John Conyers, Turkeys and the Downing Street Memo
It would seem that Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote a story about John Conyer's "conference " on the so-called Downing Street Memo.
It would seem, not in keeping with The Wapo's normally liberal editorial bent, that Milbank's article was not very flattering to Mr. Conyers.
And my oh my, I thought Milbank's article to be hilarious, refreshing and a sweet breeze in the sweaty world of spin.
Then I discover that John Conyers, a man famous for losing turkeys, more on this later, not to mention his vaunted congressional "hearings" on the Ohio vote, has responded to Milbank's article in a letter to the editor to the WAPO.
Just in case the WAPO doesn't publish Conyers' letter, a Blogger got a hold of the letter and published it on his Blog.
Which I consider odd in that the Conyers' people did not forward a copy to me, who is also a Blogger.
But judging by the content of "Brad's Blog" I imagine ole Brad is already on the Dems' payroll.
Thus I must, in the interest of fair and balanced, respond to Conyers' letter to the editor and defend Dana Milbanks. From an unabashedly amused conservative.
ORIGINAL WAPO ARTICLE HERE
The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aid in England that is supposed to be solid proof that Cheney and Bush twisted intelligence to manipulate the reason for war. This is the document for which Conyers held his congressional conference.
I will post Conyers' response to Milbank's reporting in bold with mine own wise comments immediately below in italics.
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman Mr. Dana Milbank The Washington Post 1150 15th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 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.
Oh my, John, aren't we angry. Already I'm laughing at the title of Milbank's article. Though I can certainly see why you take offense.
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.
John. Do the math. Milbank's said "only one member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate" by your own quote. Then you go on to mention when Harry Reid mentioned it on the Senate floor. You say Senator Boxer talked about during a confirmation hearing on Bolton. This is not quite the same thing as the senate floor but I'll allow your umbrage. Then you say Nancy Pelosi signed a letter. You go to great lengths citing where the Reid speech could be found and yet Milbank's DID say there was only "one" mention on the senate floor. Can't we reasonably assume that Milbank was referring to Reid's mention without all your grandstanding. Then you go on with the Boxer thing and again your mincing Milbank's words.
But hey, you're confusing the reader with a vomit of words so perhaps you are accomplishing what you want.
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.
So the "Republicans" denied use of taxpayer paid rooms for a publicity stunt that had never been raised or voted upon in the chambers of congress? And gasp, the Republicans went ahead and scheduled congressional business on congressional time? This is a bad thing because ,,,?
You could have used the turkey money to rent a meeting room at the Holiday Inn, John. Although I understand that you wanted your great conference in the hallowed halls of congress only Dana Milbank wasn't buying it.
I'd say yes indeed Milbank editorialized and editorialized a bit more than is wise in what should be an impartial Journalism.
I understand it very well, John. A conservative reading the NY Times, hey, I get it.
That being said, Milbank's comments on the decor are hilarious. Forgive me.
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.
John, only 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing devoted to anti-Semitism is about 105 seconds too many. Thusly, one anti-Semitic brochure is also one too many.
Milbank was right to mention this. You'd certainly want him to mention any racist remarks made at a Republican conference I suspect.
All that bit about loving Israel is too much. We know your Arab contributors demanded the time.
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.
If you say so, John. Somehow I really doubt that if Senator Boxer were to introduce you to a California colleague that should would refer to you as Chairman Conyers. Though I could be wrong.
I do think Milbank got it right.
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."
Milbank didn't refer to "your" aides, congressman. I bet there were other congress critters' aides in that meeting imploring their boss to come along. And I bet you ignored all the whispering just as Milbank describes.
I'm quite sure "your" aides would never dare to tell you to hurry along.
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.
What can I say, Mr. Conyers? Dana Milbank called it as he saw it.
Sounds like the guy got tired at having once too often having his chain jerked by self-serving congress critters such as yourself.
Tell you what.
Why don't you raise the matter of a review of the Downing Street Memo up on the floor of the House? Better, ask Nancy Pelosi to bring up the matter on the Senate floor.
Why not do this per the rules of congress; per the rules of our constitution, in front of our duly elected representatives?
Because you might lose that vote, Congressman Conyers?
Because in this country we have a democracy of a President and congress elected by the people and Mr. Conyers, that's just the way it goes.
No, Milbank wasn't at all fair and journalistic. He was writing a story. He injected a bit too much opinion.
Now you know how conservatives feel, every time a PBS broadcast comes on and each day the NY Times publishes its rag.
Oh, and about those turkeys, shameless Blog promo here, but I will never forget the turkey brouhaha last year coming out of Conyers' Detroit office.
Yet it's an opinionated thing.
But then I'm a Blogger.
I don't pretend NOT to have an opinion.
~~~~~~~
NOTE-This article was posted on the Blogcritics web site a few days ago. I was assaulted with comments by liberals. Below is one such comment emailed to me. This individual was the most well-phrased of all the comments.
I was given permission to re-post the rebuttal. Which I shall do here. Below:
Believe me, not all American are as thick as the new Conservatives believe they are as demonstrated by the rhetoric.
If a President lying to the American people and the United States Congress, manipulating intelligence to "fit" his desire, and responsible for the death and destruction of this magnitude fits into "American values" I would only ask who decided on these set of values? Is this coming from the Christian movement? Is it coming from the multinational corporations who are reaping the profit from the current policies?
If these values reflect the majority of the American people, we, as a country, are in very sad shape indeed. When the United States Congress is allowed to squelch dissent of the minority party, the President requires a loyalty pledge of a citizen of this country before being allowed to listen to what he has to say, and the majority party actively seeks to gain control of not only two branches, but three, we are no longer living in a democratic republic. These very actions speak to the desire of the "conservative" movement and their desire to create a fascist state.
Shall we talk further on who supports this country and form of government? No need, the actions speak for themselves.
Joyce, CA
Missing Hollyhocks
Yet another burning bush was moved to the fence line when suddenly the thought hit. Where are the hollyhocks?
For it was right over the fence line spot where the hollyhocks were supposed to rise tall and proud that the burning bush was placed. Preventing the hollyhocks, as I fretted, from emergence.
It's not just that the hollyhocks are missing here in the gardens of Serendipity Shore. There's also plants rising from the soil totally unexpected and unidentified.
Although the hedge roses made their statement in early February and judging by the thousands of tiny buds there would soon be a show of no mistake.
These hedge roses, purchased from the famous Jackson & Perkins, had been planted in the sandy soil of Critter Cove in Merryland. They were but a few of the plants I transplanted to the new gardens of Serendipity Shore.
The rose bushes only sulked under the oak canopy of Critter Cove. Here in the wide sun basted lot in Delaware they decided it was a bit of okay. Below is a picture of the hedge roses over a six day period as they began then burst into their full and glorious bloom.
Anyway, back to the hollyhocks. Because with only a few transplants to this new Delaware lot and with the three new gardens I'd installed before even moving in, there was a need, ahem, for plants.
Not that this was a bad thing in that what gardener wouldn't love an empty pallette in the form of a dirt plot over yonder needing some plants and a plan that would have it burst forth with a green and floral earth brocade as beautiful as anything ever painted by Rembrandt?
Myself tends to buy any plant that I personally like without proper attention to the eco-system and native conditions. Yes all gardeners do this and no gardener ever really gets over it. Thus the hollyhocks, those tall things of floral beauty that line farm fences across the land providing flowers to make hollyhock dolls and standing big and proud as all flowers should do.
Only they must not like Delaware in that it's been two years now.
I under hollyhocks are biennial, resting a year before bursting into bloom the next. The idea is they will re-seed once they bloom providing new flowers every year as the seeds vary their cycles of rest and bloom.
None of it matters because the hollyhocks are nowhere so okay, life goes on.
It was the weird plants in the center lawn garden that at first scared me.
I knew the new green things emerging from the garden was something I'd deliberately planted. As opposed to an exotic weed is what I'm saying here. But they resemble some sort of Egyptian wall painting in the manner that their leaves point straight left here then straight right up there.
Canna!
Wow. These things were but scraggly horseradish looking things when I'd skeptically buried the entire thing in the dirt last fall. I've never had canna in my garden before. Life is good. Fall will bring me big beautiful red canna and the world will stand in awe at my garden skill.
Though I'm an organized person I wonder as yet another green thing juts from the warm spring earth that I can't identify, just why I never keep track of what new plants I put into the ground and where I put them.
There's a devlish part of me I'm supposing that actually wants to be surprised. Just as I am surprised every year that the dark and dank of winter always yields to a cool green spring.
Who knows, those hollyhocks might turn up someday.
And I shall be surprised again.
What will my son become?
I remember the story about the old country preacher who had a teenageson, and it was getting time the boy should give some thought along the line of choosing a profession. Like many young men, then and now, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do and he didn't seem overly concerned about it.
One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. What he did was, he went into the boy's room and placed on his study table these three objects: a Bible, a silver dollar, and a bottle of whiskey.
"Now then," the old preacher said to himself, "I'll just hide behind the door here, and when my son comes home from school this afternoon, I'll see which of these three objects he picks up. If he picks up the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be! If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a businessman, and that would be o.k. too. But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a drunkard, a no-good drunkard and Lord, what a shame that would be."
The old man was anxious as he waited, and soon he heard his son's footsteps as he came in the house whistling and headed back to his room. He deposited his books on the bed, as a matter of routine, and as he turned around to leave the room he spotted the objects on the table.
With a curious set in his eye, he walked over to inspect them. What he finally did was, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. He picked up the silver dollar and dropped it into his pocket. He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink...
"Lord have mercy," the old man whispered, "He's gonna be a politician!"
No comments:
Post a Comment