DSM latest

Last word on the DSM for today: Daily Kos gives a quick roundup of some of the emerging U.S. coverage of the DSM. Interestingly, the web site notes that "The DSM [Downing Street Memo] story has exploded so rapidly into the MSM [MainStream Media?] that my diary is going to be very selective". I'm not sure if I'd sign on to the story "exploding" - at least not yet. We'd have to have a "bombshell" memo for that to happen, right? (OK, sorry!)

Enough. But I can't sign off without being serious for a moment and reminding myself that that I do agree with those who think that the DSM can't really be a bombshell because I think most people in the U.S. (on all sides of the spectrum) know and accept that it is true that Bush was set on going to war from mid-2002, and have accepted it as such for a long time (and certainly by election day last November). Very few are going to change their minds about Bush on the basis of this memo. Perhaps the only way the story will get any traction is if the administration comes out and strenuously denies it. It's likely that they're too smart to get into that game. Why bother? Of course, senior Democrats could really start pushing the story, but that's unlikely too. They're complicit too in the events leading up to the Iraq war. But the story remains fascinating, because it reminds us that, as Lori put it in a comment, liberals still lack a solid "bridge" (a liberal equivalent of Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh) to send the big news from "the buzzing blogosphere" across to "the mainstream media outlets where most of America still gets its news." To extend the metaphor: The UK news media might help provide the tools and expertise for a small footbridge for news that the US media generally ignore, but it's still too small and flimsy to overcome the conservative machine that increasingly drives the news agenda in the United States.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Let's see.