*BREAKING* Corporate Media Ignores Kerry's DSM Letter

[Broken Acorn]

[ohtransplant]

1. How can you tell?

It might need a little push from folks like us on Monday morning. Remember it trickled out on a Friday afternoon.

[Dr Fate]

9. Kerry's media folks know that Friday is the worse day to "release" news

...for maximum impact.

I think "releasing" it on Friday was done on purpose for whatever reason.

[Mass]

24. Depends what they will do monday!

At this point, I do not know and I doubt you know either.

[Imagevision]

41. ABC-NBC-CNN-CBS - Who needs em?!! you can't believe them anymore

I put more faith and trust in the reporting of news from groups like >http://www.truthout.org/index.htm
>http://www.freepress.org/index2.php
>http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php
>http://www.democraticunderground.com/

ABC-NBC-CNN-CBS are all has-beens, none of them believed that the DMS was a worthy news story to report to the american people?? It's like getting stabbed in the back and these schmucks say: "support our troops?"

And why the hell did Kerry release his letter-item on damn Friday? only he and the educated know..2-b sure!

[tavalon]

59. Interesting point, that one

Why did they release on trash dump Friday?

[Dr Ron]

It wasn't planned for Friday

Kerry's office had indicated plans to release it earlier in the week, but then it got delayed as this allowed them to get an additional signature.

I don't think that the media would see this as news regardless of what day it was released. The real news will be either when the investigation begins, or when they refuse to investigate and protests are made.

[Dr Ron]

68. It wasn't planned for Friday

Kerry's office had indicated plans to release it earlier in the week, but then it got delayed as this allowed them to get an additional signature.

I don't think that the media would see this as news regardless of what day it was released. The real news will be either when the investigation begins, or when they refuse to investigate and protests are made.

[Greyhound]

97. That's why Friday is known as 'trash day'

Any story they don't want to get traction is released on Friday. It will get no notice over the weekend and Monday it's old news.

[Imagevision]

43. Has anyone seen Kerry letter?? --link maybe??

[zulchzulu]

66. Here's the letter

June 22, 2005
The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Vice Chairman
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller:

We write concerning your committee's vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called "Phase II" effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received. Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I-begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004-examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public's understanding of the issues involved.

In February 2004-well over a year ago-the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. The committee's efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors.

These minutes-known as the "Downing Street Memo"-raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address. The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was "inevitable." The minutes reveal that President "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."

The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation. These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States.

The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth. We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.

Sincerely,
John Kerry


Co-signers: Sens. Tim Johnson, Jon Corzine, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Thomas Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin

[OneBlueSky]

2. with only nine signatures, they have reason to ignore it . . . n/t

.

[Imagevision]

42. I wonder if Biden was one of the signatures? Obama?? doubt it!

[DemBones DemBones]

3. So is this the big thing Kerry was going to do "very very soon"

about a week ago?

And, for that matter, what was the big news that was going to be revealed about Howard Dean last October? It was supposed to be favorable, a surprise from him. Anyone else remember those teaser posts?

[cornermouse]

4. So if Kerry wants them to pay attention to his DSM letter,

then he better get out there and do whatever it takes, hadn't he?

[Broken Acorn]

6. No cornermouse

Kerry needs to SPEAK OUT in public about the DSM. The letter is a nice step forward, but he needs to scream from the tops of building to get his point across.

Will this happen? I hope so, but truly doubt it.

[Dr Fate]

8. No, he does not to scream at all. But he could discuss it on TV...

...where more folks can hear about it than on a website.

Screaming and getting red-faced is not his style- but I essentially agree that he should go public with this and tell the red-staters about this.

[cornermouse]

11. My point that if Kerry wants this, then Kerry had better get

out and do whatever it takes to make the press notice and report still stands.

Kerry is a Washington insider, literally a member of the political establishment. If he cannot find a way to make himself heard, he becomes irrelevant. Being gentlemanly just isn't going to get it. Been there, done that, it got us nowhere.

[Broken Acorn]

5. They ignored Roves disguting comments on Wed.

How much more evidence do we need that we live in a fascist, corporate-controlled society.

Election Fraud.
Torture Prisons.
WH Administration Daily Lies.
Repukes using 9/11 as a f*cking wedge issue now.
Guckert/Gannon.
DSM.
Delay Ethical Violations.


The wheels fell off this country years ago and it's only a small amount of time before everything comes crashing down for us globally.


And the 'media' (with the exception of KO) will not even sniff now Kerry's efforts (& Conyer's before him)to bring the truth into the light.

[Dr Fate]

7. It came out on a Friday.

I thought that was a bad day to "release" it.

If Kerry wants this on the news and being discussed around water coolers, he will have to go beyond "releasing letters."

The top, star Democrats need to go on TV and talk about it and drum up public discourse themselves. At least give the media some footage or soundbytes- "releasing" stuff has minimal impact.

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. Minimal impact?

How do you think the DSM got in the news in the first place, the media was pushed to do it, by who, the bloggers, thats who. Conyers thanks the bloggers and there push all the time.

Lets get something else straight you just don't go on these shows, you have to be INVITED, do you think the "liberal media" wants to invite someone who will question there inability to investigate and report on real news. No they invite the wishy washy likes of McCain and Lieberman.

Lastly John Kerry is doing exactly what John Conyers did so when he does go public he will have his audience ready to pounce the so called "liberal media".

[bvar22]

44. Kerry, Clinton, and others....

...have enough celebrity to MAKE NEWS. If they called a press conference on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and spoke in STRONG, UNEQUIVOCATING TERMS about the absolute immorality and TOTAL Failure of the Bush* administration, the CorpoMedia would be forced to carry it.

Releasing a diplomatically phrased letter on Friday afternoon isn't going to cause a ripple, especially when it has ALREADY been done 1 week before.

[tavalon]

60. Well, we the bloggers may be able to turn that around

OTOH, he didn't do us any favors by releasing it on Friday. Funny, Kerry has a habit of not doing us any favors. Who does he do his favors for, I wonder?

[fedupinBushcountry]

65. DUH

who the hell do you think he released it too? Now tell me about all the news media that hit the Conyers hearing and did reporting on it 24/7 on good ole TV tabloid news.

Tell me who got the Downing Street Memos going ? It sure as hell wasn't the media.

Favors, yes he is doing the American people favors by letting us know what is happening behind the scenes, because the media sure as hell doesn't care.

If he didn't do us any favors you wouldn't be here commenting on it, you would probably be bitching on some other post because Kerry hasn't done anything. :crazy: :argh:

[Greyhound]

98. OK this is something I really know about.

YOU would have to be invited on the show. SENATORS simply have their aides call up the producer for whichever shows they want to appear on, and book it. A Senator is a 'get' and the producers know if they pass, their competition will take them, so the author du jour gets bumped and we have "on today's show we have an exclusive interview with Senator (fill in the name)".

[blm]

104. There is a hierarchy of gets and the GOP works it constantly. ANY cabinet

member or administration official comes before Senators and GOP senators and right leaning Dem Senators come before left leaning senators.

[Dr Fate]

115. But that has not kept Howard Dean off the TV over the past few weeks.

And I'm sure Hillary or Kerry could get on if they kept at it- if they really wanted to.

[blm]

116. I have no clue why Dean didn't bring up DSM. And as far as Kerry

is concerned it appears that he is the one handling the urgent task of pushing it to the investigative stage and that may entail more behind the scenes maneuvering than it does in front of cameras maneuvering....at this time.

[Dr Fate]

113. Well, Dean has been "invited" about 5 times over the past few weeks.

So why cant he talk about it on camera? He is on TV as much as Tom Cruise lately- but mum on the memo.

Are we still saying that Kerry, Hillary Obama, etc are "not allowed" to be on TV interview shows? I find that hard to believe. I've seen them on TV shows before- so I know they could go on again and speak about the DSM.

Specifically,who would turn down a Hillary interview?- especially with the new smear book out.

As it is, no DSM stories even in DUs own LBN, so yes, "releasing" this on a Friday got us minimal impact.

[LittleClarkie]

117. I'm still trying to figure out why Bill Clinton

pretended not to even know what it was?

[Dr Fate]

118. Well, you and I both know that he and Hillary does know what it is...

...so that means it is being downplayed on purpose.

Downplayed to be brought out for later use at a more strategic time, or downplayed in the hopes that it will just go away?- that is the mystery.

I persoanlly think the "strategists" who whisper in their ears have told them all "the memo is too hot- put somthing on the internet or CSPAN to shut up the base, but dont talk about this where swing-voters will catch wind of it-its just too hot..."

Cant prove it, but that is my gut at this point. I think if Kerry was serious about getting support for his DSM efforts, he would have sent out a mass e-mail by now.

Time will tell- all I can do is spin my wheels at this point.

[LittleClarkie]

120. I don't think it's a matter of seriousness

I think he's going at it like a wonk, for good or ill.

So when are the non-wonkish, loudmouth types going to be shooting off their mouths on the subject?

I see your point, Dr. Fate, but then I don't want actions taken to be undervalued as well. The "yeah, but" if you will. The letter could help, but isn't a loud thing. But then Kerry only gets loud when he's pissed. He got pissed about the filibuster. He got loud. He got pissed at Rove. He got loud.

So where are our LOUD people?

Biden's loud. Dean's a loud. Where are our loudmouths?

Give em hell, Harry Reid's been about the only one.

[Mass]

21. Deleted!

[ohtransplant]

39. I agree , the rest of the Dem Senators should follow Kerry's lead.

"The top, star Democrats need to go on TV and talk about it and drum up public discourse themselves. At least give the media some footage or soundbytes- "releasing" stuff has minimal impact."

I think that's an excellent idea. More Dem Senators should pick up the ball, sign the letter, and hold a press conference.

Hmmmmm...How do get them to do it?....

[Island Blue]

10. Did they jump on Conyers' efforts the first day?

Just asking.

[Independent_Liberal]

12. Come on Corporate Media!

Time to get your shit together!

[Goldeneye]

14. If you want the media to cover it, tell them to cover it.

In the meantime, I wish the bitching would stop. This is how things are done in the Senate. As of now Kerry has done more about it than just about anyone outside the CBC.

[CityDem]

15. Kerry dropped the ball

He is now behind the curve and his message is falling on deaf ears.
For a guy with so much ability, its too bad that he is so timid and cautious.

[Mass]

26. Ask yourself why

I think that the answer is clear when you see the small numbers of senators signing the letter.

It gave me a new admiration for Johnson, because him and Bingaman are the only two that I was surprised to see in the list.

[Eloriel]

16. And why shouldn't they ignore it? I'm ignoring it too.

A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[SittingBull]

17. Kerry is on their side

- just a Boner.

We should concentrate on the media. Keep pressure.

[Mass]

20. So blame all those who carried the movement

(meaning Conyers, Bonifaz, ...) and are happy about the letter.

What have you done! I am a lot more ready to believe them than the crowd here?

[FluxRostrum]

32. jumping onto a rising ship

You'll notice that Kerry's name is NOT on the list of those who carried the movement.

[Mass]

34. I never said he was

neither are so many other democrats.

Better jumping on a boat than doing nothing. Too bad if that disturbs you. It does not disturb people I respect like Conyers, so it is good for me.

[Broken Acorn]

63. Why are you so happy that Kerry will not SPEAK OUT?

Don't you understand how easy it is for the corporate media to ignore memos by now?

[Mass]

86. I am not happy or not happy that Kerry will speak or not

I do not know for a fact whether he will or not and refuse to do second-guessing.

I am just answering to people who will not be satisfied until Kerry (see my post below).

For them, had Dean done that, they would be jumping up and down and telling us how great he is.

I think this is a good first step and am waiting to see for more for ANY senators. (it happens that I agree with many things you and Dr Fate have said, I just refuse systematic bashing of a democrat). I understand why some people are sceptical about a release on Friday. As I said, I refuse to second-guess. End of Story.

As for the rest, I prefer believe people that I respect (like Conyers) than chronic whiners.

[LittleClarkie]

22. What if you pretended it was someone you liked.

Then would you care?

Ignoring it. What a finely tuned response to the situation. That'll show em.

Ignoring it will ensure that no one gives a shit. It's still more than others have done. He said he'd address it. This is his way of addressing it. He's an investigator. That's how his mind works. So he's calling for an investigation. Big surprise.

IT's not sexy. It's not juicy. But investigations apparently don't get covered much. That's why Kerry used to have to dive at live cameras. That's how he got the nickname "Live Shot."

[Mass]

27. Amazing how some people think that grassroots should rule

as long as grassroot do nothing.

They need their heroe to do things for them.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Think about this one

Some folks complain that the big corporations have too much influence, and that politicians should pay attention to the small donors.

Then, when folks call them for those small donations, they bitch about how so-and-so called for money AGAIN, and how they put them in their place. "What do they think I am, an ATM?"

Which is it? The grassroots gonna cough up, or bitch? Or spectate because it's not THEIR pol involve.

I support Dean. I support Clark. I support Kerry. I'd support Santorum if he suddenly found Jesus on this issue and broke with the White House. I'd support Biden and/or Hillary. And I really don't like them.

[Mass]

30. They do not even get involved if their pol is involved.

They just applaude. If this is not their pol, they bitch.

I wonder when people are going to understand that things will only change when they WILL get involved in more than selecting their pols.

[bonzotex]

67. I agree, But...

I expect more. I will and have supported lots of Dem candidates both with my time and money. Most were not nearly progressive enough for my tastes. So what? They are miles ahead of anything the republicans can offer. Still, I believe we have to hold our "leaders" feet to the fire to fire.

Kerry was promising big action the DSM for almost a month. Then we get this? -- A tepid letter signed by 9 senators, released with a yawn on a Friday? Maybe there will be more action on this and other related issues, but Kerry's track record since the election doesn't suggest it. I personally don't thing the DSM is any sort of silver bullet that must be pushed at all cost and every turn. I'm still disappointed this was his big effort though.

I can't figure Kerry out. He got more support, votes and money for his campaign than any Democratic Pres candidate in history. His Senatorial seat is safe. He could be a much more vocal and effective opposition leader. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out and holding our leaders to higher expectations.

[LittleClarkie]

80. Thing is, he wasn't promising big action

he said in a small Massachusetts newspaper, because they were the first to ask, and were surprised that they'd been the first to ask, that he would "address the issue" when he got back into Washington.

Enter RW spin, putting a Nader article together with this small article about DSM from Massachusetts. Suddenly he's supposed to be calling for Bush's impeachment, something Nader not Kerry was calling for.

When folks called Kerry's office, the staffers, appearing to be about half in the dark, thought there would be a floor speech that first week. I'm not sure what happened. Either Kerry thought this would be more effective than a floor speech that wouldn't be covered, or that RW spin made him back off of a speech that would have been spun as him backing off anyway, as it was never going to contain a call for impeachment.

He either changed tactics to fake out the RW spin, or because he knew there was a committee that was supposed to be doing it's job, and wasn't.

Either way, I think it was WE who were calling for the big action. Still there are those who want media attention. Reid has piped up but few others. But I want to be careful to to denegrate one positive action because it's not media attention or a speech.

I suspect this is Kerry's way. This is why he's kind of low profile alot of the time. He only becomes "the Incredible Hulk" when you piss him off. Rove pissed him off. So that's the big call right now.

[Zhade]

18. I agree with another poster - people in the street might work.

Letters and phone calls and petitions just get ignored (so why do I still do those things???).

[Mass]

19. Can I ask you why you are surprised???

I am not, but why would I blame Kerry for that (or the 9 other Senators who signed the letter as well?).

The only reason they covered the DSM was because people ask them to.
Call them, ask them to cover it. Dont expect them to cover one or 10 Democratic Senators if they can avoid it.

BTW, Bonifaz, Conyers, and the downingstreetmemo website are happy about the letter. Why do you have to be more demanding than those who have carried the movement? May be we should blame them as well, because they are not blaming Kerry and the 9 other senators for that.

Except of course, if this thread is a pretext for we know what.

(BTW, I am not saying we need to make Kerry a heroe for that. Just stop to criticize everything he does. This is highly boring).

[Blue_In_AK]

23. "This is highly boring."

I'm not really a religious person, but may I say a big AMEN? Christ, can John Kerry do ANYTHING right for you people??

[Mass]

28. Yes

Jump from a bridge, probably. And even then, I am not sure!

[tavalon]

62. Um, since you asked

yes, he could. He could take a page out of the Dean playbook and take the gloves off and hit hard. Remember when he got caught accidently on mike saying that they were all criminals (I don't remember the exact quote)? That's the person we need back and we need him now. We don't need him to release milquetoast letters with the Friday trash dump. We don't need him to promise "big things" around the Downing Street Memos and then not come through. We definitely didn't need him to concede the Presidency ever, but especially not on the day after the fraudulent election.

So, while you and your friend might feel that "this is highly boring", we happen to have a fucking point or two. Care to think about that or is it really just too boring for you?

[tavalon]

61. By the way

Having written many, many letters and knowing the kind of letters many others here wrote, I can assure you that we didn't ask them to cover the DSM. We demanded, loudly and persistently.

[welshTerrier2]

25. Kerry chose a bureaucratic route

perhaps going through channels in the Senate will produce results but his efforts thus far are sadly lacking ...

when Kerry sends out letters to the Democratic base explaining that he's been turned down by every Sunday morning talk show and no network will grant him an interview to get out the DSM message, then we can start blaming the media ...

don't get me wrong, i'm glad Kerry wrote his little letter ... but this is not the kind of splash that awakens the nation to what the memo is all about and why it's important ...

Kerry's efforts were better than nothing but they were far short of what could have been and what should have been ...

[Broken Acorn]

31. Agreed

He has taken a good first step, but he needs to follow through with hitting all the talk shows he can and SPEAK OUT about this.

That is the only way dumb people will understand the DSM.

[fedupinBushcountry]

35. How many times

does this have to be said. Who runs the media? You talk like he can just walk on any show and speak out. Did you listen to Bill Moyers or any journalist that knows how the system works, you just don't walk on, you have to be invited and on their terms not yours.

[welshTerrier2]

36. nope ...

there is no evidence Kerry has made any effort to take this to the media ... lots of Democrats appear regularly on the Sunday morning talk shows ...

i get emails from Kerry and other Democrats all the time ... I know what Conyers is saying and doing ... if it's really as bad as you say, Kerry could at least put in an appearance on AAR ... i hear Kennedy and Boxer on there all the time ... just last week, C-Span covered Biden's speech on Iraq in its entirety ... have you seen Kerry making a long speech on the DSM on C-Span? do you believe they wouldn't let him on there if he wanted to appear?

the media in this country is a total disgrace but if the Democrats wanted to appear on a show or two, or get a little media coverage, it can be done ...

you haven't heard Kerry complaining that he isn't getting any coverage regarding his DSM efforts, have you ???

the bottom line so far is that Kerry chose the lowest profile he possibly could have ...

[fedupinBushcountry]

37. IT WAS LEAKED FOR A PURPOSE

Believe what you may Rome didn't fall in a day. :argh:

[welshTerrier2]

40. Rome didn't fall because of a leaked memo either ...

as i've said elsewhere in this thread, which, btw, stated that the media ignored Kerry's actions, Kerry, thus far, has chosen a very low profile approach ... it's absurd to blame the media in this situation ...

had Kerry wanted to make a bigger splash, he could have done so ...

i don't agree with the premise of the BP ...

so, no, Rome didn't fall in a day and it also didn't fall by leaking little memos around in the Senate ... when the great orators of Rome had something to say, they came to the senate and loudly and clearly proclaimed their positions ...

such was not the case with Kerry's "leak" and it's therefore wrong to claim the media are suppressing Kerry's efforts ... if he wants more visibility for this issue, and he should, he needs to do more ...

[kerrygoddess]

49. I didn't say the MSM was ignoring

I said his staff gave advance copies of the letter to blogs that support the issue and also those that support Kerry.

This is just the start... give him a chance to do more before making anymore snide comments. The Senate has had a packed schedule and I have no doubt we'll be hearing more from Kerry and all the others who signed the letter.

[welshTerrier2]

51. kerrygoddess?

did you mean to respond to my post? your statement about what "you said" in some post i probably never read and certainly didn't comment on seems a bit confused ...

here is the language in the BP of this thread to which i responded: "*BREAKING* Corporate Media Ignores Kerry's DSM Letter" ... that's the post i referred to ... frankly, i don't know what you're talking about with your last post ... i didn't say that YOU SAID "the MSM was ignoring", the base poster did ...

and if you still intended to refer to anything i said as snide, well ... i guess referring to something someone says as snide is a snide remark in and of itself ... isn't it? i'll thank you not to refer to my remarks as snide, thank you very much ...

btw, i did receive a letter from Kerry about the Rove remarks ... will he be distributing his message on the DSM to his mailing list? do you expect Kerry to do all he can to educate the American people on the importance of this memo? i'm glad you have confidence "we'll be hearing more fomr Kerry" ... i hope you're right ...

[Greyhound]

100. please see post #98 n/t

[blm]

45. Lunacy. Anything else woulda yielded NOTHING. If an official investigation

is the goal, then you take the steps to get an official investigation.

An official investigation will yield more stories on a continuous basis.

If some of the brainiacs here were advising Kerry in 1985 then we would never have gotten an IranContra investigation which means we'd never learn about BCCI.

[welshTerrier2]

46. i disagree ...

i have no problem with Kerry pushing for an official investigation ... but the American people need to be kept in the loop ...

the use of formal channels does not need to preclude taking your case to the American people ... we need to strike while the iron is hot ...

if we give the majority party in the Senate the power to hide this away for a while and control how the investigation proceeds, if it even does, without bringing pressure from the public to get to the truth, i believe our case will be much weaker ...

i'm all for quiet diplomacy but i don't think this is the right time to lay low ... i certainly haven't heard a drumbeat here on DU to have Conyers' maintain a lower profile ...

Kerry's efforts are more than welcomed but they are nowhere near enough ... perhaps he plans to do much more on the DSM and perhaps not ... i make no judgment about that ...

[blm]

47. Conyers efforts were to push the story and Kerry's is to start an official

investigation. Seems to me they are working in tandem.

They know the system and it looks like Conyers is running the front line and the DSM ball was snapped to Kerry....Kerry's looking to throw...and he sees Corzine open at the Senate Intel side of the field.

[welshTerrier2]

48. nice football analogy ...

i could actually envision Corzine streaking down the sidelines looking back for the ball ...

look, i agree Kerry is working with Conyers ... but the truth is, Conyers has been stuffed into the basement to hold his hearings ... i still talk to many people who "think they've heard about that Downing Street thing" ... most of them have no idea what the DSM is all about ...

how many DU'ers rightfully complained that Conyers was not getting the kind of visibility we wanted? i had hoped that the Senate would join the Conyers' chorus and elevate the visibility of the issue ...

yes, i agree, calling on Roberts to include the DSM in his investigation is a necessary step in the process ... but i am very concerned that without broad public awareness, the kind of public awareness that high profile Democrats could bring to the issue, the DSM investigation will be buried on page 1300 of some Senate report with the same kind of fuzzy language we got from the 9/11 Commission ...

here's a hypothetical sample: "we have investigated references made in the DSM which some believed may have suggested that top American policymakers "fixed" the evidence to justify a case for war. as part of our investigation, we spoke to hundreds of intelligence community analysts looking both at the reports they made available to high administration sources and also looking for situations where "undue pressure" was brought to bear on these analysts. while previous intelligence assessments did indeed highlight the need for a broad range of reforms throughout our intelligence community, we did NOT find any evidence to support the conclusions alluded to in the DSM. in every instance we reviewed, analysts, while drawing erroneous conclusions from limited amounts of available data, presented their conclusions freely without any interference or external pressure from anyone in the Executive Branch. We consider this matter closed."

my advice: don't be so afraid about talking to the American people ... they seem far more open to listening than they have since bush took office ... it's not quite as easy to sweep things under the rug when the American people are educated on the issue and are demanding answers ... again, low profile seems ill-advised to me ...

[blm]

64. If the Intel Committee refuses to investigate DSM further, THEN it's

time to ratchet up the pressure vocally.

Kerry's putting the horse in front of the cart. If the horse won't move, then he and the other signers will have to pull the cart themselves.

[welshTerrier2]

72. "the horse in front of the cart"

i hear where you're coming from, BLM ...

but i don't think the view i have is "lunacy" ... my view is that the cart will require two horses to pull it ... one is the Intel Committee; the other is the American public ...

the committee is not going to refuse to include the DSM and related memos in its investigations ... but having the American people more aware about what's at stake will shine a brighter light on the committee's work ... if republicans on the committee can feel the heat from the public, especially if public interest draws in more press coverage, the investigation might well produce a very different outcome ... government works better with a well-informed electorate ...

where you see the public as "plan B", i see them as an integral part of what democracy should be all about ... let's get both horses out in front of the cart and give it all we can ...

btw, it is not at all clear what Kerry will actually do next ... perhaps he will seek a much more visible role for his DSM activities ... nothing i've posted in this thread precludes that possibility ... would you counsel him to "not go more public" if the committee agrees to look into the DSM allegations?

[blm]

73. Oh no...I do believe he should become more public AFTER the letter.

Or during the inquiry. I am quite certain that the media will hammer him relentlessly with the GOP talking points that he's only doing this for sour grapes, he's insincere, he misses the camera...."liveshor redux. BushInc had Kerry labeled as "liveshot" during IranContra and BCCI because they feared his revelations, so they attacked him as a publicity seeker.

Kerry is one of the least active publicity seekers in public office. I wish he was MORE of a camera hound so people could have known him better before he ran. It was as if he expected people knew him from his intense work load in the Senate, but they really didn't.

[welshTerrier2]

76. "if the horse won't move" ??

OK ... let me see if i understand where you're coming from ...

earlier you said "If the Intel Committee refuses to investigate DSM further, THEN it's time to ratchet up the pressure vocally" ...

based on that, i assumed you meant he should only go public "IF" the committee "refuses to investigate" ...

so, just to clarify, you think Kerry should definitely go more public if the committee refuses to investigate OR during the inquiry even if it does investigate ... is this correct?

what you referred to as lunacy, that i really don't understand, is that you do NOT think Kerry should go public "at this time" ... is that your point of view?

[blm]

87. I think it would have been lunacy for HIM to shout about it BEFORE he

took the proper procedural steps. He's not a showhorse, he's a workhorse. If he'd been a screamer about DSM, the media would immediately bring out the sore loser storyline, and senators would be less likely to join him because he wasn't being methodical about it.

What I meant about wishing he'd been a little more visible before he ran for president, is in a matter of degree. Just more regular appearances on national news shows so people would have been more familiar with him as a presence.

Of course, Bob Dole was the real "liveshot" of the Senate. So is John McCain. But, Republicans never get mocked and labeled the way Democrats do.

[kerrygoddess]

50. No one is saying he needs to keep a lower profile...

He's just getting started and quite frankly to my knowledge none of us who received advance copies of the letter were told what is coming next.

But get this... Kerry and his staff respect the blogosphere enough to give out those advance copies and they trust that those of us given the copies would work hard to see that it is spread far and wide.

We all know the MSM watchs the Blogosphere. It's really a slap to the MSM that Kerry did it this way.

Kerry does nothing off the cuff. He's got a plan and he'll play it out. This is just the start.

[karynnj]

75. If he went straight to the media and if they gave him a forum,

he would immediately have been accused of grandstanding and there is a real chance that the media would have argued that it was Kerry wanting to replay the arguments of the campaign. (They would then say the election was a referendum on all of this and would Kerry please just go far far away.) In some ways, this would then diminish the fact that the DSM does seem to have new information that shows the Bush administration lied to their CO-EQUAL branch of government and the world.

By following Senate protocal, Kerry is demanding the Senate do its job. If he then goes to the media only after it FAILS to do its job, with 9 other Senators behind him, he at least can truthfully claim that he tried to get an investigation through the system. Also, he tied it to the second phase of the WMD intelligence breakdown investigation that was to deal with whether the administration manipulated the data - which didn't happen when it was supposed to. Note that John McCain (the moderate (?), maverick(?), favored by many Democrats (Why, I don't know)) was on this committtee. This would be fair for Democrats to use against McCain.

In today's environment, the cards are stacked against Kerry getting anywhere with this issue. Leaking interest in the memos (to a small paper), going through the Senate, then (if no miracle occurs) going to the press, sounds like a plan to get as much attention on the issue as he can. It's also not clear Kerry has the ability to get the media to cover him that some other people's comments imply.

At least some of the media doesn't give Kerry anywhere near fair coverage - for example in the NYT, when the VN premier was here they mentioned diplomatic relations were re-established a decade ago - and mentioned Clinton and McCain (who if I didn't know better, I could assume led the Senate committee that did the work); then in an op-ed piece yesterday, it was noted that re-opening relations was supported by vets and they named John McCain, Bob Kerrey and Fred Smith (CEO of Fed-ex). Since, even John McCain credited Kerry as being key to this effort - I don't know why Kerry seems to have been written out of this. Also, the NYT ignored the story that Naval records confirmed Kerry's service, while gleefully reporting his Yale grades as an 18-22 year old.)

[welshTerrier2]

81. "he would immediately have been accused"

we have to stop worrying about what the republicans say about us ... if we restrict our conduct so severely that we are afraid to tell the American people the truth, it doesn't matter what republicans say about us because we have already lost ... we cannot allow fear of their words to make us as ineffective as we would become if people actually believed them ...

the same is true for the statement you made about Kerry being seen as replaying the campaign and diminishing the effectiveness of the DSM because he is retaliating for losing the election ... i don't think we can afford to have our leading Democrats weakened by these concerns ... if we do, we are letting losing a battle translate into losing the war ...

nothing could be a worse strategy than not continuing an active dialog with the American people ... if Kerry really believed he was damaged goods and would not be an effective messenger to make the DSM case, then other Democratic Senators should be picking up the ball ...

[karynnj]

82. Due to my poor writing, this is not what I meant

I certainly don't see Kerry as damaged goods, but was saying that the media would have covered a direct Kerry statement more in terms of Kerry than in terms of what he actually said. It would have been a one day story, unless he said something that could be used to make him look foolish or the memo not meaningful. (Also, they could raise the issue of why as he is a Senator, he was not going through the system.

I actually think he makes an excellent leader on this, because he is very skilled at making his points without handing the Republicans much to spin out of context. I also don't see many Democrats trying to lead this. To my knowledge, Kennedy made a statement and a few others have mentioned it in passing. I actually think the issue will need many voices not just one.

[welshTerrier2]

84. "many voices not just one"

this is exactly my point with all of this ... we waited and waited and waited for the Senate Dems ... i have no bone to pick with Kerry ... i think ALL the Senate Dems have thus far missed a real opportunity to join the Conyers' chorus ...

we have enough problems with the MSM without the Dems "going thru channels" in the Senate and not taking their case to the American people as strongly as they possibly can ...

hopefully they're planning to go much more public in the next few days ... these things often have very short lives if the American people, and eventually the press, are not brought into the process ...

and btw, i think you write very well ... i didn't mean to suggest that you said Kerry was damaged goods ... i thought your point was that the media might have portrayed him this way had he chosen a higher profile in the DSM ...

[MoonRiver]

52. I'm so tired of this baloney.

Thanks for speaking reasonably about the non-stop silly spin seen here.

[blm]

70. So you're on record that an OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION is NOT what you want?

Funny how you all can claim you want an official investigation and then MOCK AND CRITICIZE the ONE Senator who takes the steps necessary to achieve that goal.

Why on earth would anyone SPIN a yarn pretending they want an official investigation then COMPLAIN when steps are followed to do just that?

Hmmmm....what kind of an operation would follow such a divisive use of rhetoric?

[welshTerrier2]

74. fwiw ...

my interpretation of what the poster was responding to had nothing to do with Kerry's call for an OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION ...

i thought the point of the post was in response to my earlier post that stated its disagreement with the BP ... the point, at least to me, did not seem to be critical of Kerry's call for an official investigation at all; i thought it referred to the BP's statement that the media is not covering Kerry's letter to Senator Roberts ...

if Kerry had wanted more media coverage, i'm confident he would have had the skills and the know-how to achieve it ... as you've already acknowledged in other posts, Kerry has thus far not chosen a more public approach ... while i have all kinds of criticisms of the MSM, in this case i think the "low spark" reaction was of Kerry's own choosing ...

[MoonRiver]

79. Thanks.That was my point also.

And I have been saying that Kerry needs to get in front of as many cameras as he can since this discussion was started last week. He's still in the limelight as a recent presidential candidate. If he wanted to make a huge stink about DSM or any of the many other * outrages, he'd be in the best position of anybody in Congress to pull it off.

[karynnj]

83. Not sure about that

Kerry has name recognition, but I would assume there are others, such as Clinton, Biden, McCain who are media darlings.

[MoonRiver]

85. Well, they should be in front of the cameras also. Screaming and yelling.

[Mass]

88. It would be totally useless

Screaming on Fox or MSnbc is a total loss of time. Anyway, if the better we can do is to expect our representatives to do the job for us, it is a total loss of time.

We need a multi-layered approach:

- House : done
- Senate : starting, needs to continue
- grassroots: needs to continue their work. Their work is NOT to get their senators to speak. It is to say to the world that they care. They have done a wonderful job with Conyers petition, but it is far from being finished.

Once these three elements will be in place for a while and will continue with an equivalent force, the media will be forced to follow. Right now, they do not feel the need and we should only blame ourselves.

[blm]

89. What a joke. When the Vietnamese PM was here, theres were all sorts of

ceremonies and articles about how accord was reached between the nations in the early 90s. They featured McCain and other senators and even Bill Clinton while every news organization kept Kerry OUT OF THEIR COVERAGE even though it was Kerry who was the most responsible for the accord, and he led the Senate efforts on it.

Anyone paying half attention would see that there is a media blockade against Kerry while they are pumping up the Clinton - McCain features.

And you know your post was hardly benign....it was just another of a long running, constant stream of attacks on Kerry perpetrated by you.

[Mass]

91. I learned that Kerry was there by reading the Vietnamese news

That goes to say.

It is clear that the news will do the less they can to cover Kerry in anything that is not his strict senatorial duty. That has never prevented Kerry to do things.


Anyway, the media have trouble covering anybody to the left of Clinton. My only question, why are we even bothering talking about the media.

[karynnj]

93. He was there?

I had assumed that he was not invited - which given his role would have been a slap in the face. I was also annoyed that Bush himself seemed to be taking credit that this meeting would aid in getting American remains returned and opening more trade between the two countries. Even though Kerry more than anyone deserves the credit for these things happening.

I really am beginning to believe things I always rejected out of hand - such as both parties representing different factions of the same elite. It almost seems as though part of Kerry's difficulty in the election is that the usually Democratic media really did not want him to win. Even now, after he lost a close election, conceded with grace and class, and almost immediately started to work on building a stronger grassroots than existed for him in 2004 after he clinched the nomination, there are endless snarky references to him that repeat Republican lies or negative characterizations.

Here is one example. Frank Rich, who I normally love to read wrote in his June 19 column which dealt with news/fiction, " Politicians who dive into this game by putting on their own reality shows think they are being very clever. But like Mr. Cruise, they're being busted by a backlash. John Kerry was the first to feel it: his stagy military pageant, complete with salute, at the Democratic National Convention came off as so phony that the greater (but more subtle) fictions of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth struck many as relatively real by comparisons." Bush's mission accomplished WAS stagy, Kerry's convention was introducing Kerry and showcasing his biography. No one complained in 1992 when Clinton's movie cast him in an honest but clearly crafted rags to riches story or in Bush's 2000 Prodigal Son tale. Kerry has one of the most dramatic biographies of any Presidential candidate in a very long time, he did not need to make his past dramatic - it really is. Other than a 1 second salute, there was nothing stagy about what Kerry did. (Unless you want to count Alex Kerry's continuation of the hero theme with the cute hamster story.)

Kerry did start his speech with a salute, he did mention he fought for this country as a young man, but that was maybe five minutes of his hour long speech. He also, did mention in his speech that he fought the war when he returned home. He was introduced by his friend, Max Cleland and his swiftboat crew were brought up to the stage. His former crew were not phony and they legitimately acted as character witnesses more than as props to glorify Kerry's medal winning exploits. When Alston spoke, it was as much on how concerned Kerry was for their wellbeing. Saying it was phony, and a reality show and then referring to greater fictions of the SBVT, implies to me that he is saying that Kerry was to some degree fabricating this image of a war hero. (Does it bother Rich that Kerry actually was a hero? And then every bit as much a hero in the anti-war movement.)

What is also insidious, is that this sentence then claims that this caused the SBVT to be more believable. If anything, for people who saw his crew at the DNC, it probably caused the SBVT to be less believable. It also takes the blame away from the media which continued to give free coverage to the SBVT although their charges were contrary to the official records and several were obvious lies. Contrast that to the UNIVERSAL media criticism of the Rather story and the rejection of the entire TANG story - even though there was ample evidence, that although the memo may have been fake, the information on it was consistent with the memories of Kilean's supervisor and his secretary. For all the whining about Kerry not fighting the SBVT, the truth is the media backed Bush as soon as ONE problem was seen in the TANG accusations and no more was said. Kerry showed many lies in the SBVT stuff - and was then asked to debunk every sentence in their book. Frank Rich as part of the media needs to question the media's role rather than blaming the victim.

It almost seems that Kerry won the nomination, not because he was blessed by the Democratic powers that be or the media, but by winning over people in the early primary states. The powers that be and the media then were extremely lackadaisical in backing Kerry. Now he is being trashed for losing.

[Mass]

95. In the Senate reception.

http://thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=7441

Also on June 22, PM Khai met with Senators John Kerry and John McCain, who expressed strong beliefs in the future of Vietnam-U.S. relations.

The two senators, one from the Democrat Party and the other from the Republic Party, shared the view that the two countries would speed up negotiations on outstanding problems to have a common voice and reduce avoidable problems emerging from disputes on trade.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/detail.asp?GRP=D&id=64261

Many of the business and political contacts who could make the prediction come true were at a Wednesday afternoon send-off reception in a Senate hearing room.

Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, spoke of the irony of having him and Sens. John McCain and John Kerry co-host the reception, since as young men they all were U.S. Navy officers in Vietnam.

"The irony is that John McCain, John Kerry and myself, people who fought vigorously against you, and lost," have won the fight to push aside the bitterness and forge a new friendship between the old enemies.

[karynnj]

108. Thanks for posting this

It is mind boggling that the US accounts didn't mention Kerry. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought it was strange he was left out.

I get your point on all the talk about involving the media. There are always so many posts assuming that Kerry can control getting a lot of media. In retrospect,it's amazing he got so close with so little help from the media.

[LittleClarkie]

109. I wonder why that is

Because he doesn't pander to the pundits? Or because they've decided they just don't like him? Did the Clintons shmooze them that good? Is that what they like about Bush, that he wined and dined them?

[karynnj]

112. May be that they know they can't buy him

Looking for something else, I searched MSNBC for Kerry yesterday and didn't find anything on the Rove speech but found they had the primary logs (Becky Diamond in Kerry's case). What was strange was that in the one I randomly opened (Sept 2003), she wrote about Teresa bringing the press homemade brownies (which were reportedly good and when asked to, Teresa gave them the recipe) and seemed to really like her - and the comments on John were nice too.

I doubt Kerry could have impressed the Bush Groupie Candi Crowley. I really do not understand her and thought her "he asked for green tea" stuff was pathetic. (Now, if he threw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get any, that would be a story, but just politely asking?)

I do think that Kerry is the only politician, I've ever seen who doesn't play up to the big talking heads - he just answers the questions intelligently and politely. But I think that it might be that he really is his own man and the elites don't understand or like it.

[LittleClarkie]

114. Especially when he'd been sick

and green tea is good for you.

That was pathetic. Even more so when we called that restaurant and they had, you guessed it, green tea.

[karynnj]

119. You called? That is cool, I never would have thought to do that.

I just thought the story and amount of emphasis she put on a very innocuous action was way out of bounds - and it hurt as it was after the loss. It just seemed unkind and stupid. (But then I question anyone who could become a Bush groupie, but see oblivious to the fact that Kerry seems to be a nice person.)

[Snivi Yllom]

90. No, Kerry choose the route that would create the least attention

He knows DSM is not going anywhere, but is trying to play to the middle and the left.

Just another example of why he lost the election.

[blm]

96. Horsepoo. Then why did Kerry push OTHER senators to sign it?

If he was only playing a game, he wouldn't have cared how many other senators signed it and he would have gained points by grandstanding the maneuver last week.

Some of you are really too unaware of actual history and procedure to be believed. You snark for the sake of snarking even when there is no basis for it in reality.

[Snivi Yllom]

106. if he was serious and wanted to throw heft behind it

It would have been released MONDAY morning with a press conference.

He's soft selling it.

And he would never have released it all by himself. With numbers comes politcal cover. The reality of politics is ugly.

[blm]

111. It wasn't released to the press. READ THE POST. Certain blogs got a heads

up and received advance copies of the letter being given to the Senate Intel committe. The point was also that if Kerry only intended to grandstand he wouldn't BOTHER with any co-signers.

But, he really cares about getting the investigation and is bringing other senators on board. THAT'S the reality of the political procedure to achieve your goal. Hardly popular with the base who prefers fire and brimstone over procedural measures.

Noone has brought about tougher investigations than John Kerry. Not that any of his detractors would ever admit it.

[Supersedeas]

94. and one based on current Congressional proceedings (so where is the Media)

[jmcon007]

33. how can no news be breaking news?

[kerrygoddess]

38. FYI... Blogs got an advance on the Letter

It has not been released publicly yet. Kerry said the internet was the one leading on the DSM issue so they gave the letter purposely to Blogs who support the DSM issue as an advance.

[LiberalAndProud]

53. I was wondering.

Not a word under Press Releases about the letter. Last we heard from Kerry, he was yelling at Rove.

on a Friday when the news might be overlooked.

I wonder what's going to happen Monday?

[jillan]

54. Friday makes sense to me.

It gives the bloggers the whole weekend to talk it up.

I guess Kerry was thinking that people would be excited about it.
Too bad so many of you have such a negative attitude towards Kerry.

I for one still think he's the best.
And I support him 100%.

[mary195149]

55. The best way to get the media's attention,

is if we quit watching any news shows on tv that don't want to report the news and cancel our newspapers. I have blocked Fox from my home and watch only a select few shows that I feel comfortable with. They can only survive on their ratings and the people have the power to demand real news or no news.

[oxbow]

56. John Conyers letter was ignored at first

it had nearly half the house dems' names on it.

When writing the media, ask them to report on Michael Smith's new article too re:DSM. Anybody have the link for that?

[Broken Acorn]

57. I respect Kerry very much

That is why I think it is urgent for him to start SPEAKING OUT to the media or any other outlet (public speeches) he can procure.

We need to start a movement here with the public and writing letters is a good start.

But Conyers has done probably all that he can at this point and the media was almost all but absent in reporting his efforts.

The spin on his hearings was all about how this is 'old news', not about the content and how it could be grounds for impeachment.

Kerry and the leading Dems need to make this talking point #1. If the don't, I feel this will fail like so many other lost causes to date.

[tuvor]

58. "breaking" according to whom?

Links would be nice.

[JNelson6563]

69. He has served his purpose

the corporate media no longer needs him so why bother to cover him?

[blm]

71. Corporate media has been actively trying to destroy Kerry for over 30 yrs.

Anyone unfamiliar with the media's efforts against him during Vietnam, IranContra, BCCI, gays in military, and the lies fostered against him during the primaries and general election, couldn't be very reliable or credible critics of Kerry today.

[karynnj]

77. Good point -

Since the election, the media doesn't give Kerry anywhere near fair coverage -

for example in the NYT, when the VN premier was here they mentioned diplomatic relations were re-established a decade ago - and mentioned Clinton and McCain (who if I didn't know better, I could assume led the Senate committee that did the work); then in an op-ed piece yesterday, it was noted that re-opening relations was supported by vets and they named John McCain, Bob Kerrey and Fred Smith (CEO of Fed-ex), Kerry was not mentioned. Since, even John McCain credited Kerry as being key to this effort - I don't know why Kerry seems to have been written out of this.

Also, after the media continued to hit Kerry over the head, after the election with the request to sign to publicly release his entire military record - something not done by any other candidate ever. The demand that he sign was stated as what he needed to do to clear his name, in spite of the fact that his record was that he was a highly decorated, highly rated officer. It was clear that they were fishing for anything in his service record they could use to counter the truth - he was a squeaky clean genuine hero. When his records were released, the NYT ignored the story that Naval records confirmed Kerry's service, while gleefully reporting his Yale grades as an 18-22 year old. (Pretty pathetic if that's the most dirt they can get on a 61 year old man.)

[flpoljunkie]

78. From Salon War Room re Kerry's letter: "Where Are the Other Democrats?"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/print.html?blog=

Where are the other Democrats?

For those who have been itching for someone -- the national media, the White House, Congress, anybody -- to take the Downing Street memo seriously, the news today is mostly good: Even if the Republicans will never let it happen, John Kerry and nine other Senate Democrats have actually asked for an investigation that will include the revelations set forth in the Downing Street memo.

And yet -- where are the rest of the Senate Democrats? There are 44 Democrats in the Senate, and Kerry circulated a draft of his letter to the whole lot of them two weeks ago. In the end, he was able to persuade just nine of his colleagues to sign on: Jon Corzine, Tim Johnson, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Jeff Bingaman and Dick Durbin.

Where are you, Harry Reid? Any reason you didn't sign, Sen. Clinton? And while we wouldn't expect to see a signature from someone like Joe Lieberman on this letter, why don't we see your name there, Sen. Obama?

It would be one thing, we suppose, if Kerry's letter were outrageous somehow -- say, if it impugned the patriotism of millions of Americans or suggested their real "motives" were to put U.S. troops in mortal danger. But Kerry's letter isn't like that. It simply quotes passages from the Downing Street memo and highlights the "troubling questions" that they raise.

Is it that you don't think those questions are worth answers, Joe Biden? Or does the experience of Dick Durbin -- who did, after all, sign the Kerry letter -- have you too scared to raise them?

___________________________

Link to email your Senators and ask them to sign Senator Kerry's letter urging the Senate Intelligence Committee to complete Phase II of their investigation--how the administration used the intelligence they received in the run up to the Iraq War--which chairmain Pat Roberts agreed to in February, 2002.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Greyhound]

99. flpoljunkie has nailed the primary issue with the dems

9 out of 44 regarding THE most important issue of this century (I know it's early, but this will go down in history, one way or the other).
I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, in fact I predicted his loss due to his extreme insider status, but where are the "new" leaders of the party? The POTUS has apparently committed the most egregious, impeachable offenses, by any American President in history, and what do we hear from "the loyal opposition"?
I'm waiting...
...still

[second edition]

92. It's wrong to expect John Kerry to do all the work for you.

The media isn't interested in anything Dems have to say unless it is responding to a Dem mis-speak. Then its guaranteed to get at least several days of coverage. The media will not do a thing on this unless we pressure them to do so. Call, e-mail, write letters to the media and editors. Ask them why they are not covering the DSM extensively. I also, think calls should be made to our senators who did not sign the letter.
I get the feeling many senators and the media want to consider this old news and want to move on along. This attitude will prevent Bush from being held accountable and accepting responsibility for leading us into war as he did.

[David Zephyr]

101. They have indeed ignored his letter.

I hope Kerry can get more than ten signatures in the Senate. Is he working it? I dont' know. But, Broken Acorn, you correctly point out that the weekend came and went the Corporate Media recoiled from Kerry's letter.

[Imagevision]

102. Kerry? All talk NO action -- I want to see some form of action!!

money talks Bullshit walks -- actions speak louder than words - you get my drift.

[blm]

103. A letter of inquiry to establish an OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION is action.

And faux outrage that a procedural step was taken to establish that official investigation is suspect behavior.

Are some of you people really preferring NO INVESTIGATION happen and that only rhetoric and media gestures will be applauded?

You people prefer showhorses over workhorses?

Did you know how IranContra and BCCI investigations came about? Kerry working within the rules to make them happen, even up against huge obstacles.

[Mass]

105. I like your logic.

(or your absence of logic). This is not words. This is action.
Talking on stupid talkshows would be talk, and you are right, absolutely useless.

[Broken Acorn]

107. Mass, you're wrong

We need Kerry and others to do both. Action and SPEAK OUT.

We need the American people behind his actions. They need to be informed about Kerry's official inquiry request regarding the DSM.

How can they do this if they never go to DU?

My whole point is that the Corporate Media will never publicize Kerry's ACTIONS if he doesn't SPEAK OUT about them.

[Mass]

110. My post was partly sarcasm as the post I was answering to

was characterizing the demand for inquiry as talks and going to a talk-show as action. I beg to differ.

For the rest, I think that the Senate is far from being finished with the DSM (I hope so at least) and that this is only the beginning of their action.