Update [2005-6-15 15:22:7 by smintheus]: New media contact identified below.
Well, the latest news is that James Sensenbrenner has ordered Rep. Conyers to hold his DSM hearing in the Bethesda Howard Johnsons. What splendid arrogance. I can foresee this causing difficulties for the regular customers, however. If only Sensenbrenner will rush forward and try to cut off Conyers' mike, we might be able to turn this into good footage for the nightly news. Today, we need to focus attention above all on encouraging the MSM to cover Rep. Conyers' hearings on Thursday (after which there'll also be a march to Lafayette Park, across from the WH, to deliver a letter to President Bush that now has well over 500,000 signatures). That is the reason for targeting C-Span again.
In your letters, please try to show the MSM that the DSM story has evolved considerably in recent days, and point out to them new avenues for investigation. The media is much more likely to invest time digging if they see new angles and revelations popping up, and once they become invested in DSM, they will continue with it.
Last night's NBC detailed report on DSM provided a perfect case in point. In previous diaries I urged everybody to lay off the six new docs and allow the MSM to authenticate them for us--for several reasons, including the possibility that by stepping forward to authenticate them, MSM would finally become invested in DSM. NBC coverage, previously weak and somewhat dismissive, suddenly became very solid. So we need to think carefully about how we can work with the media, if while pushing them forward.
I think we should also seriously discuss long term strategy now. To continue with the military metaphor, the DSM story has now broken out of the enclave in which its been pinned down; we ought to have a coherent plan for how we can branch out into multiple prongs of attack. We should not risk allowing a single, main thrust (such as Conyers' investigation) to become stalled, thereby consigning the movement to a slow death. In this regard, I've been impressed by Billmon's advice (which I mentioned in recent diaries) that we need to get the stalled Senate Intelligence Committee's WMD investigation back up and running. That is one prong of attack that I'm endorsing now (see below for contact info). There are other prongs that we need to consider, some obvious and others less so. Let's discuss this in earnest, now.
We're now seeing a predictable backlash against the momentum DSM is gaining, trying to convince us that internet activists are naive and there really is nothing new about what DSM tells us. The news outlets that are most complicit in cheerleading for the Iraq war and in ignoring DSM are those who (wouldn't you know) are leading the backlash.
In your letters, please mention the Conyers' hearings and at least one of the following; the new Military Action memo published on Sunday; the six `new'UK memos (on which see below); the Bolton/Bustani story about the blocking of chemical weapons inspections in Iraq; the RAF documents; Bush's stone-walling last Tuesday at his press conference with Blair.
In addition to showing the media why and how the story has evolved in the last few days or weeks, we must convince them that they need to print the full text or at least publish a careful overview of the full text. That will make it much more likely they will dig deeper into the story and begin asking questions, rather than simply reporting that "critics say `X' but Bush says `ybrguziiipca'." The GOP most definitely does not want the public to read DSM (as we can see from their evasive talking points), because there is almost no way to portray the discussions there positively. It is an explosive document, and they are fearful of it. Please help to convince these newspapers to print it in full.
Here is the [updated] trio of media contacts for today. Please email, call, or fax all three of them, and come back tomorrow for the next installment in this campaign:
(A) The Lynchburg News & Advance. Contact EITHER
Editor Robert C. Wimer. email: RWimer@newsadvance.com phone: 434-385-5400 fax: 434-385-5538
OR Managing Editor Joe Stinnett. email: jstinnett@newsadvance.com phone: 434-385-5520
(B) Cox News Service, Washington Bureau Chief Andy Alexander. email: andya@coxnews.com phone: 202-887-8334
OR Carl Rauscher, Washington Bureau News Editor. email: crauscher@coxnews.com 202-887-8307
(C) Arizona Daily Star, Managing Editor Teri Hayt. email: thayt@azstarnet.com phone: 520-573-4226
OR Reader Advocate Debbie Kornmiller. email: advocate@azstarnet.com phone: 520-434-4080
The Lynchburg paper has published much about Jerry Falwell’s political views, but so far nothing about DSM. I gather that they’ve picked up Michael Kinsley’s atrocious‰ op-ed (see my comments below), and plan to print it soon. Please urge the editor of this Virginia paper to publish a more careful op-ed or newsreport (such as today’s LA Times article by John Daniszewski) that spells out for readers what DSM actually states (as Kinsley neglects to do!). Cox News Service owns an important newspaper chain. Cox reporters Ken Herman and Don Melvin wrote good introductory articles on DSM (printed by Atlanta Journal-Constitution on June 8th and June 12th, but the Cox Washington Bureau has not dug any deeper or produced reports on the many related issues. The Arizona Daily Star has printed only a single article mentioning the memo (though the paper has had some pointed letters to the editor about DSM).
For those who are new participants in this daily targeted media campaign, you can go to the first diary in the series for introductory materials and advice about how to write a letter to the media:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/1/74549/88811
Media lays out the goose eggs
You'll be glad to know Dr. Science the WaPo prolongs and amplifies its campaign for shallow and crabbed coverage of DSM. The newspaper that in 2002 stood among the front ranks of the cheerleaders for the Iraq war, and in May 2005 sneered at those who called for an investigation of DSM, is back to lecturing us about why they know more than we do. Let's see, on DSM we've had second rate Pincus, third rate Pincus, second rate Milbank...oh, and can't forget the Kinsley op-ed that I charitably termed atrocious. Today there is this snide WaPo editorial that tells us to `move along':
"Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to them. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."
But hold on a dang moment...hasn't this bunch of amateur bloggers been describing for 46 days what is new about these revelations? Thumbing through yellowed copies of WaPo, I haven't found an editorial from July 2002 telling us that the British were promoting a UN ultimatum in order to wrongfoot Saddam Hussein and provide a pretext for war, under cloak of which the public could accept an invasion to replace Hussein with a more amenable government. For that matter, I'm still looking for the WaPo articles that state Bush was lying when he said he had no plans in the works to invade Iraq; that Bush already had a firm commitment from Tony Bliar to join the US invasion; that he was telling Mr. Bliar privately the opposite of what he was telling the nation about his intentions; that Mr. Bush had ordered "spikes" of air strikes over Iraq with a view toward creating "an Iraqi casus belli"; that the timeline for war began one month before the fall election.
All of that is news (as websites easily accessible to WaPo computer terrminals have been trumpeting since the start of this story). As A. E. Housman once remarked, "Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out, but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time."
Todd Purdum made a similar if less tiresome argument in NYT yesterday. He too manages to ignore what is glaring and salient about DSM, preferring instead the gauzy focus of `conventional wisdom' and the reassuring whiff of straw men. Here are some selections:
But the documents are not quite so shocking. Three years ago , the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people - chief among them Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state - were also warning in public and private that the Pentagon was ill prepared for prolonged occupation.
What no one knew then for certain (though some lonely voices did predict it) is that American forces would find none of the lethal chemical or biological weapons that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said made Iraq so dangerous, or that the anti-American insurgency would be so durable and deadly. That is why the British memos' foresight - read with the benefit of hindsight - rings so bittersweet for those who tried in vain to avert the war, and remain aghast at its human and material costs.
So there, we're nostalgiacs for the futile days of marching against the war.
The memos do shed new light on the thinking of senior British officials, and their view of American thinking, in the months before the invasion. At a minimum, they suggest that the Bush administration paid no less (and no more) heed to the concerns of its closest ally than it did to those of its own secretary of state.
There it is, DSM does actually tell something new and, well fairly trivial.
But the memos are not the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A shame really, because it would take those bloggers decades to piece the texts back together.
Rather, what the memo seems to emphasize is that the United States could build greater support for any military action - especially from Britain - by first confronting Iraq through the United Nations, the course it eventually took at the urging of Mr. Blair and Mr. Powell.
Hmmm...I thought it showed the UN route on alleged WMDs was intended as a smokescreen for regime change.
For better or worse, the questions raised anew by the memos are not likely to go away.
I can see clearly now why asking awkward questions about the truth would do harm to the nation. But wait, that applies only to private citizens. Purdum goes on to suggest it is about time for the Senate Intelligence Committee to re-open its stalled hearings on political manipulation of WMD intelligence. By chance, that is exactly what these pesky bloggers are calling for (see below).
In his Philadelphia Inquirer blog, Daniel Rubin comments on the email campaign that generated hundreds of emails to Managing Editor Carl Lavin, whom he quotes making defensive comments about the absence of decent coverage previously.
Also, note we have yet another fine Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5457360.html
Urge the Senate to re-open investigations into political manipulation of intelligence
In addition to the trio of media contacts, I'm urging people to contact Sen. Pat Roberts to urge him to restart the Sen. Intelligence Committee hearings into pre-war WMD intel. Last year the Committee issued a report that focused exclusively on alleged failures in intelligence-gathering; Josh Marshall maintains that this report was part of a cover-up of the abuses that the Bush administration engaged in. At least as importantly, Roberts promised Democrats that after the 2004 election the Committee would investigate whether the intel was politically manipulated by the Bush admin to produce the desired reports about WMDs.
Yet those hearings have never been held. It was a false and tendentious distinction to make in the first place; postponing an investigation into alleged manipulation was intended to provide cover for Bush. The pressure that was brought to bear upon the `intelligence community' (a lovely phrase) from within, from above, and from the side (specifically through the Office of Special Plans, a shady set-up that stove-piped bad intel from lousy sources like `Curveball'), has been very widely and credibly reported. See for example this report (thanks to NeuroticBlonde for that link). For Sen. Roberts to have promised and reneged upon his commitment to hold hearings is outrageous to his colleagues and an insult to the nation. I urge you to contact him today to say so, and spread the word to your friends as well. It is even more appalling that Sen. Roberts has taken this action though he served as a Marine and was at one time a reporter. Here is the contact info:
Senator Pat Roberts R-KA, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee . email: pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov webmail: http://roberts.senate.gov/e-mail_pat.html phone: (202) 224-4774 Fax: 202-224-3514 (Jackie Cottrell, Chief of Staff)
The `new' documents from the UK
I `ve heard enough information from Mr. Michael Lewis of Cambridge Univ. about the provenience of the new documents and how they came into his hands, that I believe I should withdraw the theory that one of them had bits that were excised before being scanned as PDFs. My thanks to Mr. Lewis for putting himself out to help me.
Commentary on these new documents is going up on www.downingstreetmemo.com
Updated: The Conyers hearing on Thursday has been moved back from the Howard Johnsons to Capitol Hill again. It will be held in a cloakroom beginning at 2:30 pm, and will be televised by C-Span. I thank James Sensenbrenner for stopping in and talking thing through, and C-Span once again for their public spiritedness.