Not Quite The Revolution

I think that, properly played (which means, not overplayed), the Downing Street Memo can be part of an effective political strategy and may even be moderately helpful.  But people who think that if we just talk about it enough that the scales will fall from the public's (from Republican?) eyes are just deluding themselves. 

Look, I know it's been a frustrating 5 (10, 20, 30 - pick one) years, but news flash: the American people are not motivated by stories about memos which are not about fucking or drugs, okay? If it were a memo entitled "President Determined to Lie to the American Public" and signed by Dubya, it would be the same, okay?  Much less what the British cabinet thought the United States government thought way back when before we found all those Iraqi WMDs.  I mean, in what universe do you live where a substantial number of people believe that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis yet those same people will be educable using the minutes of a cabinet meeting? 

Anyway, the DSM is equivocal proof.  It hangs on what "C" thought of the atmosphere in Washington and the British Attorney General's opinion of the legal bases for war.  "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."  Well, no shit, Sherlock.  That was pretty clear in October of 2002. 

The other "smoking gun":

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Which amounts to, "If you invade Iraq, you have to invade these other places, too."  Which is something people have been saying for, oh, 2-3 years now. 

Bush has easy counters for this weak attack.  First of all, as a counter, there's denial:

"There's nothing farther from the truth," Mr. Bush said in his first public comments about the so-called Downing Street memo, which has created anger among the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said.

"Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Mr. Blair, standing at Mr. Bush's side in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

Whew, all that lying makes me a little dizzy.  But look - it was reported, and not on A18.  Second, there's minimization.  See above: "the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said."  Is this a huge revelation?  I can just imagine Smirky leaning over the podium, saying, "Did I think we might have to go to war against Saddam?  Sure I did.  Saddam was a bad guy.  The world is safer without him in power." (With that wheedling tone he uses when he thinks you should just accept what he says without question.)  It's the same with the issue of Libya, North Korea and Iran being more dangerous - Bush will come back with democracy in the heart of the Middle East, mass graves, rape rooms, yada yada.  Frustrating, but you know, effective.

So yes, please mention the DSM.  Just don't expect lightning to start falling on the White House, even if you get a million signatures on that letter.  But hey, if it doesn't work, you can always blame Atrios and Steve Gilliard. 

(If you don't know what the fuck I am talking about, don't worry - it's not important.)

Update 6/12/05: Over at Riggsveda's place, I said:

What wins a propaganda war like we're having with the Right here is the ability to spin and contextualize the facts that everyone already knows, not revealing supposedly earth-shaking secrets via classified memos. We're weak on that skill, and grasping at this straw - no matter how big and strong it looks to us - shows how weak. If it fails to gain traction then we fall on our faces. Further, some on the left have decided to attack others for showing insufficient enthusiasm for the promotion of the memo story. Again, it's a sign of weakness - we're not winning, so we're looking for scapegoats. Again. Which, I submit, is harmful.

Comments

[Riggsveda]

Well, the density and incuriousness of the American public is enough of an obstacle without Michael Kinsley (who used to edit Harper's and had some credibility until he decided to mud-wrestle with Susan Estrich) popping off in the pages of the LA Times about how the blogosphere's Loony Left has gotten its panties in a bunch over some no-news memo that doesn't prove a thing about Bush's intentions, and how we poor deluded fools are weaving conspiracy theories out of information that was in plain sight clear back in 2002. His piece drips with such disdain and scorn that I woudn't be surprised if LGF and the RNC sticky-post it on their front pages for the next two weeks.

With ex-liberals like Kinsley purging the ranks of us "fringe elements", who needs Karl Rove?

[Riggsveda]

Haloscan is all screwed up, so the only way I could reply was to come back over here. Polenta. Here's what I'm trying ot put up over there:

No, m., no comparison being made here. But although those of us who are newshounds or policy wonks or just ornery cusses were onto this back in 2002, the average American wasn't---in part because of the bovine cud-chewing apathy that so characterizes our people much of the time, but also in good part because the news purveyors of the nation failed and continue to fail so abominably in their job, which is to pass information to their readers and listeners.

The temptation to take up the opposition's weaponry and spin the shit out of things is almost irresistable, but in the end that doesn't help clarify and cleanse our public dialogue or polity. Only honor and courage will do that, and speaking the truth and standing behind it. All the rest only degrades our ability to communicate with each other, to trust each other, and to have faith that we have the ability to make the changes needed to oust these heartless charlatans.