Keith Olbermann will cover Kerry re Downing St Minutes tonight on MSNBC

[Nothing Without Hope]

This show is broadcast live at 8 PM EST on MSNBC. From Olbermann's emailed newsletter:

------------------------------------------------------
Tonight on Countdown
------------------------------------------------------
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2235942822

(snip)

I don't care for the way this started - "Failed presidential candidate John Kerry" - but I'll take the coverage. Here is an excerpt from the linked report:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2235942822

John Kerry Reportedly To Present "Downing Street Memo" To Congress

June 6, 2005 10:18 a.m. EST
Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington,D.C. (AHN)- After remaining almost silent since losing the 2004 election by thirty four electoral votes, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is reportedly planning to to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times.

The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.

The Downing Street Memo is a leaked Top Secret document that details the minutes of a 2002 meeting between top-level British and American government officials.

The memo states that George Bush "was determined" to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
(snip)

And hooray! This article clearly states that these are MINUTES of a government meeting, not some vague "memo."

[NYCGirl]

1. That'll be somewhat difficult, since Kerry is not there today. NT

[Imagevision]

35. Blair flies into to meet with Bush today to correlate stories on memo

Can it be just a coincidence that Blair flies in the day before Kerry is to give "Memo-leak" wake-up message to the Senate?

And corporate media still refuses to cover this worse then watergate story?? something is extremely wrong here.

[Jacobin]

2. Official Rain On Parade post:

From my perspective, deep in Red Land, this DSM will go nowhere at all. Everyone I know has figured out that Bush* lied to go to war and they figure either 1) he did it for a good reason that he can't tell us (D'oh), or 2)well, okay, he forked up, but at least Saddam is gone and HeWasABadMan(tm) and now we have to stay to 'fix it', or 3)All politicians lie, and at least Bush* won't let gays get married or take away our guns, and 4) yadda yadda yadda, 5) yadda yadda.

All of this is of course from RedLand denizens who don't give a rat's ass about some body else's kids getting blown to hell, and they certainly don't care about brown people gettin snuffed.

Bring back the draft, and all of a sudden, there will be problems.....BIG BIG problems for the BushBots.

Helluva way to end a war, no? Worked in 'Nam.

[Dr Fate]

4. Let team Bush go on TV and repeat those desperate excuses...

Let team Bush go on TV and say over and over "Yeah, we lied, but you already knew about it- this is old news...We ALL lie- right? At least we had a good reason to lie...blah blah blah..."

See- the excuses actually dont work as well when Bush says them.

[Jacobin]

8. He doesn't have to say them

His followers don't give a rat's ass. The media is owned by his corporate lackies, so he doesn't have to answer real questions. He keeps mouthing the same inanities and it works for his supporters.

See how easy it is.

(please don't get me wrong. Many knew this was all a set up to begin with. I was outraged when it started. I'm not really outraged by the 'memo' thingy because it was obvious from day one that is what happened. I wish this memo meant something concrete for Smirk, but being surrounded by cretinous BushBots, I'm here to suggest to you that it won't have ramifications for him, sadly)

[Dr Fate]

27. All DEMs have to do is bring it up every single day on TV. (But they wont)

And then Bush would have to talk about it.

It's not about "bushbots"- its about all those voters who are asking questions about or dont support the war anymore.

Of course, DEMs will likely give Bush a free pass- which is the REAL problem.

I concede- My mistake is that I'm arguing from the POV of what *I* would do- not what eunuchs would do.

[dchill]

34. "Many knew this was all a set up to begin with."

Yes, and they too are culpable for knowingly repeating the lies. There really is blood on their hands. Even for non-theorists, this is a massive conspiracy. Gov't personnel, military commanders, journalists and pundits, and 90% of the Republican congressional delegation all willingly, gleefully took part.

To claim that one believed the Bush Lies is to voluntarily admit utter stupidity and complete gullibility. The truth about Iraq was everywhere. Ask the world.

[sandnsea]

6. Bush Doctrine & Pre-Emptive Wars of Choice

Do you support the Bush Doctrine of American supremacy, expanding the American perimeter, and starting wars to do it? If you don't, now is the time to write letters in your red state and explain why the lies are still important. We have to stop the Bush Doctrine, the Downing Street Memo proves they will start wars whether there's intelligence about a potential threat or not.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1020

[Jacobin]

9. My dear.

BushBots do not exist in a world of 'thought' or 'analysis' or 'rationality'.

They live in a world of 'belief' and 'faith' and 'my country right or wrong'

I watched them during Viet Nam. I watched them cheer in fucking bars the night of ShockNAwe(tm). It made me vomit.

Half of americans are godawful, selfish, sanctimonious ignoramouses that do not want to understand anything that contradicts their fucked up belief systems. ]

The only thing that will matter to them is having one of their fat assed, rednecked, jock, dumb ass kids drafted.

Then, you will hear them screeching from the rooftops.

[sandnsea]

13. It is their belief system

They believe in American supremacy, so they should have no problem embracing the Bush Doctrine, right? Once they embrace it, they then have to own that they're responsible for starting a war of choice. Hang it around their heads. The majority of the country won't go along with that, not even in the reddest of the red states. Use their idiocy against them.

[Jacobin]

26. There you go being reasonable and thoughtful again.

Your post uses logic, reason and thought.

Please re-read my post. I LIVE in a deep red state. Those things do not occur in politics with most voters here. It's like a football game where your home team can do no wrong, all wrongs are overlooked, and nothing bad can be said about the home team without your being attacked.

[sandnsea]

29. Until your home team is caught

paying off the refs. Then you're ostracized and nobody EVER forgets. That's what you have to do. Thoroughly explain the Bush Doctrine, in a way that makes it clear it's an American Supremacy plan, in the words the people in your state use. Then when people are shaking their heads in agreement, wham. The Bush Doctrine was used to start a war when we were in no danger and the DSM proves it. The Bush Doctrine has put us on a path of endless war, because there is no end of countries that the Bush Doctrine will call on to be "reformed". The Bush Doctrine is the National Security Policy, it's not a conspiracy theory. You can quote right wing groups to back you up.

I don't care how red your red state is, Americans do not believe in wars to spread "Americanism".

[marions ghost]

20. however there are a lot of people

who voted Republican who are having serious buyer's remorse at this point, who might be very interested in the legal ramifications of the Downing Street Minutes. Opening this up could be a very enlightening process, especially for those who held their noses and voted for *.

What do we care about the reactions of Bushbots anyway? I don't believe they constitute half of Americans.

[Patchuli]

38. Right on! nt

[EVDebs]

22. As with Watergate, the CIA has to provide the essentials

In Iraq-nam's case foreign governments have all the documentation that they need. I hear that in Belgium they can try foreign government representatives for war crimes and human rights violations, as with Pinochet.

Perhaps foreign led outrage will lead on this. Heck, the Dems/liberals here dare not, or we'll be accused of 'attacking America' or 'blame America first' etc etc.

See: War Crimes Suits Filed In Belgium Against Bush, Blair
http://www.rense.com/general38/belg.htm

who apparently have scrapped the law
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/belg-j17.shtml
under pressure from the US.

[Jacobin]

24. The big difference between Watergate and DSM

There is no more media.

None.

Nada

Zip.

The echo chamber of the state run media will convince the unconvinced (more than half anyway), that this is all ok. Propaganda is a very powerful tool. It makes black white, up down, and right wrong.

[EVDebs]

30. Agreed, however many insiders fear for the state of the union

just as in 1972-1974, especially within the now purged CIA and DoD Pentagon intelligence agencies. 2006's elections are a key event as if enough Dems are elected, well, Bush could end up being impeached after all.

Also, please read End Time Delusions by Steven Wohlberg. You will find that Bush's base of support amongst evangelicals may begin to erode due to the errant interpretation of scripture that legitimized pre-tribulation 'rapture'. It appears they will have to go through the bad times with the rest of us; and that Third Temple isn't justifiable after all.

[Imagevision]

40. Cia to provide essentials? -- Bush already dismissed key players

regarding those with pre-9-11 knowledge - Bush's fired or replaced anyone in the CIA that had negative views-opinions on Iraq's wmd's, the ones the white house claims would eventually be found.

[Nightjock]

3. I'm looking foward to Kerry's speech but...

did you read the end of that story?

"Republicans plan to issue a response to Senator Kerry by using his own words against him, a tactic used in the 2004 Election. Where Sen. Kerry was quoted as saying the war was justified and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed."

Although the truth is that bush lied and fixed the evidence to go to war, the media will take the Republican bullsh*t spin and run with it.

They will HAVE to cover the story, but it will die a quick death on the airwaves as the mass of uninformed Americans continue with thier barbeques, reality shows and buying lame magnetic ribbons for thier cars.

BUT...if impeachment proceedings are brought foward that will be a whole different story.

[LSK]

5. DSM = they fixed the intelligence

"Republicans plan to issue a response to Senator Kerry by using his own words against him, a tactic used in the 2004 Election. Where Sen. Kerry was quoted as saying the war was justified and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed."

Doesnt DSM totally destroy this argument. Kerry was obviously lied to like everyone else. But its still his fault????

[sandnsea]

7. Based on "fixed intelligence"

That's the whole point. Democrats were willing to get inspectors back into Iraq in order to keep Saddam restrained. The Bush Doctrine calls for removing regimes that might become a threat, they "fixed the intelligence to the policy", meaning they concocted the threat in order to implement their Bush Doctrine to "expand the American perimeter".


http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1020

[zanne]

14. Their response is so weak this time.

I thought they were much better at spin than that--they just sound desperate.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. many people don't WANT to believe what is in the minutes. When they

hear, as has already been said, that it has been "discredited" or "an internet rumor," they will want to believe that even if it isn't based on fact.

And Kerry as a spokesman will put up an additional barricade against belief for many GOP-leaners. It's already being spun as a personal grudge from a sore loser who did support the Iraq War.

[LunaC]

21. Here's how you arm yourself

The RW plans on trotting out H.R. 4655 signed by President Clinton named "The Iraqi
Liberation Act of 1998". They will claim that this gave President Bush all of the
legal recourse necessary for the war.

They will purport to quote directly from the bill: "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"
declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the
Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic
government. "

Don't be fooled by the selective tunnel-vision rhetoric.......

This bill is to support the IRAQI OPPOSITION. It never came close to opening the
door for direct U.S. military intervention.

And here's another handy tidbit to know.....Clinton may have signed the bill but he
never funded it! Why? Because a huge ortion would heve gone to Chalabi's Iraqi
National Congress


Here's a few quotes to arm yourself with......

Jesse Helms Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, commented:

"This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. **It will not
send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way.** Rather, it harkens back
to the successes of the Reagan doctrine, enlisting the very people who are
suffering most under Saddam's yoke to fight the battle against him."


According to Senator Bob Kerrey

"Second, **this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in operations in
or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not Americans, to make.** The
bill provides the Administration a portent new tool to help Iraqis toward this
goal, and at the same time advance America's interest in a peaceful and secure
Middle East.


Speaking on behalf of the bill in the Senate, Trent Lott said:

"The United States has many means at its disposal to support the liberation of
Iraq. **At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom
fighters in Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for a
democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq**.

"This year, Congress has already provided $5 million **to support the Iraqi
political opposition.** We provided $5 million to establish Radio Free Iraq . We
will provide additional resources for political support in the FY 1999 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act, including $3 million for the Iraqi National Congress

"This is an important step. Observers should not misunderstand the Senate's action.
Even though this legislation will pass without controversy
on an unanimous voice vote, it is a major step forward in the final conclusion of
the Persian Gulf war. In 1991, we and our allies shed blood to liberate Kuwait.
Today, **we are empowering Iraqis to liberate their own country."**

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998
======================================================================
Originally posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3791665&mesg_id=3791665

[MH1]

33. Excellent!! - and my contribution:

I liked the quotes you posted so I posted part of yours at my blog too.

Here was my take on the tactics suggested by the AHN article.

Potential (R) response to Kerry on DSM, and why it's bunk.

Excerpt (it's too long to post it all here):

Let's start with the easy one.

Republicans plan to issue a response to Senator Kerry by using his own words against him...Sen. Kerry was quoted as saying the war was justified and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

If Senator Kerry stated that "the war was justified and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed" because of the intelligence data that was presented to the Senate - intelligence data that the DSM now shows us "were being fixed around the policy", how does that absolve the Administration from any responsibility for lying to the American people - AND the Senate? Let's refer back to the Iraq War Resolution: Sec. 3 (b) states that either before or immediately after initiating military action, Bush must present to Congress his determination that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

In English, that says that all diplomatic measures must be exhausted or Bush had better present some good logic for giving up on it, before taking military action. And I believe if we look hard enough we can find published statements by Bush and his minions that state that their intent was to try to resolve the problem through diplomatic action. As I understand it, that is certainly why Senator Kerry voted for IWR in the first place. So if the DSM now shows that all along, Bush and his crew had absolutely no intent or desire for diplomatic measures to succeed, I would say that there are lies aplenty that were fed to Congress and the American people as fact, as the basis for decisions about Iraq; and our House members and Senators should be outraged (not to mention thousands of grieving widows, orphans, and other family members). How can you use statements that were made based on the information in the lies, to say that the lies themselves were somehow okay?

Now let's look at the second potential rebuttal suggested by the AHN article: that the 1998 bill, H.R. 4655, somehow gave Bush "all of the legal recourse necessary for the war".
:
:
:

For the detailed discussion of the 1998 bill, you'll have to go to the post itself - it's pretty long.

[ebayfool]

45. Hell, I've already seen it trotted out HERE today!

A little advance attack on DU to see how it fares, I guess. Thanks for the armament, boils it down to make it easier to deliver!

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. This will be an update - Olbermann and Begala were two who spoke early

about the DSM. Here are links to earlier VIDEO CLIPS. The one from Begala (CNN Crossfire) is only two minutes long but it is particularly not to be missed. His outrage is honest and clear. This was before the apparent order for suppression came down from the White House and media coverage of the DSM was suppressed. The Keith Olbermann clip features an interview with Rep. Louise Slaughter. The clips:

Olbermann (posted 5/16):
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/16.html#a2974

Begala: (posted 5/13)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1782122

[seemslikeadream]

11. MINUTES

[paineinthearse]

41. So....what happened?

I'm not aware of Kerry saying anything yet. So what did KO say?

[whometense]

42. Link to video clip

here: http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/6/19748/41156

[paineinthearse]

44. thanks

[Nothing Without Hope]

47. also here at DU, provided by dzika:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1834390

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. The wording of the emailed newsletter is disturbing:

The title of the Olbermann newsletter (which I don't think he writes) and its first sentence have a flavor of some of GOP spin, that Kerry is a sore loser and that he voted for the Iraq War. The title of the newletter email is "Kerry Versus Bush?" (as though it's a personal grudge) and the first sentence begins "Failed presidential candidate John Kerry." More spin language is in the wording of the email: "The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war." Why "PURPORTS"? This has been another aspect of the spin, that this "memo" is not validated; it has even been stated on TV that it has been "discredited." (I don't have that link handy. It wasn't on Olbermann's show.) So the wording will be important to watch, as will the GOP spin.

[zanne]

15. If Tony Blair didn't discredit it a week before the elections....

It has to be genuine. The Republicans really don't have a good defense this time.

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. Spin doesn't have to be true. They are already talking about how the

"memo" is discredited. Doubtless they will spin Kerry's talking about it as a sore loser's grudge, and besides he liked the Iraq War idea well enough that he voted for it. People hear this spin, and unless it is vigrously and very loudly rebutted, they accept it as the final word and move on. That's why we have to keep pushing with the truth.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. Yes, of course it's genuine. But if they are allowed to say that it's

discredited, many will belileve them without question. The authenticity has to be pushed hard.

[lynne]

28. I don't think they will try to discredit the minutes -

- instead they will attempt to discredit the source within the minutes.

IMO they will attempt to show him - wasn't C his name? - as incompetent and state that the info he presented at the meeting was either not accurate or was misconstrued by him.

Just guessing.

[MH1]

32. First line was not Olbermann, it was from NewsMax.

I believe.

I didn't get the newsletter but I watched the bit on Olbermann. The News Max piece starts out:

Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Note the first line is the same as used in the newsletter...I think they must've quoted the NewsMax article without making that clear.

Also there was another slimy bit that came from an AHN piece:

John Kerry Reportedly To Present "Downing Street Memo" To Congress

June 6, 2005 4:42 p.m. EST

Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington,D.C. (AHN)- After remaining almost silent since losing the 2004 election, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is reportedly planning to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times.

I am also very familiar with the AHN article because I did a piece on it at my blog:
Potential (R) response to Kerry on DSM, and why it's bunk.

In my post I deconstruct the RTP's that the AHN article suggests.

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. EMAIL KEITH OLBERMANN if you have links to important documented info

on the Downing St Minutes that you want him to know about before the show:

[e-mail]

[LunaC]

25. I just sent him these

Putting the Downing Minutas in perspective
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC_101

Downing Minutes and HR 4655 - "The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3791665&mesg_id=3791665

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. If it's like what was done with the "Gannon" WH visits FOIA documents,

There will be a prominent GOP spokesman featured to give the move-along-nothing-here spin. It's quite possible Keith himself has no control over that aspect of things.

In any case, I expect to see a "counterbalance" (quotes because a lie isn't the counterbalance of a fact) featuring GOP spin, which has been carefully planned.

[kerrygoddess]

31. MSNBC says Countdown to air this tonight:

Monday, 8 p.m. ET
Keith seeks answers about history's great mysteries like where is Jimmy Hoffa buried and who was Carly Simon talking about in "Your so vain?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

[Imagevision]

36. "Failed presidential candidate John Kerry" sounds like NewsMax

NewsMax.com says the only net coverage this downing St. memo is getting on the net is by the likes of MichaelMoore.com types of web sites??

somebody is concerned!

[Clark2008]

37. It was NewsMax, who got it from Al-Jazeera and Keith popped

NewsMax for sourcing Al-Jazeera.

Keith, in fact, popped all the right-wing media over the whole subject.

Did any of you guys watch it?

P.S. I KNOW you watched it, NWH. :hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

43. VIDEO of Olbermann popping the RW spin over what Kerry said about the DSM:

I couldn't' watch it because I don't have cable, but our wonderful dzika, DU's Viscount of Video, recorded and kindly sent me links to the uploaded clip to share. It's very short but oh, so sweet. He very clearly shows what Kerry actually said about the DSM - significant in its own right - and then describes how this was twisted into a call for impeachment by NewsMax and Al-Jazeera. How long has it been since you saw a TV newsman actually debunk a RW rumor before it could even really get started? Bravo!

Real Media Format:
http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/olbermann/olbermann_kerry_downing_street_memo_050606-01.ram

Windows Media Format:
http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/olbermann/olbermann_kerry_downing_street_memo_050606-01.wmv

http://www.edwardsdavid.com.nyud.net:8090/media/olbermann/images/olbermann_kerry_downing_street_memo_050606-01.jpg

Thank you, dzika- yet again! :hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. I've REPOSTED this video in the OP of a SEPARATE THREAD here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1834390#

[kerrygoddess]

48. Before it could get started?

If Olbermann debunked this Friday it would have been before it got started.

Kudos to Olbermann for speaking out, but it was first debunked on LUTD on Friday - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1000

Thanks for the links to the Olbermann video. I'm really glad he spoke up, I hope more will follow suit in situations like this and do so quicker!

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. Keith Olbermann was NOT THERE on Friday, there was a guest host.

Then the weekend intervened, so he coldln't do it any earlier than he did. Too bad - I agree that it would have been better to debunk this sooner than later. If he weren't the ONLY corporate media news spokesman to do the debunking, it could have happened last Friday. As it is, he did it the first night he could.

[Imagevision]

39. "Who will be the last soldier to die for a lie"??! Kerry 1975