Pravda on the Potomac

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Mr.
Michael Abramowitz, National Editor;Mr.
Michael Getler, Ombudsman;Mr.
Dana MilbankThe
Washington Post1150
15th Street, NWWashington,
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.

June
20, 2005

John
Conyers, Jr.
is a congressman from Michigan.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare