gone too far!-Futurama

      by McJagger on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:29:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now they (none / 0)

        can feel safe if they don't hear about Osama and they believe that sadam is locked up. Because as we all know, Sadam was the one who flew planes into the buildings.

        I think Bush has proved that several times right?

        and the media was there to ask him some real tough questions about it right?

        Everyone's always in favor of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, oh! Suddenly you've gone too far!-Futurama

        by McJagger on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:31:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  but what's really scary (none / 0)

    I was flipping channels and caught the subliminal message ticker on Fox: UBL in IRAN?

    So here goes...we're going to be "freedom on the march-ing" and hunt down Osama who's going to be "on the run" in Iran...

    ugh...

    by MFL on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:29:01 PM PDT

  •  Really, who is to blame? (none / 0)

    I put it squarely on the naivete of the American population. The Republican administration is like the scorpion - it will always sting no matter what the situation is. But we are the frogs, most gullible nation under the sun.

    In most other nations (including our so-called friendly nations of UK and Australia - those are the only ones left) - people have a healthy scepticism of anything that comes out of the government. Also, in most third world nations, even the poorest and most illiterate person has more street smarts and awareness of their surrounding than we as Americans. Many people in the heartland grow up sheltered and protected from the hurly burly of living on inadequate resources. So it is unbelievably easy to sell this populace myths that would have been blown away in a jiffy in other countries. If any other country had demonstrated such naivete, they would have become toast in an instant. Because of US economic and military power, the edifice is still up - but not for long.

    The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past - Milan Kundera

    by Suvro on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:30:43 PM PDT

  •  It's a great -- very intense -- flick (none / 0)

    But not a lot of video stores rent it.

    It is better to meet a mother bear robbed of her cubs than to meet a fool busy with a stupid project. -- Pr. 17:12

    by november3rd on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Wisconsin Democrats Request Impeachment (none / 0)

    OT - But well worth a look!

    Wisconsin Democratic Party Request Impeachment

    Saturday afternoon during their annual State Convention at the Park Plaza in downtown Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin adopted the following resolution:

    CALLING ON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH, VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

    by DailyDissenter on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:40:58 PM PDT

  •  People are "too busy" (none / 0)

    Perhaps the problem is that people don't want to know they were misled because they don't want to feel that stupid.  Perhaps they agreed with the Preznit at the time and can't deal with the mockery he made of our armed forces.  I don't know the exact reasons, but people don't want to look at this stuff.

    Most Americans do not care.  They're "too busy" paying attention to their own personal lives that they can't be bothered to read anything longer than a page.  They've got work, and kids and this and that and they just don't have time (except to park their fat arse in front of "reality tv").  And the people trying to get their attention - they're too loud and abrasive for such reasonable, sensible souls.

    Americans don't care as long as they're not going to be affected more than their friends, neighbors and co-workers.  There was a workplace survey that determined Americans don't truly care for how much they're being paid, just that they're being paid more than their co-workers.

    We live in a sick nation.  There's a reason why everyone is on psychotropics and/or Jesus and no one wants to face it.  We suck.

    by Jim Anchower on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:45:07 PM PDT

  •  IMPEACH BUSH (none / 0)

    IMPEACH BUSH bumperstickers!!!!

    https://www.cafepress.com/heythisiscool

    we need every car in America to have these

    PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

    by RumsfeldResign on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:54:20 PM PDT

  •  Gitmo 2000? (none / 1)

    I just heard on the Randi Rhodes show that Gitmo was being planned in 2000? Whut up with that? Has this president and the administration done ANYTHING aboveboard or legal? I'm starting to believe that he's the most outrageously corrupt and stupid person this country--no, the world--has had to endure!

    by Madmomma on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 02:59:28 PM PDT

  •  I guess... (none / 0)

    In terms of the Presidential election.

    Do you think all those who voted Democratic did not believe all this admin's hype? I don't know the answer to that. Just that in my circle, after 9/11, there were a lot of Democratic admirers of Bush also - he was STRONG in his response, he was Presidential... I wonder what fraction of them believed some of the Bush admin's scare tactics - when Colin The Great was on stage at UN.

    The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past - Milan Kundera

    by Suvro on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:23:11 PM PDT

  •  CSpan Coverage of Conyers DSM hearing (none / 0)

    Sensenbrenner has apparently told Conyers that he can't hold any DSM hearing in US congress factilities.  So apparently the hearings will be held instead at the RNC headquarters. Has anyone verified that CSpan will go to the RNC to cover the hearings?

    by CoolAqua on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:24:51 PM PDT

  •  RE the administration's dismissal and (none / 0)

    dissembling of facts on the DSM. . .

    Doublethink.
    To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed. . .

    That is all.

    "As long as I think it might make [homophobic 'baggers] happy, I can never retire." - Barney Frank

    by indiemcemopants on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:30:23 PM PDT

  •  I've got goosebumps. (none / 0)

    Everyone should watch that. I thought I hated these people before. Words fail me.

    There has only been a Dem in the Whitehouse for 13 of the past 41 years for a reason. Divide and be conquered.

    by kitebro on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:06:38 PM PDT

  •  Drudge and WTC hypothesis (none / 0)

    Former Bush Official says that WTC was not brought down like every1 believes, but rather by controlled demolition.
    Link is on Drudge.

    isnt it the case that the arab media has been peddling this hypothesis for quite some time, namely that Bush attacked America on 9/11.
    now a senior bush official seems to agree.....

    whats ur take on this?

    by Taz Man on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:22:37 PM PDT

  •  Go here (none / 0)

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/14/downing/index.h tml

    to see a Salon article that says the big newspapers are claiming that it was AP's fault that they didn't cover the Downing Street Memo sooner. You see, the big newspapers rely on the AP to give them any overseas news, and, uh... I guess they think this qualifies. OK, London, I get that. But couldn't they have read about it on the internet, same as I did, at the very least?

    Just wondering...

    by Cuttlefish on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:03:12 PM PDT

  •  Condi on Chris Matthews (none / 0)

    Some priceless new lines today:
    1.  Matthews had to explain the vocabulary meaning of "fixing it"
    2.  "We would've had to go to war with Iraq sooner or later anyways"
    3.  And of course, a powerful non-denial denial tool that Nixon never had - Bimbo Laugh!

    by tyoma on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:21:37 PM PDT

  •  Nobody Should Be Surprised (none / 0)

    The strategy of the bushies were laid out years ago.

    The equation is so easy:

    Chief architect of the iraq invasion: Paul Wolfowitz = Neoconservative = Straussian: Leo Strauss detests Machiavelli for telling the people the truth about the immorality of realpolitics. He praises Plato for arguing the ruling "philosophers" should use "noble lies" to keep the public quiet. Strauss argues in "On Tyranny" that the people should be kept quiet by giving them religion and nationalism. The best strategy according to Strauss is to let them believe that their country is in a constant state of war. This way the people wont turn against the ruling philosopher class who are the only ones who know the truth. The real thing the philosophers have to fear is that the public may get upset about the fact that they are ruled by an elite and have nothing to say. So they have to be kept dumb and uninformed.

    by jbjence on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:34:23 AM PDT

Permalink | 103 comments