[Peace-discuss] Conyers to WP

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The Washington Post's scandalous article can be seen at
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html>. --CGE

    Congressman Conyers Hammers the Washington Post
    By Congressman John Conyers
    t r u t h o u t | Letter

    Friday 17 June 2005

    Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor;
    Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman;
    Mr. Dana Milbank

    The Washington Post
    1150 15th Street, NW 
    Washington, DC 20071

    Dear Sirs:

    I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana
Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally
Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic
hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece
cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole
cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress
who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own
making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the
American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to
war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this
event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even
more egregious.

    In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the
article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members
in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned
the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or
Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact,
just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid,
mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some
length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the
Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi,
recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other
Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information
is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech
was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the
Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite
Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes,
mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout
the article.

    The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone,
claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference
was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the
decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one
essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room,
an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number
of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and
House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for
each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about
the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such
adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also
ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other
newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled
to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost
unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it
next to impossible for most Members to participate in the
first hour and one half of the hearing.

    In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to
discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the
witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further
describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in
the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I
consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there
were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were
in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or
condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S.
policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to
dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11
tragedy disgusting and offensive.

    That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3
hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and
sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who
lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result
of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many,
many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow
room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war
and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is
puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.

    In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank
makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and
says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases."
Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House
Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol
and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you
are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing
unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.

    To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes
up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I]
ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not
occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session
and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The
hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was
because so many Members of Congress persevered under very
difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that
- the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That
is called courtesy, not "fun."

    By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the
minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British
officials - having just met with their American counterparts -
describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention
this because that basic piece of context, a simple description
of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.

    The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a
hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a
hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of
ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two
places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to
discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts
to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post,
who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious
hearing about a serious matter - whether more than 1700
Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may
disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some
coverage of that viewpoint.

    Sincerely,

    John Conyers, Jr.