If there was any doubt last week about the possible effectiveness of this targeted media campaign, the weekend's news should put them to rest. We're on a roll. Below the fold I'll describe the scene, from Harry Shearer to Ralph Nader. But before you rush away to phone/fax/email, note that the spokesman for downingstreetmemo.com, ukiyo, will appear today at 5 PM EST on MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast to discuss DSM.
For those who are new participants, welcome. At the end of this diary you'll find a lengthy section on the background and nature of this media campaign, together with suggestions for how to write an effective letter.
For old hands, here is the new list of three media outlets we would ask you to contact. Please write, call, or fax all three today (even if you've done so before), and check back tomorrow for the next installment:
(A) CBS, 60 Minutes. email: 60m@cbsnews.com phone: 212-975-3247
(B) Newsweek. email: letters@newsweek.com attn: National Affairs Editor phone: 212-445-4000 fax: 212-445-5068
Third news outlet below the fold. SEE UPDATE!
(C) Chicago Tribune; Don Wycliff, Public Editor. email: Dwycliff@tribune.com phone: 800-874-2863 fax: 312-222-2550
The Chicago Tribune published a good front-page article on DSM on May 17 by Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva, and it even mentioned downingstreetmemo.com. But too much of their article was devoted to the question of why DSM was not being reported in the US, too little to the contents of DSM and the questions it raises. Much has changed since then, and we hope that they will dig deeper into the many unanswered questions surrounding DSM. You may also contact the reporters directly: shedges@tribune.com and mdsilva@tribune.com. But if so, do it in addition to contacting the Public Editor.
Update [2005-6-6 12:6:25 by smintheus]:: We've been hearing rumors that the Republicans are hoping to bury the emerging DSM story permanently by issuing a response to John Kerry's planned statement, sometime today (?). Reportedly, they will argue that the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" [HR 4655] gave the President all the authorization he needed to invade Iraq. Over at Democratic Underground, they're discussing this now. To my mind, any such attempt by the Republicans would be laughable, and welcome evidence that they are becoming increasingly desperate over the threat DSM represents.
Let me explain why briefly, so that we are on record from the outset. The bill does not authorize the President to invade Iraq. It authorizes him to work with those in Iraq who want to replace the dictatorship with a democracy. Furthermore, if Bush actually believed that HR 4655 authorized him to invade Iraq, why did he not say so and let it stand at that? Why did he ask Congress for authority to invade Iraq in October 2002? Why did he seek a UN resolution to authorize an invasion? Above all (and here's the kicker), why did he deceive the nation during the year before the invasion about his plans and his grounds for taking action? Why did he allow the facts and the intelligence on alleged WMDs and links to terrorism to be fixed around his policy of overthrowing Hussein?
Furthermore--and this is extremely important, folks--whatever Bush actually thought about HR 4655 (which is now virtually unproveable), it did not give him authority to misappropriate funds that Congress had appropriated for the war in Afghanistan. We've heard that at least 700 million dollars were shifted out of Iraq to the Gulf to support the secret shift of troops and materiel there. According to Senator Graham's book, Tommy Franks told him in Feb. 2002 that large numbers of forces were being shifted out of Afghanistan already, and that the war was now in Iraq. Did Bush ask Congress for permission to use funds appropriated for Afghanistan for the new war he was creating in Iraq? Graham was shocked by the revelation from Franks, so on the face of it the answer appears to be that he did not. Therefore it looks to be a clear case of misappropriation of funds on a massive scale. That is a crime, whether done by a President or by any other federal official. As they used to say in Watergate days, 'Follow the money.'
There is no way that Republican jibber jabber about HR 4655 will eliminate this most glaring of all questions about the rush to war. We must not lose sight of it.
(end of Update)
Signs of Success
There's evidence coming from two of the news outlets targeted on the first day of the campaign (C-Span, AP) that they now understand the importance of covering DSM. Farther down I'll discuss an important AP article that treats DSM in a revealing way.
As I said on Friday, C-Span contacted ukiyo and asked him to appear on a DSM program Saturday. The actual arrangements fell through, though, so C-Span opted for Steve Cobble from afterdowningstreet.com. By all accounts Steve handled it well. The Bush apologist who appeared, Aylward, was as expected incompetent and poorly informed.
Just as interestingly, C-Span turned an appearance by Ralph Nader on Sunday into a second show on DSM in as many days. Mustang Bobby reports that Nader "did ok on C-SPAN this morning--he was on point...and he didn't stand on the desk and scream for impeachment." Good. Good to know as well that our campaign is having a measurable effect.
If you have a spare moment, please email C-Span to thank them for responding to our appeals for coverage of DSM, and urge them to do more programs soon. The address is: journal@c-span.org.
The invitation to downingstreetmemo.com to appear on MSNBC came over the weekend as well. The website and the "Awaken" campaign have been getting some valuable plugs from dozens of blogs, from radio hosts Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, and from columnists like Huffington and earlier Krugman, so the site traffic is now rather high. That should help to keep attracting media attention.
The surest sign that DSM is reaching into the mainstream, though, is the fact that over the weekend Harry Shearer discussed it on Le Show. That's right folks. No, it was not in the Apologies of the Week; Bush hasn't even mentioned DSM, and it'll be a good while before he apologizes for it. Anyway, you can listen to LeShow at KCRW's website.
Some good links you should keep
Diary by colinb with dozens of links to reports about attacks upon Iraq in 2002.
Article in The Guardian from Dec. 4, 2002 that spells out in detail how the air war in Iraq had escalated during the summer and fall of that year. This is more impressive in many ways than the recent Sunday Times article on the RAF dossier.
Londonbear's diary at Boomantribune, which lays out all the most important evidence that was presented in the March 20th BBC Panorama program regarding the campaign of deception in the year before the war.
The AP story on Bolton
A major new story over the weekend demonstrates once again the importance of getting the news out about DSM. It is an AP article by Charles J. Hanley on John Bolton's involvement in the illegal firing of Jose Bustani, the head of the U.N.'s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), in April 2002. One of several diaries on this article has now been front-paged.
Hanley makes clear that Bolton wanted Bustani fired by the U.N. because Bustani was trying to convince Iraq to sign onto the international treaty banning chemical weapons, which would mean weapons inspections in Iraq, which would undermine the case for invading Iraq that BushCo was already building in early spring 2002. Rather than allow OPCW to demonstrate that Iraq had no chemical weapons left, Bolton decided to get Bustani fired. After several nasty attempts, Bolton succeeded.
This story is explicable in terms of what DSM tells us about US policy in 2002, and the context in which the Bush administration was working. In particular, it seems to substantiate what the British officials on DSM were saying about Hussein's WMDs--that his program was no real threat. It also provides another example of how the Bush administration viewed the U.N. weapons inspection programs--something to be manipulated, to score points on the world stage, rather than agencies that should be allowed to do their jobs.
I found it especially interesting that Hanley segues from his introductory paragraphs to the blow-by-blow account of the firing by means of the following passage [my emphasis]:
"The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime.
An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help."
This is of course a reference to DSM, or at least to the briefing paper (still not published) that accompanied that meeting and which was reflected in the discussions on that day. As far as I know, this is the first AP article to discuss DSM. Note that the document is being called `fresh evidence' which `surfaces' (present tense). That is much preferable to `old news', which is what we've been hearing from so many quarters--but still peculiar, given that DSM was leaked over a month ago (`last month'--well, yes, all the way back on the first of May, not what you would typically associate with the present tense). Note too that DSM is not named here, even though there are several terms in common use for it, nor is its means of disclosure specifically identified. It is given a central place in the article, yet it is left rather vague.
There are several possible interpretations of the curious treatment of DSM here. My own interpretation is that AP has decided (in the wake of our campaign last Wednesday?) that it will need to do a report on DSM, and that DSM really merits separate treatment. Therefore AP has chosen to portray the leak as `fresh', so that it will not be reporting stale news when it gets the DSM article out. If they are planning a DSM story, they would also not want to give too much away about DSM in advance. I should say that is both my interpretation of this curious passage in the Bolton article, and also my hope.
The embarrassing conjunction of Bolton and DSM could finally put a stake through the heart of his nomination , but perhaps not before DSM gains even further traction. Were Bush smart, he would withdraw Bolton's nomination immediately to avoid bringing attention to the bubbling DSM scandal. As things are, however, I do not expect to see that happen. I'll be delighted if DSM is introduced into Senate debates about Bolton. Perhaps Dems should now release their hold on the nomination and let fly with everything they have.
I was going to include a discussion of the semantics of `minutes' vs. `memo' today, but there is so much material already that I'll save it for tomorrow. Everything hereafter is repeated from previous diaries for the benefit of first-time participants.
ORIENTATION FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS
This series of diaries aims to lift the virtual news blackout in the US on the Downing Street Minutes. We're trying to unite the strength of DSM coalitions for a targeted campaign. For a full month many of us here at dKos as well as other web-based activists (such as FAIR, MoveOn, and the Big Brass Alliance of bloggers) have been appealing for greater coverage of DSM by the news media, but with only limited success. We will need to focus, coordinate, and sustain our efforts if we wish to get their attention.
Therefore every weekday this month I will post a diary listing three news outlets. Please email or call all three on that day requesting politely that they report on DSM. The first diary in this series gives a lengthier discussion of this media campaign and its background. I also talked there about how we should treat allegations that this is stale news that the public has no interest in. Such allegations are misguided if not tendentious.
My main point was that too often our attempts to compel the news media to report on DSM have been scatter-shot. Generally we've been contacting virtually every media outlet, rather than focusing our effort. When we have focused on an individual news outlet, such as the Washington Post, results have been impressive. So it's high time that we begin an organized, focused, and sustained campaign on the media. I'm confident that we can still force news outlets to pay attention if we inundate them, one by one, with letters and calls requesting that they report on this important story.
This media campaign
This campaign will try to wake up various news outlets to the realization that very many people want and expect them to report on the Downing Street Memo. Every day it will concentrate on just three targets, and if any targeted news outlets don't respond with serious coverage, it will revisit them several days later. There will be a new trio of media contacts posted every weekday. The list will be diaried here around 8 AM EST, and will be crossposted at other sites. The surest place to find it will be at www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html.
I welcome other activist groups and blogs that wish to collaborate on this campaign, and I urge all who are in a position to do so to publicize it as best they can--especially by posting the daily lists at their own sites or by linking to the updated list. These diaries will be a useful place to share information about coordinating our efforts. Several bloggers have already given me considerable help to get this off the ground, so I'd like to know how I can help others now with their efforts.
Advice on writing a letter to the media
Please write your own letter, rather than sending a form letter. Individualized letters have much more impact. You can easily re-use that letter again and again once you've composed it, and it need not be long or detailed since each target will be receiving dozens or hundreds of such letters that day (they'll soon figure out what the DSM is all about). The most important thing will be to maximize numbers, and to ensure that every target receives an equally large number of letters. Phone calls typically make a bigger impression than an email.
Angry, condescending, hyperbolic, or overblown letters are likely to carry much less weight than polite, precise, succinct ones. Try to appeal to the better nature of the journalist you contact (put yourself in his/her shoes). You might want to state briefly why you believe the leaked document is significant for democracy in the US, or mention Rep. Conyers' letter to President Bush seeking clarification regarding DSM. If you are at a loss about what to say about the significance of DSM, you're welcome to plunder bits of this old diary on what we learn from the Downing Street Minutes.
You might also think of including links to one or two of the following articles concerning the leaked minutes. But do not simply paste these articles into your letter:
Text of the Downing Street Memo:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
London Time article on "spikes of activity" against Iraq in summer of 2002:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html
Knight Ridder article by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott (5/5):
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.html
Chicago Tribune article by Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva (5/17):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505170052may17,1,5984426.story
NY Times article by Douglas Jehl (5/20):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?ex=1117684800&en=c7e3b449bae71b66&
ei=5070&oref=login
Please email the letter separately to each of the day's three contacts. Do not CC all addressees in one email--that's the kind of thing you'd expect from right-wing swarms. And most importantly, come back the next day to send out three more letters. If you miss a diary at DailyKos, the same list will be up all day at www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html.