Anyone Just Hear Downing Street On C-Span?

[KharmaTrain]

Someone called Washington Journal and asked Peter, the host, if he was familiar with the Downing Street memo. Peter (as I suspected), said he hadn't heard about it. The caller went on to discuss the memo briefly, then Peter asked where he got the information. The caller mentioned the bried news articles then said he read most of it on the Internet.

Peter then asked him which website he had read it on. The caller didn't mention any (couldn't recall the name Downing either...not sure if that was on purpose or not). Peter then said that there have been several calls lately and that he thinks this is being orchestrated by "some website" (why not say DU, Peter)...and that the calls were somehow being staged (now Repugnicans would NEVER ever do that).

I've heard a lot of wingnut callers over the years who keep saying the same goofy stuff over and over...from some of the most anti-semetic, gay, black, woman, Catholic and other groups and never has a C-SPAN host questioned the motives of a caller. Why now? Anyone else see this?

Yes, I know there was a post yesterday...In GD Politics about this. Hopefully, it was a DU'er who called it!

[Buddyblazon]

1. I heard it....

totally pissed me off. WHO CARES IF IT'S ORCHESTRATED? IT IS UNBELIEVABLY IMPORTANT AND THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

I got through. The operator asked me my question. And I wanted to ask the same thing. I even used the words Downing Street Memo. She then asked, "Who do you support?" I told her the Dems. She told me I called the republican line...AND HUNG UP ON ME!

[rodeodance]

79. seed your story to every media person on the face of the earth

[Democrat 4 Ever]

2. I heard that call. I decided to "help" Washington Journal out and

sent them this email.

Your host this morning said that C-Span has received several calls talking about the Downing Street memo and wonder if there is an "organized" effort in calling in to C-Span and asking about this. There doesn't need to be any organized effort - it is all over the internet. If you guys truly, TRULY are unaware of this memo then a simple Google search will turn up over 300,000 hits to further your education. (So either the hosts are truly uninformed or at the very least not possessing any journalistic inquisitiveness, which calls into question their ability to host such a program, or they are deliberately skirting this issue which begs the question, why?) This memo shows there was a concerted effort to skew facts, figures and information to get the US and England into a war with Iraq. The American people deserve to know what exactly has occurred. For the life of me I can not imagine one reason why C-Span continues to stonewall any discussion of this item.

Memorial Day is coming up, there will be plenty of programs and shows honoring our military dead. How about really honoring their memory by uncovering any lies that might have lead to their untimely and unnecessary death? We will never know the truth if the media - including C-Span - doesn't cover it.

The Downing Street memo is huge news and you would be doing your viewers a service if you would have someone on your program to discuss this information. To get you started, so you will know this story has "legs" - here is the memo -

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

DO YOUR JOB.

[rodeodance]

5. thanks but a collection of the newspapers website would also

be helpful.

[rodeodance]

8. from your posts--peter makes it sound like a conspiriacy!!

[glitch]

87. that would make him a conspiracy theorist

poor Peter.

[blm]

17. SEND THE KNIGHT-RIDDER ARTICLE, or Washington Post, fer chrissakes.

The whole point is that they deny ANYTHING FROM AN INTERNET SITE.

They will only consider NEWS ARTICLES.

The only internet sites they consider are from wingnuts like Free Republic.

[rodeodance]

21. yes--that has been my point--we need the newspapers web

stories. Lots have been posted the last few weeks on DU.
But i have not collected them and hope someone has.

[Califooyah Operative]

22. anyone got a link to mainstrem news articles like that re: the memo?

never mind, found some:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857_pf.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000912159

[converted_democrat]

30. Try looking for the London Times website. That's where the story...

originally broke. It broke on a Sunday a few weeks back. That was the original. I'll try and look for it if I have time.

[Califooyah Operative]

44. thank you I had just found it, and emailed them even more links

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050523-9.html

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11666755.htm

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050520/OPINION03/505200365/1110

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[rodeodance]

52. hey thanks for the links

[Jane Austin]

89. Well, except Drudge.

Brian Lamb has him as a guest, even.

[globalvillage]

40. I sent the NYT link

To: [e-mail]

Apparently, you guys missed the memo.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?ex=1274241600&en=2e34202da1b40215&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics


By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: May 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, May 19 - More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.


Forum: The Transition in Iraq
Eighty-nine House Democrats wrote to the White House to ask whether the memorandum, first disclosed by The Sunday Times on May 1, accurately reported the administration's thinking at the time, eight months before the American-led invasion. The letter, drafted by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the British memorandum of July 23, 2002, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

[rodeodance]

3. well someone ought to send all the newspapers that have

talked of it--along with the CNN short story with John Conyers.
Anyone have a collection that they can post here and we can ALL send to c-span/and Wash Journal please

[ezee]

4. Peter did an excellent job

of playing DUMB! You are right, he tried to pass it off as some sort of tactic of some 'group'. Have you seen the diary at Kos requesting signatures for Conyers letter?

[rodeodance]

6. nominated--we ALL have to send to c-span--the more the better.

[rodeodance]

7. what would be the best email address to use to bombard c-span

[Buddyblazon]

10. We don't want to use a form letter...

than they can use the excuse that we are an "organized effort".

I think we will have to individually write letters...otherwise ALL form letters will get the same "liberal media" treatment.

[rodeodance]

13. no not form letter--brief, polite comments with the may article

websites (newspapers) that have at least mentioned it.

[rodeodance]

11. Email:[e-mail] ( I found this) but are there other

email addresses that we can cc our collection to?

[KharmaTrain]

16. Get Out The Shovels...He Piled It Deep

Didn't this network carry the Oil For Food Hearings when the British MP bored Coleman a fifth asshole? Isn't the responsibility of the host to read the papers daily and clip articles of importance to viewers...especially items that callers have brought up before...legit or not...at least let's examine this. Also, this doofus has producers hooked up to the net who can Google as fast as we can and find Kos, London papers and others that have been covering this thing. I'm sure they'd also find Conyer's letter.

I've signed the petition and have been following this like many others here. I usually avoid starting a thread, but no one seemed to have picked up on it (I am glad to be proven wrong). I know there were people here the other day who were pissed at how Brian dismissed a call on this topic and how so many others are as well.

Just the fact he brought up notion that this caller, of all things, was part of some sort of coordinated "minsinformation" campaign is what really got me.

[rodeodance]

93. playing dumb. they are dumb to ignore this story!!

[Buddyblazon]

9. I'm fuming so much right now....

mention the words Downing Street Memo...and all of sudden...you're either hung up on...or discredited as some "activist".

WTF is wrong with these people? They are DELIBERATELY trying to keep this hush hush.

[slor]

12. HE JUST HUNG UP ON A LADY!!

That said she wanted to tell him about it!

[rodeodance]

19. here is a newspaper that was posted on DU that talked it: We

can send these to Wash Journal as references. Lets all look for more.

Even newspapers in the staunchest of red areas are finally running with it.

"Bush’s gamble on Iraq put credibility at stake"
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/opinion/html/775B21...

"Was President Bush misled by U.S. intelligence gaffes, or did he lie about his reasons for going to war?

Slowly, the media is beginning to re-examine this question. It is needed."

Now, the far right around here always brands the News Journal as a liberal rag (as they do with anything that resembles media). But most people, i think, view them as fairly moderate (and they are). If local papers in red areas are printing stuff like this in their Sunday editorial pages, it may get a few million more moderate conservatives around the country thinking and "re-examing this question".

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." - Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British intelligence (from memo describing meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002)

[rodeodance]

20. Peter really hung up on her?

[slor]

26. Yes, he said "we are going to move on"...

while pressing the button to disconnect. She made a comment pertinent to the original question, then said, calmly, "and let me tell you about the Downing Street Memo..." !CLICK! And she was gone.

[SmokingJacket]

14. Sounds like someone is desperate to discredit this story.

Hmmm... I wonder who?

I somehow doubt a real caller would phone in and not remember the name "Downing," and wouldn't refer to all the British papers and their stories on this.

My guess: Rove's plan to deal with the memo is to make everyone think it's another fake, that it's something made up on the Internets. This host is either taking orders from Rove or is a fool, and the caller was a plant. Result: everyone watching this -- who maybe read one of those brief news story about the memo -- now believes it's a fraud perpetrated by some crazy bloggers.

:tearinghairoutbyitsroots:

[KharmaTrain]

28. Makes Ya Go Hmmmm....

When the person didn't mention the website, my first thought was GOOP plant who didn't want to publicize a site, but wanted to get the story out so Peter could shoot it down.

He also didn't mention the Conyers letter or the London news stories either...something someone informed on this topic would know about. Yep...something set off my Rovian Radar as well.

[rodeodance]

54. you may be right (or just a caller who knew about it but not the

details)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

15. Peter just cut off a caller who said the word Downing Street

He has been told to ixnay on the owningDay

[napi21]

47. Yes he did, but that call was at a different time than open phones.

The Downing St comment was a second point this caller made and they were running out of time for that guest. I think it was the guest from USA Today and they were talking about recruiters for the Army.

I did find it quite unusual though that on the "open Call" segment when the caller started talking about the Downing St memo, Peter said "We have gotten a number of calls about this issue. Are you with a group, and is this a decided effort? Where did you find this info?" It was at that point Peter asked for confirming info to be sent to cspan.

[rodeodance]

74. "are you with a group" ? what the fricking sort of question is that?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

81. the "reality based group"

nt

[babylonsister]

18. Very odd to me that they won't even address the DSM.

It blows my mind that there are such long arms in the wh that can stop the flow of FREE SPEECH. I did send the text of the memo to CSPAN yesterday after their plea of ignorance, as I'm sure many people did. So ignorance can no longer be to blame. Someone is dumbing CSPAN down, and thus the population that watches as well.

[rodeodance]

23. Here is the NYT article on Downing stree memo (was posted on

DU). Lets all look for more to send to Wash Journal

Fri May-20-05 09:30 AM
Original message
British Memo on Iraq Continues to Vex U.S.


British memo on Iraq continues to vex U.S.


By Douglas Jehl The New York Times

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2005


WASHINGTON More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memo that reported two years ago that President George W. Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among critics, who are portraying it as evidence that Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

<snip>

The letter, drafted by Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the British memo, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

It has long been known that American military planning for the Iraq war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to begin a review of what would be required to oust the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. By July 2002, the war planning was sufficiently advanced that newspaper accounts that month reported details about some of what was being considered.

<snip>

The British government has not disputed the authenticity of the British memo, written by Matthew Rycroft, a top foreign policy aide to Blair. A spokesman for Blair has said that the memo does not add significantly to previous accounts of decision-making before the war began.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/20/news/weapons.php

[rodeodance]

25. LA Times on the memo --send to Peter

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-memogate12may12,1,7966962.story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=view_all&address=102x1467245


Indignation Grows in US over British Prewar Documents
By John Daniszewski
The Los Angeles Times
Thursday 12 May 2005

Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein.
London - Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.

But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.

The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July 23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas.

The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the US desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions.

[KharmaTrain]

31. That's A "Librul" Paper....

Now if it were an objective publication like the Washington Times :barf: :sarcasm:, then there'd sure be a reason to do a whole 3 hours on the topic. Brian would host it himself.

But that dern LA Times is a "librul" paper...or so I heard a host on some talking head show say just recently. That's interesting, since isn't that paper owned by the Conservative Tribune Company?

In fairness...that Boston Globe reporter sure did her best to play down the 3 years she worked in the Clinton White House. I was surprised some wingnut didn't pick up on it and slam her with it.

[rodeodance]

46. WP art. to send to Peter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400705.html

Ombudsman
News Over There, but Not Here

By Michael Getler

Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page B06


My e-mail in-box was once again inundated last week by write-in campaigns provoked by two self-described media watchdog organizations, both on the liberal side of things. The first critic out of its box and into mine is called Media Matters for America. The second one was FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), an organization that I wrote about last month.

There were more than 1,000 e-mails, plus some phone calls, all of them blasting The Post and some of them blasting me. The Post was attacked for not following up the disclosure by the London Sunday Times on May 1 about a secret memo by an aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002, recounting a meeting among Blair and his top aides eight months before the invasion of Iraq and after a trip to Washington by the head of British intelligence. The memo reported, among other things, that "military action was now seen as inevitable" in Washington and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."


I've said in earlier columns that I don't like massive e-mail campaigns. But I've always made clear that the points these challenges raise can often be legitimate, and that's the case here. I don't know how to say this without seeming defensive, but I do think the case against the paper is a lot stronger than the case against me.

The case against me was laid out by Media Matters, which complained that in last Sunday's column I had taken note that a handful of readers had faulted the paper for not following up on the Times's disclosure, but that I didn't give an opinion about that criticism, as I usually do with most other issues raised in the ombudsman's column. That's a fair observation. The main reason I didn't express a view was that, at the time of my writing on May 5, I didn't know much about the London Times report other than what the six or seven readers who had e-mailed me said at the time.

[ananda]

24. it's all over the mainstream news

Articles on the false distortions and lies resulting from a devil's alliance between Bush and Blair, with the Downing Street memo as the smoking gun, are all over the MSN.. the Guardian, BBC News, Washington Post, and other places.

If you're going to write a letter to a cable news channel, use some knowledgeable clout.

ananda

[rodeodance]

27. I am trying as you can see--Do you have good links please?

[rodeodance]

29. this is the CNN (Conyers) story with video links (all need to pass

this onto Peter.


this was previously posted on DU.


Thu May-19-05 05:39 AM
Original message
Downing Street Memo on Blitzer



Video Link
Stream courtesy of Dembloggers.com

White House Press Secretary Scott McClennan was finally asked about the Downing Street Memo, and his response was that he hadn't seen it - but it's still "flat out wrong", he said.

Not a particularly surprising response - but it has prompted a bit of reaction by the Mainstream Media. CNN's Wolf Blizter did a report where he talked to Rep. John Conyers about the memo "I don't think we can laugh at the London Times and British Intelligence - we need to know", as well as Sen John McCain who staunchly supports the President stating "I do not believe that the Bush Administration decided to set up a scenario that gave us the rationale for going into Iraq".

Blitzer's report further states that McCain was part of a bipartisan investigation of the intelligence that found the U.S. WMD information was wrong, but not "doctored".

The problem with this claim is that the report they are most likely referring too, assuming it is the same "Presidential Commission" that McCain was involved in, did not even address that issue. In CNN's own original report on the findings of the WMD panel it is stated that: analyst were "too wedded" to assumptions about Saddam Hussein's intentions, but the question of whether analysts were pressured by the administration to lean forward with negative assumptions about Hussein were not part of the scope of the panel, and were originally scheduled to be addressed in a future panel - which as yet, has not occurred and has not been scheduled to occur.

The CNN original report continued:



Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid faulted the report for failing to address (italics mine) "our national security policy-making process."

I believe it is essential that we hold both the intelligence agencies and senior policy-makers accountable," the Nevada Democrat said.

Reid called on the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, "to investigate whether Bush administration officials misused intelligence."



However, even in the original report, CNN didn't include the following from Senator Reid's Press Release on the subject:

http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=234794

[rodeodance]

33. links ro resourses on memo (previously posted on DU)

Wed May-25-05 08:13 AM
Original message
Downing Street Memo Resources


Just got this link in an email:

http://downingstreetmemo.com /

Got petitions, email forms, the memo, table of excerpts from the memo compared with administration statements at the time, etc.

[rodeodance]

35. and from the Christian Science Monitor (links within the story).

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html



posted May 17, 2005, updated 12:43 p.m.

Why has 'Downing Street memo' story been a 'dud' in US?

A mid-2002 British memo saying US was planning to 'fix' intelligence to fit plans to invade Iraq has not been big news.

By Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com


There may have been a point at which the US news media would have been all over a story about a British official's report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it sought Congress' approval – and that it "fixed" intelligence to fit its intention.
But May 2005 is apparently way past that point.

Days before British Prime Minister Tony Blair secured a third term in the country's parliamentary election earlier this month, The Sunday Times published a "secret Downing Street memo."

[rodeodance]

94. the Christian Science Monitor is a good article

[blm]

71. Well, broadcast media won't cover it hoping it will go away. They know

newspapers don't get heard and even many newspapers buried or downplayed the avtual story of proof that Bush FIXED the intel.

[salin]

32. Tell him to read the BBC news

only read "over the internet" because there has been so little coverage in the US Media.

[RAF]

34. My take on what C-Span is up to

I think C-Span might be trying to play up this "organized call-in" scenario to help feed false info to the many who watch C-Span but aren't connected to the internet.

As the caller already explained to Peter, and from my understanding to other hosts over the last few days, 80 Congressman signed a letter for Bush to reply accusations of the memo. C-Span should instead be airing why so many Congressman would write such a letter rather than misinform viewers as it being part of a political attack campaign.

I use to be a diehard watcher of Washington Journal but like all other corrupt corporate media outlets their content is being watched and directed by Rove's behind the scenes censor group.

BTW, someone here at DU posted the full list of people who make up the Board of Directors for C-Span. One only has to view some of the names on this list to understand what C-Span has become.

[KharmaTrain]

43. Well Stated

I've posted earlier my thoughts on how this was a plant since I've seen this show used over and over again as a launching point for right wing talking points that circulate onto hate radio and then to the cable talking head food fights during the evening. A well placed call on this show can start tongues wagging all the way til Midnight.

One would think it wouldn't be difficult for C-Span to clear out 30 or 60 minutes for Congressman Conyers...who I'm certain would gladly appear on the progam. In fact, might be something we should request of the C-Span folks. This network is supposed to be about members of Congess, isn't it???

And while we're on the topic...sorta. I've seen the C-SPAN board list many times over the years. The network was initially set up as a cop out for the cable operators to prove they were providing "community service" for the areas they got their franchises in...C-SPAN was good PR and has been ever since. Now it's become it's become the beltway grapevine...thus a special conduit to be used, like other media outlets to control and manipulate.

[Buddyblazon]

36. I sent my "hand made" email...

but I'm sure it will get the brush off.

[rodeodance]

37. and the Chicago Trib story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505170052may17,1,5984426.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

British memo reopens war claim
Leaked briefing says U.S. intelligence facts `fixed' around policy

By Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
Published May 17, 2005



WASHINGTON -- A British official's report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it acknowledged as much or sought Congress' approval--and that it "fixed" intelligence to fit its intention--has caused a stir in Britain.

But the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war.

All of this has contributed to something less than a robust discussion of a memo that would seem to bolster the strongest assertions of the war's critics.

Frustrated at the lack of attention to the memo, Democrats and war critics are working to make sure it gets a wider hearing, doing everything from writing letters to the White House to launching online petitions.

[rodeodance]

38. we ALL send to send Wash Journ notes --yes ALL of us--not

just complain to the chorus here!! Lets do it!

[rodeodance]

39. Email: [e-mail]

[rodeodance]

41. Here is the Knight-Rider story

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.htm

Posted on Thu, May. 05, 2005


British memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy

By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

Knight Ridder Newspapers



WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.


The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.


The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.


"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

[rodeodance]

42. i was angry so i just sent him a brief memo with links

So, Peter,

You say you know nothing about the Downing Street memo? Well here are a few resourses from US sources to cue you in.

Your behavior this morning on Wash Journal was disgusting!!

[FredStembottom]

83. Come on Newbies

Jump into the pool with me. I want to see some non-1000+'ers here!
Help circulate this stuff. If we all help, we will quickly reach a point where it won't be possible for anyone play dumb about it ever again.

[rodeodance]

72. oh, you never know as their is power in numbers--if we ALL send

our emails that is. hint hint

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. Peter is a RW wacko nut job just like Brian Lamb.

They've ALL heard about the damn memo, but have their marching orders from the WH to cover it up. I said this yesterday and I shall repeat it...... They (journalists) would have to be living under a damn rock to not have heard about this memo. I call BULLSHIT where I see BULLSHIT and I see BULLSHIT from Brian Lamb and Peter on C-SPAN.

[peacetalksforall]

77. Peter's body language is very easy to read.

He is in pain when truth is stated or anyone criticizes the right wing. He really shouldn't subject himself to the pain of it all. It hurts to see him hurt. That's the way I read him.

[EST]

48. Stone brainzed mudder ph***ers would only consider

the source valid if you told 'em it was the "Drudge Report."

[KharmaTrain]

49. Time For Some "Truth Squadding"

Kudos for those who have sent emails...and hopefully we can keep up the questions and stay on it. Brian and his tribe can hide and weave, but unless they want to turn this program into yet another right wing echo chamber, they're gonna need to listen to our side and the millions who stand with us.

I've suggested in the past and am looking for some intrepid "Truth Squad" members...people who are willing to take on hate radio and shows like WJ...where a host or guest can be confronted to explain or justify the lies and distortions they make. I regularly scan hate radio stations around the country and will pop in on a small market wingnut now and then...they never knew what hit them. It doesn't take much to get on these shows either...most don't have screeners or can be easily bypassed. For those interested in a way to fight back, your local hate radio station can be good therapy.

[rodeodance]

51. I think we should cc our emails to all major newspapers. Lets

keep this issue on the radar screen.

[blm]

67. EXACTLY. I told Knight-Ridder that Cspan calls their work internet rumor.

I think this cover up Cspan is doing for Bush on this memo is a scandal itself and should be investigated.

[rodeodance]

78. good one--maybe it will get to them!111

[tsuki]

50. My email

Heard today you do not know about the Downing Street Memo. FYI

News articles:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?ex=1274241600&en=2e34202da1b40215&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/1714145.php

TeeVee:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/16/iraq.memo/


Political Actions:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000085.htm

http://www.democrats.com/book/print/4749

The Text:

www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html


Sincerely,

XXX

[rodeodance]

53. short and sweet.

[tsuki]

56. And probably deleted. LOL

[rodeodance]

60. who can we cc our emails to to put some pressure on c-span or

Peter to get the message!

[tsuki]

86. Good thought. Will look into it and report back.

[rodeodance]

57. and a piece from Helen Thomas which i had missed earlier

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224046_thomas13.html

E-mail: [e-mail]

Friday, May 13, 2005

Credibility matters little to Brits, Americans

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Funny thing about the United States and Great Britain. I once thought their people cared about the credibility -- and accountability of their leaders -- especially when it comes to war and peace. But now I note with regret that the voters in both nations have other priorities.

We're talking about the fact that the leaders of both nations chose to invade Iraq for flimsy reasons that were deliberately drummed up to convince their people that a Third World country was a threat to them. Didn't the Brits say Saddam Hussein could attack in 45 minutes?

The historic election of Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair for a third term is a stunning affirmation that the British people no longer demand credibility from their leaders.

The false rationales for war by both President Bush and Blair went up in smoke without a public outcry. I know Blair returns to power with a much smaller majority in the House of Commons -- compared with his landslide victories in the past -- apparently because of British disillusionment with the war. He also is hearing post-election calls from within his own Labor Party for him to step down. But still, he was re-elected.

[rodeodance]

58. LTE in Seattle paper but i can not find the original

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/225615_ltrs25.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=4

News of Downing Street memo deserved front page
I see that the Downing Street memo is finally in the Post-Intelligencer, but buried inside the front section (Friday). Why wasn't it on the front page? The memo states that the Bush administration tailored the facts to fit its desire to wage war on Iraq. The British government is not denying the allegation in the memo.

This is surely damning evidence that the Bush administration lied to us in order to go to war. It is time to wake up and impeach those responsible for the deaths of more than 1,600 of our fine troops.

John Snow
Woodinville

[BigBearJohn]

91. Excellent. You beat to me to it.

[noamnety]

55. Incompatible statements

1. I haven't heard about it.
2. I've gotten several calls about it.


Next he'll be on tv telling us he's never heard of television.

[rodeodance]

59. good catch

[rodeodance]

61. maybe if we tell Peter is as stupid as Scotty m. he will pay

attention?

[rodeodance]

62. Lets all contact Media matters (below)--and cc to Peter

Send news tips about conservative misinformation to Media Matters here: [e-mail].

[rodeodance]

64. another siting nytimes

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034



Volume 52, Number 10 · June 9, 2005

Feature

The Secret Way to War


By Mark Danner
1.
It was October 16, 2002, and the United States Congress had just voted to authorize the President to go to war against Iraq. When George W. Bush came before members of his Cabinet and Congress gathered in the East Room of the White House and addressed the American people, he was in a somber mood befitting a leader speaking frankly to free citizens about the gravest decision their country could make.

The 107th Congress, the President said, had just become "one of the few called by history to authorize military action to defend our country and the cause of peace." But, he hastened to add, no one should assume that war was inevitable. Though "Congress has now authorized the use of force," the President said emphatically, "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary." The President went on:

Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. Yet, if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands. It's the obligation of Iraq...................

[peacetalksforall]

63. Self-deleted.. n/t

[steve2470]

65. just sent him an email, done nt

[rodeodance]

66. thanks--lets keep it up folks

[Coexist]

68. my email

I heard Peter say that he had never heard of the "Downing Street Memo". I thought he might find these links helpful for background information. I will send more as they become available.

Thanks for all you do!

(sent with list of links)

[LibDemAlways]

69. You are about as likely to

hear a thoughtful discussion of the Downing Street Memo on Wash. Journal as you are on Rush or Hannity. All three are rw shills with no interest whatsoever in conveying the truth.

At least Rush and Hannity are up-front about their bias, unlike Wash. Journal, which operates under the bogus pretense of impartiality while booking a parade of PNACers and BFEE water carriers and consistently cutting off callers who demonstrate even an rudimentary knowledge of the evils perpetrated by the BFEE.

The hosts know all about the Downing St. Memo, but that issue is permamently off the table. The marching orders are to accuse callers of a conspiracy and be done with them. Trying to get anywhere with Lamb and Co. is a colossal waste of time.

[rodeodance]

73. yes, I believe the hosts do know--it is just the blantant claims

of not knowing that shock me (yes, still does)

[wryter2000]

70. Hadn't heard of it?

:wtf:

Any "news" person who hasn't heard of it needs to be fired. Seriously.

[rodeodance]

75. i agree

[SlavesandBulldozers]

82. don't you mean deserves a promotion?

remember, this is bizarro world.

[noamnety]

76. I sent an email

Subject: "Haven't heard of the Downing Street Memo"?

If this housewife and art teacher from the midwest has heard of it, surely you folks have heard of it. No?

Perhaps it's time to get a more convincing cover story for why you refuse to air the topic. The "haven't heard of it" line insults both our intelligence and yours.

[rodeodance]

80. seems to me c-apan is trying to deep bury it--not just ignore it

[rndmprsn]

84. sent them this email...

to whom it may concern.


seems the folks @ c-span washington journal have been sleeping or have had their head in the collective sands for the last few weeks...you should be ashamed of yourselves for NOT knowing about this very important issue..shame shame.

to help you guys out and do a little of your work for you...here are some links to this story that you claim is less than newsworthy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857_pf.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000912159

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000912159

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050523-9.html

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050520/OPINION03/505200365/1110

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?ex=1274241600&en=2e34202da1b40215&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

please read these articles and then perhaps you can make a much more informed statement and less of a "foot in mouth" reaction...please do your work, we can't do it for you all the time.

btw...i am a regular watcher and caller, and you've been called out on this one...people who know better are watching you and will correct your glaring mistakes...thank you.

[oxbow]

85. I emailed 'em. NT

[Spike from MN]

88. I sent them an email

and will send more in the next few days. C-SPAN is nothing but a mouthpiece for the neo-cons. They could just as well replace their logo with the FAUX news one and be done with it.

[LSK]

90. sent them an email

I cant beleive people try to deny it or pawn it off as internet rumors at this stage.

[rodeodance]

92. wonder if we will hear anything about our emails.

[rodeodance]

95. another DU thread listed some more (foreign mostly) mentioning Downing

Street memo.

ITALY

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6250

RUSSIA

http://www.times.spb.ru/archive/times/1074/opinion/o_15...

DOHA, QATAR

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no...

SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN

http://www.sfbg.com/39/35/x_mediabeat.html

WASHINGTON POST

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3759701#3759734