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 perspective..
The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aide 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.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Horatio Algeria
Dana is a woman, you are a moron.
2 - Moron
Dana Milbank
Born: c. 1968
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Journalist
3 - Zack
I watched the C-SPAN coverage of the House Democrats hearing on the Downing Street Minutes.
As a life long Republican, I was impressed by the testimony of Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern.
Why Dana Milbank of the Washington Post -- which has been on the side of Democrats for decades -- would ridicule this hearing is troubling.
Has the Post gone over to the Republicans?
I think not.
So what is going on?
4 - Temple Stark
For more information ::: Milbank by the way - has gone - previous to this - from straight reporter to more of role as an analyst.
5 - Zack
As an analyst -- he better not quit his day job.
6 - mercury
Man, this patfish person sure is an asshole.
7 - Pat Fish
Two nasty comments, from liberals no doubt.
For when the only response the reader can garner is an insult then you've hit them right in the gut.
I must smile, my asshole self.
But John Conyers is hard to defend.
8 - Jack
You obviously didn't read the article. For example, Milbank said CONYERS was the only member to bring it up on the floor, which the Reid example disproves. You also don't read the papers, the turkey incident you refer to was disproven by the same paper that originally published it. Why don't you search the website, you sloppy hack.
9 - Gary
"The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aide in England that is supposed to be solid proof that Cheney and Bush twisted intelligence to manipulate the reason for war."
Just FYI, the memo contains the official minutes of the meeting which it describes. This means that both parties involved reviewed it for accuracy, and explains why no one in the White House or British government will deny its authenticity.
10 - Alex
Conyers is hard to defend?
Only a twisted mind would come up with that, in light of what the subject matter is.
WOW.
11 - L R
The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aide in England that is supposed to be solid proof that Cheney and Bush twisted intelligence to manipulate the reason for war."
Wow, talk about radical right wing spin. That 'two-bit aide' you refer to happens to be the head of British Intelligence.
If that is an example of your 'reporting', we'll just go ahead and discount anything else you might say.
12 - Pat Fish
Hey, Jack,
I gave lots of links and quotes about the missing turkeys. YOU provide nothing. Except to say it ain't true.
Well hell, I could say any ole thing too.
Below, some more.
Give me some documentation where it was disproven.
From The Detroit Free Press :
A Conyers staff member who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal told the Free Press that Grubbs and her cousin, Conyers' Detroit deputy chief of staff Marion Brown, along with a former Conyers aide, DeWayne Boyd, picked up the turkeys and later gave contradictory accounts of what happened to the birds.
AND…from the Wall Street Journal’s online site:
=====
Below, looming on the horizon, the origin of the "Downing Street Memos".
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
Oh and about those "authentic" Downing Street memo papers, might want to re-think this too.
The eight memos â€" all labeled "secret" or "confidential" â€" were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Captain's Quarters
Let me get this straight. The guy "retyped" the memos and destroyed the originals?
Absolutely I believe this.
====
You know, you pick your battles.
Conyers was way out of line.
Oh, and keep up the ancient sport of ad hominum attacks.
It shows how intelligent you are.
13 - Ghostfaced Killer
Downing Street Memo is old news. It was always obvious to me what the newcons were up to. It's no secret that the intelligence was fixed, and that lies were told in a feeble attempt to make this war legal. There is no accountablity for corruption with this Administarion. If you lie and cheat for the Admin, then you get promoted.
14 - JVIO
LOL, gotta laugh at the desperation coming from the loony left these days.
The DSM are about to explode in the libs faces as it turns out they are merely typed up stuff that a lib reporter from a lib newspaper SAYS are transcripts of originals.
Dan Rather? Dan, is that you?
15 - Dave Nalle
I knew Conyers had turned himself into a laughingstock, but the fact that the WaPo gets the joke too is remarkable. Reminds me why it's wrong to just write it off as another left-leaning journal.
Dave
16 - Bob
I'm ROFLMAO at these people try to come up with a strategy to discredit the DSM.
First it's the word Fixed doesn't mean Fixed.
Then it's the memo was written by some two bit British aide.
Now, the DSM are fictitious and are part of a vast left wing conspiracy. LOL
17 - Chris
I'm with Bob - there's no defense available for this memo controversy, so those attempting to discredit it can only fall back on attacks on the person, and various other flaws in logic.
Ever notice that when one of these guys speaks up, there's no reference to solid fact? His entire commentary is baseless, and I feel embarrassed for myself for carrying this conversation further.
A word of advice, patfish:
Use facts, and stop wasting your time by being a mouthpiece.
Form opinions based on learned information, not stereotypes of a Democratic party that aren't timely or accurate. Once you've formed those opinions (which always takes time), use them to better your position, and not the position of those you hold as idols.
If anything else, join our party. While you might not have the comradery that the Republican party mindlessly enjoys, you can easily replace that with the social atmosphere that a sewing club or gardening mailing list will provide for you. Don't be afraid to be alone, because it means when everyone else is wrong, you still have a chance to be right.
That being said, people like you are sending our country backwards in time, you dick.
18 - Molly B
Dana M. is a man.
That said, I find it interesting that there is such an interest to NOT investigate the Downing Street memos.
Why? The argument of 'old news' does not hold water. THe Pentagon papers were old news, but strong evidence.
What if evidence is found that -- if investigated -- proves Bush lied to Congress about the war?
Should that be ignored? If so, our Constitution means little.
Just food for thought, for those out there so very quick to dismiss any evidence that Bush may have committed impeachable offenses.
19 - Dave Nalle
>>That said, I find it interesting that there is such an interest to NOT investigate the Downing Street memos. <<
I'm all for investigating the memo, but there's just not much there to investigate, and what's actually in the memo isn't that shocking or embarassing or suspicious or even interesting.
Why are people not interested in investigating it? Well, it's an old document with a third hand account of something which may or may not be close to what was actually said, and even if the worst interpretation of what's in the memo is used, it's neither surprising or particularly interesting. The thing is that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know or that we really care about.
Dave
20 - cat
It would take more time than I care to spend to wade through the mountain of inaccuracies of the original post above. So I'll simply answer JVIO who thinks that the Times of London is a leftwing newspaper.
I'm sorry you know so little about my country - the country that went to war alongside yours in Iraq - the country that has the second largest number of troops dying in Iraq.
The Times (of London) is not a liberal newspaper. It's a right-wing conservative paper. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and shares many of the same opinions as Murdoch's New York Post - or perhaps you think that is a "liberal" paper too.
The journalist who has been publishing these documents is also not a liberal. I despair of much of the debate that takes place among Americans on blogs like this. So many of you have reduced the whole of reality into mythical "other sides". Lib. Con. Neocon. etc, etc, etc. Any argument that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas is instantly dismissed as being on one of these "other sides" - and therefore must be laughably untrue.
Congratulations America. The majority of your citizens appear to have dispensed with the need to think.
21 - Hank Snow
Typical smokescreen by the right wing MSM. Do any of you in the lunatic fringe really believe that "liberal media" crap? MSM is corporate media clearly whoring for the Repugnican party. If you don't realize that by now you are dumber than dog droppings.
The Downing Street Minutes are clearly the smoking gun of this regime's lies and deceit that pushed us into this Iraqi quagmire. Notice the "this is old news" talking point from the fringe? Very much on point, as always. Dead wrong, but on point.
22 - begoniabuzzkill
By the way ......... the British/American document created, presented to Congress and Parliament claimed as "study" analyzing the "threats from Sadam" were actually plagiarized from a twelve year old school paper done by an American student .... NOT a study done by M16 or the CIA ...... the head of M16 refuted the publicized study and reprimanded Blair for issuing documents not cleared by M16.
At least while in Yale Bush paid for his cheat sheets.
23 - Dave Nalle
>>The Downing Street Minutes are clearly the smoking gun of this regime's lies and deceit that pushed us into this Iraqi quagmire.<<
It seems to me that to be a 'smoking gun' there would need to be something in the memos which was either alarming or surprising. Since all the memos have is unremarkable fourth hand transcriptions of third hand commentary on second hand discussion of actions which weren't controversial or radical in any way, I don't see how they qualify as a 'smoking gun'.
Dave
24 - M Paulding
Patfish, at last estimate, 57% of the American people say the Iraq war isn't worth it. You and Dana Milbank can make light of Conyers' hearing if you choose to, but in doing so you are also insulting Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq. She considered Conyers' meeting important enough to testify before it. I don't think Cindy Sheehan is laughing. I'm certainly not.
25 - M Paulding
From William F. Buckley, Jr., "The Mounting Protests," June 17, 2005.
"A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will then be contempt."
Chew on that, Mr. President. It's called hubris.