The administration’s Original Sin

Like millions of us, John Kerry is vexed by the media’s wholesale neglect of the administration-damning Downing Street memo. “I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion.” He added that he intends to go to the mat Monday: ”When I go back [to Washington] … I am going to raise the issue.”

Kerry has a long media-goading road ahead of him. After reading his observations yesterday I decided to see precisely how much the Downing Street memo (technically, minutes) has “escaped major media discussion” in domestic newspapers. So I entered the three-word phrase in LexisNexis™ and came up with this:

Twenty-four matches. Not so hot, but on the other hand, nearly 24 more than I expected. But this was a domestic search, so I had to ignore the foreign press items: three. Then I discovered that 14 entries weren’t news pieces, but letters to the editor complaining about the memo’s lack of coverage. There were also duplicate stories in the count, so they had to go: three more. And finally, within the list were two editorials (not news stories) on the memo and one piece from a paper’s ombudsman defending the dearth of coverage (pretty much a “We rely on wire services” for this kind of thing).

If you were doing the math while reading, you know the results: Precisely one domestic piece on the Downing Street memo since the (London) Sunday Times broke the story May 1.

In fairness to newspapers, LexisNexis does not compile stories from every source, and my search term, “Downing Street memo,” precluded results not containing that exact phrase. Consequently other searches outside LN revealed stories from the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post. But let’s get real: Only one printed story matching “Downing Street memo” in a scandal known throughout the world as, well, the Downing Street-memo scandal? That’s scandalous itself.

Within LN’s results, the one story listed was by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, on May 13. And that piece was more of a “Why no story?” story than actual coverage. Nevertheless it was a fascinating read, especially since two experts interviewed had some oddly fascinating things to say.

”The underlying reality is that the United States has moved beyond the debate over the reasons for invading Iraq, said Daniel Hofrenning, a political scientist at St. Olaf College in Northfield. Most Americans are focused on seeking positive outcomes from the war, not reason to blame the Bush administration for starting it. ‘It doesn't mean President Bush gets a free pass, but the evidentiary standard has to be pretty high before he suffers from something like this,’ Hofrenning said. ‘At the end of the day, citizens are going to judge him on whether a viable democracy is established in Iraq.’”

Several counterpoints spring to mind regarding Professor Hofrenning’s observations. First, to say we have “moved beyond” debating an illegal invasion is the stuff that slippery-slope militarism is made of, though I doubt the good professor meant to condone or identify with that. Second, the Downing Street memo’s “evidentiary standard” of criminality is about as high as standards get: The conspirators cited in the memo haven’t even troubled disputing its accuracy. And third, given that Bush is already suffering in the polls as a result of botching Iraq, how much more would he suffer if the media were to inform the public of the “pre-botch” conspiracy as revealed in the memo?

Also interviewed was John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a military and intelligence information organization. In the newspaper’s words, Mr. Pike noted that “it is not surprising that the [Downing Street memo] has drawn little attention in the United States, where Bush was reelected even while polling found that half the electorate believed Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence to justify going to war.” But Pike was confusing two separate issues, adding, “I didn't think anybody felt there was a need for more smoking guns. Didn't we already know that?”

At its core the memo wasn’t about questioning the presence of Iraq’s weapons. WMD were a mere convenience, as later talk about humanitarianism and democracy became once WMD were, literally, not found to be a casus belli. It was about the Bush administration’s fundamental predetermination to go to war, even in the absence of any justification.

That -- not the WMD exaggerations -- was the fundamental crime perpetrated by the Bush administration. It didn’t just stretch the received truth and fix facts “around the policy.” The policy itself was a crime: Bush & Co. deceived the nation about its unalterable premise -- an illegal invasion.

That was the administration’s Original Sin -- and impeachable offense.

Sitting in for the NYT’s Maureen Dowd, columnist Matt Miller has pondered, “Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe?”

It is, Matt, as long as the “anything” is made publicly available. That’s the first and overlooked step the media must take. So go push ‘em, Senator Kerry.

Comments

[Marblex]

Kerry is a loser who is jumping on John Conyors' bandwagon now that Conyors has initiated a proceeding that may actually have legs after all. Kerry, a Skull and Bonesman, purposefully ran a lukewarm campaign, which it turn made it possible for the advertising and marketing propaganda machine (laughingly called "MSM") could claim how "close" the election was, which in turn, enabled the GOP to Diebold it, turning in an arguably credible 51-49 result.

As far as I'm concerned, Kerry can go do the nasty to himself. The sooner he gets off the national stage, the better I'll start to feel about the Democratic Party. He's a phony, an opportunist, and where is our $13 million?

[jake]

I totally agree about Kerry; I believe he actually strategized to run for 2008 (saving the 13 million). Virtually anyone could have hogtied this administration of crooks with their own deeds and won this electoral contest if they had really wanted to (that is, if the media had allowed it... it blew my mind how fast Dean was sidelined after he intoned that "big media" has seen it's day...)

[Jim Palmer]

What does it take to wake the American people up to the fact that an illegal war has been declared in their name, that over 1700 American soldiers and who knows how many Iraqis have been killed so that Bush could have the war he wanted from day one? I personally think the man should be impeached, but since he has only killed people and has not been caught in a sexual pecadillo, I guess he'll still be a hero to some.

Not to me. Not in my name.

[Larry Rasnick]

Although I fully believe every charge leveled against President Chaney and his gang, I am also reminded of Newsweek. I hear a lot of reports that the Downing memo is not being denied. I fear we are going to discover something that shows the memo was forged or somehow tainted, not the facts mind you, just the memo. I truly wish to see that pack of criminals brought to justice but I despair.

[Kid Charlemagne]

"a Skull and Bonesman, purposefully ran a lukewarm campaign...". Ahem. Marblex's and Jake's Kool-Aid mustaches are showing. (Not all Kool-Aid is right-wing. It comes in many flavors.) This sort of semi-demented conspiracy thinking (I may be too generous in using the prefix) is why I got disgusted with David Corn's blog and only surf there sometimes now, where I used to go there every time I entered the Web.

I belong to no party, but I don't think the Democrats are evil--or the real Republicans, for that matter. (Anyone else remember the real Republicans? The folks who distrusted humongous budget deficits and messianic foreign policies?) The Dems are just bewildered. Remember the SNL skit in 1988 where Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz were playing Bush Senior and Dukakis? Dana, as Bush, did his babbling-Bush shtick, and Jon, as Dukakis, said "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" Sadly, the fake GOPhers, or Elephascists, as I like to call them, understand what neither the real Republicans nor the Democrats understand: in most human beings, the irrational portions of the mind are stronger than the rational portions, and so the Elephascist propagandists tailor their propaganda accordingly, spewing it through the fascist-owned or -intimidated McMedia (aka the MSM). In this, the Elephascist propagandists follow their true role model, Herr Goebbels.

If the propaganda fails, the Elephascists can always fall back on their buddies who make the hardware and write the software for the "black box" voting machines--one of the few conspiracy scenarios I DO take seriously. They don't need storm troopers as long as they can fix the "elections".

The Democrats are far short of perfection, but guess what, folks? You don't GET that in the real world (a place in which extremists of any type don't seem to spend much time).
The reason the donkey party doesn't show much spine is that they expect to be punished if they do. Remember the 1960s, when the Democrats, and some honorable Republicans, did the moral, correct, straight-spined thing and enacted--and enforced--equal rights for black Americans?
The white racist backlash that resulted is THE #1 REASON the Dems became the minority party, because the forerunners of today's Elephascists were willing to lower themselves to take advantage of it. The Democrats are reluctant to do the right thing because too many of my fellow white folks were, and are, immoral and irrational and will punish virtuous behavior that rebukes their cherished sins. As Clare Boothe Luce said, and John Mellencamp quoted, "No good deed goes unpunished."
A lot of my fellow non-elite white folks who wonder why the Democrats don't stick up for them anymore need to remember their voting histories, and then kick themselves. Hard.
(NOTE: I'm not accusing Marblex or Jake of the sins described in this paragraph.)

A blue soul in a red state, Kid Charlemagne

[MKR]

As long as the vast majority of the population relies upon the corporate-sponsored media -- the so-called MSM outlets for their "news" -- (most if not all mainstream broadcast news is under the networks entertainment divisions and geared more to cultivate personalities than deliver objective news), the more controlled and placated they become. Sitting in front of a television with a moronic stare hardly qualifies as a learning or informational experience. It simply discharges the preceived need for news without ever getting any. Those of us who get their information from the web are more informed. Why? Because we are not told what to view -- we seek out information rather than sit there in front of the boob tube in a drug-like stupor and absorb the propaganda, like a drug addicts takes in the drug. Until we can move more people away from television and direct them to the web, the same level of control and ignorance will continue. It is our duty to move people away from television and get them to connect to the web. It takes retraining but for those of us who have gone through this exercise, how many actually watch with any seriousness ANY broadcast news anymore? Time to attack the source which carries the message rather than the power behind the message.

[Tony]

I'm still hoping against hope that we may indeed be reaching a tipping point. Polls show that Bush's approval as far as Iraq goes is only slightly better accepted by Americans than his idiotic Social Security boondoggle.

A few Republicans seem to be jumping off the Bush Bandwagon, and the '06 elections are around the corner.

Perhaps impeachment doesn't have to be about an illicit blow job after all.

[moseybear]

Bravo to Kid and MKR. Spot on! If you probe misinformed or underinformed people in an attempt to find out the "why", you will find that most of them tell you "I watch the news...everyday" meaning that they feel they are discharging their newly duty. However, the "same Bat Time -- same Bat Channel" routine is concentrated and the dope being administered is pharmaceutical grade. These folks are being drugged and they don't even know it. Like the addict, they are addicted to the patterned behavior of sitting in front of their television, each and every day, and mistakenly think that the dope they are being fed is good for them. So do addicts. They often kill to get their next fix, or fight to protect their dealers. Sad, but true. Time to "kill the television" set and help others to do the same. Kick the habit.

[moseybear]

Bravo to Kid and MKR. Spot on! If you probe misinformed or underinformed people in an attempt to find out the "why", you will find that most of them tell you "I watch the news...everyday" meaning that they feel they are discharging their newly duty. However, the "same Bat Time -- same Bat Channel" routine is concentrated and the dope being administered is pharmaceutical grade. These folks are being drugged and they don't even know it. Like the addict, they are addicted to the patterned behavior of sitting in front of their television, each and every day, and mistakenly think that the dope they are being fed is good for them. So do addicts. They often kill to get their next fix, or fight to protect their dealers. Sad, but true. Time to "kill the television" set and help others to do the same. Kick the habit.

[Whistlestop]

The question is: If the Downing Street Minutes fails to attract media attention, what does? The sole goal behind MSM is to placate the sponsors -- to sell something -- whether it is a product or a service or both. If the story doesn't aid in promoting a commercial entity, then why should the MSM waste their time airing it? The notion that the airwaves belong to the public is dead. There is no public anymore. In fact, public is now synonymous with socialism, if you monitor Limbaugh. This administration has redefined the public good to mean "national security" and that definition is narrowly applied. Our streets, infrastructure, schools, health care etc. can all go to pot. It is no longer "public" -- rather -- these notions of public interests of yesteryear are now considered to be individual responsibility. I am waiting for a corporation to adopt our local elementary school so we can get some air conditioning. Likewise, maybe Coke or Pepsi would like to fix the potholes in our run-down streets and make us see a 30 second informercial before we can drive on their newly paved road.

The motto "United We Stand" needs to be changed to "Divided We Stand". Time to make the word public an acceptible and honorable word once again.

[MKR]

It's not just the Downing Street Minutes. "The Left Coaster" reports that the Washington Post and the New York Times have scrubbed a story from their publcations that suggested the Bolton NSA documents exposed the names of companies and individuals that may have violated the export bans relating to China, Iran etc. What's Really Behind The White House Stonewall Over Bolton Documents?

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004522.php

[boobtubegeneration]

This is what happens when you mix the boob tube a-holics (feel good drug addicted personality disorders) with meaningful intellectual speakers -- oil and water. The dope appears to truly be pharmaceutical grade and available on every channel. Too bad Erica didn't tell the kiddies how to profit from imperialism or how to make a six-figure salary working for FNC. Deep. It's "feel good" at any cost time.

http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1117805401315230.xml#continue

[moseybear]

After reading the article about Erica Jong's commencement speech, it dawned on me that we are in the first stages of awareness concerning the problems with the Downing Street Memo, Bolton papers and so on. The first stages of healing from denial are to reject the truth, or, in Erica's case, anger and resentment. This is to be expected and those of us who deal with these people need to understand this. We need to expect those who are in the first stages of awareness to express their anger at being betrayed. It's the "My Johnny wouldn't lie to me" attitude of a protective parent who takes their kid's side in a serious incident. Hearing the words from Erica for the first time, many of those in the audience would naturally be upset. What do they expect? That these kids and parents will suddenly riot and head for the nearest Republican Party office? Like the Downing Street Minutes, it is our responsibility to bring these matters up with people, ask them their view on it, probe them about what they know, what they care about, rather than attacking their ignorance. Everybody who has been lied to knows, once you're caught in one lie, everything you say prospectively becomes suspect. It is getting people to discover their first lie which is the challenge. You were lying then, are you lying now is often a favorite of lawyers. If lying is okay, when is it okay? Ask people this. Is it okay to lie to you if I stand to gain something from it? When is it not okay to lie? Should we teach our kids to lie when it serves their interests? If it wasn't okay for Bill Clinton to lie, then why is it okay for Bu$h Inc. to lie? Which lies are "good lies" and which ones "bad"? Erica sure didn't win over many people, nor did this intelligent person expect to. What she did was analogous to slapping someone in the face who is dilusional. It hurts, but you don't forget it either.

[Mike Brown]

Ever seen one of those movies where ghosts try to communicate with living people, usually to warn them about something? Hard as they try, the frustrated ghosts just can't get the living people to pay attention to them, no matter how desperately they try. We in the movie audience feels very frustrated because we want the living persons in the movie to pay attention so they can react accordingly.

Well, that's how I feel about the Downing Street Memo. We in the audience, at least those of us who care, can see and read the memo. We know that it's there, not some imaginary, spurious, faked document, because we know the British government produced it and does not denounce it. We read about it on the internet blogs, hear about it on BBC and Air America, or read about it on-line in Buzzflash, or in the Guardian newspaper in the UK. But most living people in the United States can't seem to see it. It's a ghost memo hanging around out there trying to get the attention of the living people including those at CNN, The NYT, the WP, Time magazine, Fox News, MSNBC, the WSJ, NPR, the network news departments, and all the other news media in the country. It's as if all these people are looking right through it and cannot even hear the protestations of the few people who seem to have the necessary extra-perceptual abiliity to see ghosts.

Or...maybe it's like one of the sci-fi comics. Maybe some sinister right-wing scientist has developed and released some kind of invisible gas into newsrooms all across the United States which renders the rooms' occupants temporarily unable to read any kind of revelation that might bring discredit upon the Bush government.

[moseybear]

"Maybe some sinister right-wing scientist has developed and released some kind of invisible gas into newsrooms all across the United States which renders the rooms' occupants temporarily unable to read any kind of revelation that might bring discredit upon the Bush government."

Orwellian? Indeed. At dinner last night, there was a television on in the corner -- how sick is that? The food was great but the ambiance sucked, for reasons already stated. Regardless, CNN was on and for the entire time we were having dinner, I monitored the crap from the corner of my eye (how any decent restauranteur could serve crap and food together shows poor taste). For the entire time, the programming was all about Michael Jackson -- will be able to make a comeback? Will fans still buy his music if things go bad for him at his trial? What about Cold Play's recent release? Will make the money that the industry is banking on? If they hype it, will they come? Of course, what "news" was being offer trickled not in sound bites but in snippets across the bottom of the television screen like stock market ticker.

And you wonder why nobody gives a damn about issues of substance?

[Marblex]

The media is and always has been a tool to brainwash, placate and manipulate public opinion. However, even the American sheeple, as rocks stupid as they are, are beginning to see through the fog.

Maybe Abe Lincoln was right.

Kid C.: Obviously, you have not yet awakened from your slumber. I would suggest before you attribute "kool aid" as the cause in fact of any conclusions I may have reached, that you devote yourself to the acquisition of facts, as I have done. A little research on the S&K org, the Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bildebergs, IMF and World Bank, the Bushies, the Heinz family AND John Kerry will easily lay what, in retrospect, is an obvious trail that supports my conclusion that Kerry in essense, "threw" the election by running such an anemic campaign that it was possible to Diebold it (imagine if the sheeple had been expecting the landslide that actually occurred -- Foxaganda, CNN/MSNBC and the rest of television Advertising Whores, Inc. could NOT have buried the election fraud story).

Yes, it's ugly. Yes, it's unpleasant. But the sooner people realize it happened, the faster we can all move on to a third party.

GEE MOMMY, this is JUST like last century when the bankers and other robber barons plundered the nation into economic despair.

What's the link between bankers and government?

Hahahahahahahahahaha....

I don't have a kool aid mustache, but I bet if you look in the mirror, you might see little traces of Red No. 5 around your denying lips.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Marblex, I wish I had time to do the research you mentioned and more, but some of us have to work for a living, which doesn't leave us enough time and energy to "devote ourselves to the acquisition of facts".

Also, "evidence" exists to verify your assertions, and "evidence" exists to refute them, and I don't have the time or the expertise to determine which set of evidence, if either, is true. As a Roman imperial official of some notoriety is reputed to have asked, "What is truth?"

I realize that by keeping my mental filters turned up to 11, I run the risk of rejecting a weird-sounding idea that turns out to be true, but I would rather run that risk than the opposite risk, the risk of believing a weird-sounding idea that turns out to be false. The worst that can happened to me if I err the first way is that I may look slow-witted. The worst that can happen if I err the second way...ever heard of Jonestown? I think I'll leave the risk-taking to other people, who are, after all, expendable. ;)

On the other hand, you're entirely correct about the worthlessness of the McMedia.

"Never assume malice when stupidity will explain the situation adequately"--Hanlon's Razor

Cleaning this mess up before we all end up in jail, Kid Charlemagne

[Kid Charlemagne]

Red #5? Well, Cherry WAS my favorite flavor when I (literally) drank Kool-Aid as a young'un. ;) OH YEAHHHH!---KC

[priscianus jr]

Kid Charlemagne -- Marblex is basically right. Maybe not in every detail, but basically right. Things are a lot worse than you think -- and if you don't know the details, don't pull out that "what is truth anyway?" crap. If you don't think there's such a thing as truth, if you don't think there's a difference between tinfoil and kool-aid, psyops and media whores on the one hand, and well-documented facts that responsible investigative journalists and historians have busted their asses and often risked their lives to put before the public, on the other. -- then why should your oipinions be taken seriously?

[Marblex]

Kid C: You needn't have written so much to demonstrate how little you know. If you don't have "time" to do the research because of your "full time" job (Oh, BTW I have one too) then please don't hurl chucks at someone who, despite the demands of a full time job AND a full time life, has managed to become and stay very well informed about many things that have certainly ripped the blinders off.

I've done the work. If you don't want to or aren't interested, that's perfectly O.K. But don't smugly lecture me and castigate my opinions, all of which are based on facts and not wishful thinking and media tag lines "i.e., drinking the kool aid", when you yourself are pitifully uninformed and therefore, unequipped to have this "discussion."

[Kid Charlemagne]

To review:

Worst thing that can happen to me if I reject a weird-sounding idea: Enthusiasts of the idea might think me dull-witted and rude. (True enough, and they forgot to mention my passion for photos of wombats in lingerie, as well as my--thankfully former--membership in the cult of the minor deity Phrizzby. Phrizzbians believe that if you've led a life of sin, when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof of your house and you can't get off the roof until the next windstorm.)

Worst thing that can happen to me if I accept a weird-sounding idea: I might end up believing some crackpot political/religious ideology that would warp my mind to the point where I'd be willing to kill myself and/or other people.

I think I'll continue to choose the first risk over the second.

BTW, worst thing you can do to terminally earnest people: Refuse to take them seriously.;)

So long, and thanks for all the lectures, Kid Charlemagne