Post's Milbank spins nasty column on Conyers hearing

[LiberalEsto]

- snip - "In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered."

Milbank must simply HATE having anyone criticize his precious war.

Read it and vomit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

Ironically, TODAY is the 33rd anniversary of the Watergate break-in.

[acmejack]

1. What an asshole

He really deserves the prestigious TNR "Silver Sewer" award, which, it is said, he is a leading contender to win. With pieces like this tripe, he is a shoo in. When I find his e-mail address I am going to express my appreciation (or lack thereof) for his work.

[cthrumatrix]

14. the Post is protecting ---- for now ...... the Elite will sacrifice Bush

[Cobalt Violet]

93. When they add "media whore" to the dictionary, his picture will be there.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

2. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Isn't Milbank's wife a Repuke operative of some sort?

I'm beginning to think that DSM has some pretty long legs and it might not be going away anytime soon.

[bklyncowgirl]

3. That was ugly.

Well now we know where HE stands. What a shock.

[Jacobin]

4. WaPo......a huge cheerleader for the war

They don't like anyone suggesting that their favorite war is not going well or that it wasn't done for 'noble and good' reasons.

Fork them

[asjr]

6. The reporter must be receiving his paychedk a la

Armstrong Williams.

[ElectroPrincess]

22. And don't forget they promote seersucker suits as their lead photo

FRONT PAGE CENTER today. Bastards!



They shame the brave journalists who broke the Watergate scandal during the 70s.

[njdemocrat106]

92. Didja notice...

Frist caressing Santorum's leg in that photo above? :evilgrin:

[flpoljunkie]

5. Our craven, corrupt media pimping for Dubya and his henchman, Cheney

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570_pf.html

As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that's only one of the obstacles they're up against as they try to convince America that the "Downing Street Memo" is important.

A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one -- Conyers -- had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers's session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves.

______________________

Senator Kerry, "Kool Kid" Milbank, by totally and contemptously dismissing the efforts of Rep John Conyers to hold the Bush administration accountable, has called you out. We know that you are working on this, and hope that you will be able to hold hearings in the Senate or somehow bring this investigation forward and begin to hold the Bush adminstration accountable for Bush's unnecessary and catastrophic war in Iraq.

[grumpy old fart]

15. Nail on the head, flpoljunkie...Kerry, Biden, et al....the gas bags......

have been called out....Conyers and the powerless House Dems are doing what they can to throw the pebbles at Frankenstein chimp, it's up to the subpoena powerful Senators to start the heavy lifting. Will they? Yeah, riiiiiight.

[KoKo]

23. All impeachment inquiries have to begin in the House and move to

the Senate, though. Milbank should know that. It's protocol.

[grumpy old fart]

24. Yeah, but the muck ball has to start rolling somewhere....

not necessarily the formal impeachment ball...Hell, just pick any of the myriad of potential issues and have some hearings..DSM, torture, profiteering.....

[karynnj]

37. Biden and Kerry are in the minority

Why do you think they have supoena power. They don't. They are both on the SFRC, but do you think either will convince the Republican majority to have hearings? Did you see how THEY were treated at the Bolton hearing meeting where Lugar practically didn't let them speak. Biden looked like he would explode. Kerry, known for his politeness (even when asking tough questions), was demanding to know if they really wanted to know the truth or if they wanted to vote blind. Every Democrat there was outraged and powerless, until Voinivich refused to go along with the charade.

There is no bipartisan committee that they could have hearings in. The Democrats have their own committee, but it doesn't have supeona power.

[Eloriel]

26. Is he working on this as hard as he worked on

2004 election fraud?

[karynnj]

42. In real committee rooms, but without subpoena power

Which means that any time they spend making sure they have the best information they can get the better.

Kerry knows that if he gets the Democrats to bring it up, every little thing THEY say will be scrutinized and any things that can be spun to Bush's advantage will be. Look at the Rather / Tang story. Did anyone cite the corroborating circumstantial evidence backing the story - that Bush clearly did not take the required physical, no one saw him in AL when he was supposed to be there (Bush was a gregarious guy who supposedly knew almost everyone (except Kerry) who went to Yale with him and this was a 25 man unit.), Killian's supervisor and secretary both verified that the content jibed with their memory? NO. The whole story was Rather was wrong, Bush's service was fine. If by taking their time, they can make a better case, they should proceed slowly.

The Washington Post and the NYT were both complicit in not questioning the war and in being its cheerleaders.

[wurzel]

7. Milbank was watching democracy in action.

That is why he has so much contempt for what happened. Obviously he is more used to country club opulence than the nitty gritty of real American life.

[merbex]

8. Notice how that was not one word refuting the focus of the forum

criticizing style,never substance.

Because they can't

[flpoljunkie]

9. Exactly. Milbank fancies himself a "kool press kid" writing such drivel.

[KoKo]

10. That's one of the smarmiest articles I've seen written about Democrats.

I didn't think Milbank could stoop so low as to write a piece of sniping juvenile trash like this. He doesn't mention the issues that forced Democrats to meet in a small room in the basement of Congress nor did he mention the over 500,000 signatures Conyers presented to the White House.

I wonder if Howie Kurtz wrote this for Milbank. Sounds more like Howie Whore's style to make fun of anything he doesn't want to report especially if it might be favorable to Democrats.

Sheesh....

[LiberalEsto]

11. IMHO, KKKarl dictated it to Milbank

and Milbank just took it from there.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. What drivel.

[Skinner]

13. What an asshole. (nt)

[Turbineguy]

89. A shoe-in

for Monday's Top Ten Conservative Idiots list!

[quaoar]

16. Milbanks must be too lazy

to go do any real reporting. I doubt he even bothered to attend. probably watched the whole thing on CSPAN and then spent all of 10 minutes banging out his column.

[LizW]

17. Anyone have an e-mail address for Milbank? n/t

[LiberalEsto]

18. Milbank's email address

Dana Milbank: [e-mail]
National staff writer

[LizW]

20. Thank you! n/t

[Roland99]

61. Thanks! Here's my reply:

I just read this piece of Rovian trash. Are you sure you belong at the Washington Post? You know, the paper behind the uncovering of the Watergate break-in which eventually led to the resignation of President Nixon. Are you familiar with the topic?

Your article makes me wonder how much you ranted and raved about the Republicans grilling Clinton, to the tune of a $70 million investigation, over some extra-marital activities with a certain intern.

Perhaps if the Downing Street Memo had a stain on it you'd be interested?

You disgust me.

[Roland99]

62. n/m

[LiberalEsto]

63. Perhaps his e-mail box is swamped?

Why on earth would his little e-mail box be full of mail?
:evilgrin:
Try sending it to the paper, the news editor, or the ombudsman

Here's the letters editor:

[e-mail]


Here's the ombudsman:

[e-mail]

[Roland99]

64. I typed it wrong.

:crazy:

[zann725]

87. Thanks! Done!

n/t

[Jade Fox]

95. Thanks-just sent him an email.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

19. That was one of the worst...

hatchet jobs (also called "reporting" by ignorant/arrogant GOP henchmen aka "reporters" :puke: ).

Wonder what they would do if they had to actually earn a living.

(edited for grammar :-()

[burythehatchet]

21. I just read the article

I just sent him an extremely nasty e-mail filled with expletives. I would like each and every one of you to take a moment and contact him. DO IT. Shit like this is expected from Drudge or Newmax, but a "legitimate paper simply should not be doing this. The article is not even labeled as opinion, which it clearly is.

[Eloriel]

28. Yeah, but skip the expletives -- too easy for them to totally dismiss

hate mail like that. Best to figure out what your objective is, and tailor your words -- and tone -- to that: is it to insult only or to merely vent your spleen (then keep the expletives, tho it won't get the email read), to inform, to persuade, what?

[burythehatchet]

31. I know I know

I write a lot of letters and most of the time that is exactly what I do. But there are those moments when a combination of frustration with the media and over-the-line crap like that article are just too much. I have no regrets.

[stubtoe]

25. That quality of snarky tone

is what some people revert to when they are afraid. Anger is often an expression of fear.

[kster]

27. Don't worry

people are tired on opinionated news. He will learn, report the news and the people will decide.

[indie_voter]

29. Ray McGovern's response

"Dear Dana,

What's happened to you? You were often quite good when you were on the Post's White House beat...perceptive—occasionally even courageous—especially in exposing White House dishonesty. Is that why you were taken off that beat and assigned yesterday to trivialize the historic proceedings in the Capitol basement and Congressman Conyers' courage in convening them?"


More

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=295&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[flpoljunkie]

33. Excellent put down of Milbank by Ray McGovern. Thanks for link!

You used to get your facts straight, at least. It appears that in your new assignment meticulousness is not a requirement. Even your "search of the congressional record" concerning mention of the Downing Street Minutes came up short. Do you not consider Sen. Harry Reid a member of Congress?

<>Were I not to have admired your past record, I might even think you are campaigning for a Gold Star from your editors, since your inaccurate, tendentious report dovetails so well with their torturous effort to play down the implications of the Downing Street Minutes. Those minutes are, indeed, a smoking gun. You'll see.

Yours truly,
Ray McGovern

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=295&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[Boo Boo]

48. Self Deleted /nt

[Boo Boo]

49. I think that in addition to our own Milbank letters

everybody should email him a copy of Ray McGovern's letter. I'd love to see his mailbox crammed to overflowing with copies of that righteous bitch-slap.

Caveat: getting a copy from afterdowningstreet.org might be tough, as it appears to be down. In fact, it kinda looks like it got hacked.

[Jo March]

30. I emailed him this

I just read your article, "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

I read the article with a sense of amazement. Surely you can't be as stupid as you come across in this article. I mean, no one who has actually researched and studied the Downing Street Minutes can be so totally ignorant of the facts as they stand. You can't be that moronic, can you??

But then I realized the truth: You are pulling a Gannon - pretending to be a real journalist all the while whoring yourself out to the Bush Administration. Maybe your good lap dog impression will get you unlimited access to the White House, too!

Good luck with that, Milbank. Also, I hear it's damn near impossible to get your soul back once you've sold it so good luck with that, too.

[welshTerrier2]

32. Milbank and the Post: no Woodward, no Bernstein ...

the main "insights" in Milbank's article seemed to be that 1. Democrats don't control the House and 2. the forum was a big game of "pretend" with all the trappings of a real hearing.

does he suggest Democrats, who have been treated outrageously by the majority party, should not do their best to re-create a real hearing? does Milbank have some kind of "prop phobia"? and he doesn't like Conyers referring to himself as the "Chairman" ... wasn't Conyers the Chairman of THIS MEETING?

maybe instead of wasting space in his paper with issues of no import whatsoever, Milbank could have spent a few words talking about Mrs. Sheehan and other families who have lost sons or daughters in Iraq ... maybe Mr. Milbank could have shared his views on the Plame affair and whether he considers outing a CIA agent's identity to be a crime that has been covered-up by the bush administration ... maybe he could have done a little investigative journalism about McGovern's observations that the intelligence community has been gutted by ideologs ... and maybe he could have even talked about the "inquiry" that Bonifaz said was justified based on the existing evidence and the DSM ...

but "Nooooooooooooo" .... Mr. Milbank seems overly concerned with the props in the hearing room ... he seems to believe it's important for the Washington Post to inform Democrats that they are the minority party ... it's sad to see what's become of a newspaper that once broke the Watergate story ... Mr. Milbank is clearly no Woodward or Bernstein ... and the Post has become a sad apologist for an administration that pushed both democracy and credibility aside a long time ago ...

[flpoljunkie]

36. Hope you sent this response to Milbank and the Washington Post.

[NJCher]

34. write the letters editor, too

Here's the letters editor:

[e-mail]


Here's the ombudsman:

[e-mail]



Cher

[LiberalEsto]

38. I just mailed the Post ombudsman

and forwarded the letter I sent to Milbank. Thanks!

Dear Mr. Milbank,

I find it pitifully ironic that your article on the Downing Street Memo hearing appeared in today's Post on the 33rd anniversary of the Watergate break-in. In 1972, the Washington Post backed Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's efforts to expose a chain of criminal activity reaching all the way to the White House. Ultimately, their work led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in disgrace, and earned a place in history.

Your article is the antithesis of Woodward and Bernstein's tremendous investigative reporting. I was a newspaper reporter for nearly 30 years (including an 11-year stint at the Newark Star-Ledger), and I am appalled that the Post permitted publication of such a biased, vitriol-filled piece of writing on an ostensible news page. To make mockery of Rep. John Conyers in such a childish and mean-spirited fashion speaks volumes, not about him, but about yourself.

I am saddened that the Post has sunk from a pinnacle of journalistic courage to become an overt shill for the Bush administration and its agenda. The Post's reportage has truly reached its nadir. We should mark a moment of silence today, the Watergate anniversary, in memory of the late, once-great Washington Post.

Shame on you.

[NJCher]

39. that's really good, LiberalEsto

Here's what I wrote:

Re "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War, June 17:" In his attempt to be amusing, Milbank sacrifices any pretense of neutrality or objective journalism.

I am a writing teacher in NJ and I want you to know that my students have lost respect for the U.S. media. In the student body are many immigrants who still maintain contact with the newspapers in their country of origin. They note the coverage of topics not even broached by U.S. newspapers and they tell others. A case in point is this memo: how long has it taken you to catch up to the BBC?!

My students sneer at their colleagues who take the U.S. press seriously. They view you as lackeys for the current administration. It doesn't take long for this cynical attitude to spread. Quite frankly, I'm doing nothing to dissuade them as I think they've got it right.

Our people are dying for the profit margins of oil companies and this is your response? How you have fallen since the glory days of Watergate. Not to worry, however. There are plenty of options for news.

Signed my name, town and phone.


Cher

[LiberalEsto]

43. Your students are perceptive to recognize this bias

Have you ever showed them the Raw Story website? Best alternative news site I've seen yet.

www.rawstory.com

[NJCher]

47. I could but

I find they take things to heart better when they discover them on their own.

I might not suggest rawstory but what I might do is give them a research assignment that would turn up rawstory on their search.


Cher

[Griffy]

78. WELL DONE.. I like this line especially...

"Your article is the antithesis of Woodward and Bernstein's tremendous investigative reporting"

I wrote them too.. (see below if interested)

[deutsey]

35. "Milbank Plays Reporter To Rally Against the Truth." n/t

[emanymton]

40. Don't Get Angry. Understand, This Is The Mind-Set.

Understand the corporate media are lost. The things passing themselves off as jouralist have no idea of what is going on outside of their small ignorant club world (they have no idea that there is a world outside of their soiled toilet bowl).

The mind-set exposed by Milbank's column reveals the emptiness of the elitist trash in Washington D.C. Let hem ridicule; Woodward and Burnstien were considered jokes by their peers all the while they worked. Do not expect the 'creme de la creme' to be able to recognize a news event until after it has left them behind.

[otohara]

85. And...The Forum Blasted The Media

because they suck so bad.

[glitch]

41. Milbank's corruption is complete. nt

[mogster]

44. I sent him a letter

To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]

Subject: Regarding your slanted journalism

Dear Mr. Milbank,

You are shaming the proud traditions of the Washington Post, and I am now so tired of reading you light-footed behaviour regarding the VERY SERIOUS matter of the war in Iraq.

I will quote some of the offhand language you use in the last piece:

"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe."

This language belongs in a children chatroom, not on the pages of a paper I'm using to inform myself. The land of make-believe is called Iraq, where scores of thousands of lives are lost due to erroneous war reasoning.

"Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along."

Your tone and arguments used suggests slant. It's smarmy and it is very unpleasant to have opinion served with the facts. To have them 'wrapped around the facts', to quote a surfaced British official document.

Further:
The tone you use towards the representative suggests racism. 'Banging on a wooden gavel'? Dress-up game? I know standards have slipped in the Washinton Post in recent years, and this was the final drop.

I will no longer pollute my mind with your newspaper.

Xxxx Xxxxxxx,
Oslo, Norway

[Broken Acorn]

45. My letter to Milbank, Obundsmen & Editor at WP

Mr. Millbank,

I feel sorry for you. In your quest to be a professional journalist, you have failed today and I feel that you might want to reassess your career.

The DSM is a critical component showing the Bush Administration's treason towards the United States Constitution and its people. They lied to the American people regarding the intelligence in Iraq.

Many in Congress, if not all, would not have voted for war if they knew the truth. Instead, they were spoon-fed lies by a corrupt Administration to convince them that war was the only option. Many whistle-blowers have been shouted this for a few years now, but likes such as you in the media have conveniently ignored this fact.

By lying about this, Bush has committed a crime that has cost almost 2,000 American troops lives to date as well as tens of thousands of innocent people.

Now, you're article is not only way off point, it is demeaning and childish. I would expect such reporting from Faux News or the Drudge Report, but not a newsworthy (at least during the Watergate era) organization such as the Washington Post.

There is a cover-up going on in Washington and you are part of it. Republicans are doing all that they can to obstruct any inquiry into this manner. Your article does not mention how over 540,000 Americans have signed a petition asking for answers as well as 140 Members of Congress. To this day, he has completely stonewalled our inquiry.

I wish you the best in your next career and hope that one day you will learn what the Constitution means and what it takes to defend it.


Sincerely,

xxx

[Pryderi]

55. Nice letter. Here's mine.

Subject: Washington Post = Ministry of Truth

Dear Mr. Milbank,

After reading your puerile article ridiculing Mr. Conyers' hearing, I have come to the conclusion that you and the Washington Post have become willing shills for the Bush administration.

If you had done your job and done some research for your article, you would have discovered that Rep Sensenbrenner denied Mr. Conyers a decent room in which to hold the meeting.

You also neglected to mention the 11 consecutive floor votes, the Republicans scheduled 2:15PM and 4 PM.

Your cavalier attitude towards the death of our soldiers, and refusal to cover the susbstantive issues mentioned in all the Downing Street Minutes is abhorrent.

I suggest you spend a few months in Iraq yourself as an enlisted man.

You should be ashamed.

[Orion The Hunter]

71. Here is the letter I sent

Dear Mr. Milbank:

I had the displeasure of reading your highly inaccurate piece, and I must say that you are a poor journalist. Aside from the fact that you cannot even be bothered to report the facts accurately (such as Mr. Conyers being referred to as Chairman...you know he did chair a committee in the past, and as such is afforded that title; or that the reason the forum was held in such a small room was because the Republicans blocked Mr. Conyers' attempts at securing a more suitable one; or that Democrats in attendance had to constantly run in and out of the room due to Republicans calling for numerous floor votes aimed disrupting the proceedings), but you do not even provide adequate context as to what the Memos are themselves and why they are relevant to the current situation in Iraq. After reading your article (and I will use that term loosely in describing your piece), I seriously had to wonder if you even have editors or fact checkers at the Post, or if you even bothered attending an accredited journalism program.

In short, your smarmy tone and fallacious content do nothing to convince the reader of your piece; rather it shows you to be a small minded person who cannot be bothered to even accurately report the very topic about which you are writing, as you instead favor trying to be smart with your attempted undercutting remarks. At this point I feel nothing but pity for the Washington Post and your colleagues there who have suffer your presence there amongst there ranks.

Sincerely,

XXXX XXXX
Washington, DC

[Sparkly]

46. Don't basic rules of order require a chairman for meetings?

What's Milbanks' problem?!?

Did he ever wonder WHY this wasn't done with the full Judiciary Committee or the full House? Did he see Senselesspinner's recent tantrum?

What a jerk. :mad:

[LiberalEsto]

60. Conyers WAS chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

before the rethuglicans took control of the House. One of my dear friends told me what a nice thank you letter Conyers sent her after her testimony (early 1980s) concerning victims' rights.

I somehow think Conyers knows how to chair a hearing, even if the rethugs do anything they can to throw obstacles in his path. Does everyone know the House rethugs scheduled 9 critical floor votes during the Conyers hearing - something I hear is unprecedented.



ADDENDUM: Please read Conyers' response letter to the Post. It may never see the light of day there, but it's been posted on BradBlog.
Bravo, Mr. Conyers!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1863046

[candy331]

50. I watched quite a bit of the hearing and i sure thought more than an hour.

Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!"

[kentuck]

51. A message to Dana Milbanks...

Rep Conyers represents his people in the Congress of the United States, just as does every other Democratic representative. They are not inferior to the Republicans and have not surrendered their right to speak up and defend our Constitution. Get your head out of your ass. It doesn't matter if Rep. Conyers holds a meeting in the front yard of your apartment, he still has the authority of a US Congressman. You have hit a botttom son.

[farmbo]

52. What a Knucklehead

My letter to Mr Milbank:

Dear Mr. Milktruck:

What you observed yesterday--in all it's understated glory-- was democracy in action. No amount of smarmy arrogance...no amount of ham-fisted trivialization...can detract from the historic significance of that meeting.

Political courage does not require a mahogany- paneled venue.

And journalistic courage, if it exists today at the WP, does not seek to smear the powerless and validate the power of the omnipotent.

(and signed w/ full name address and phone in case he wants to bring it up with me personally)

[lala_rawraw]

53. He is first a shill

Second, a plant as many have noted everywhere by now, and thirdly a man who spends too much time on lip gloss and eyebrow waxing. You realize he was very nice about little Gannon, so let us just now consider what would compell someone to write an article with this many adjectives and with so few facts?

[fooj]

54. Geez, this doesn't have anything to do with him being SKULL AND BONES?

Get your pen and pencils out everyone! Time to start forming a list of ALL JOURNALISTS THAT SHOW BLIND COMPLIANCE...they must be held accountable. Period.

peace.

[Up2Late]

56. OHhhhhh, until I saw the "Washington Post", I thought it was the N.Y.Post

Dana Milbank's just lost ALL or most of his/her credibility with me.

BTW, is this author a man or woman. (writes like an angry white man, has the name of a woman)

[LiberalEsto]

59. male n/t

[tallahasseedem]

57. That was a disgusting rip on a legitimate hearing.

These fuckers are all going to go down in flames with the entire administration.

[Mandate My Ass]

58. Smell the fear?

It ain't going away, Dana, no matter how catty you get. What a jackass.

[Snivi Yllom]

65. Media Whores

Dana Milbank is a really low class media whore.

"Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War"

He thinks outraged Americans are playing a game?!

Just another reaosn why the Wash Post sucks and Millbank is a little bitch.

[LiberalEsto]

66. It's a he, but he's

a media ho, and I agree with your comments

[Snivi Yllom]

67. i knew that

whoops

[bpilgrim]

68. lol - they must be FRIGHTENED thinking bout 06

cause once we regain power the neoCONs are DOOMED.

it's interesting that he took notice and wrote about it though... they are paying close attention now and will do whatever they can think of to discredit the truth, as usual, but that will not stop the TSUNAMI heading their way.

peace

[Generator]

69. Asshole indeed

All he can rip on is the fact that Conyers, and Dems have no power. Heh-dirtbag Millbank-we KNOW this. Why not address the content of the entire meeting? Ah no..content is not what journalists of this horrible new millenium focus on it's words such as "chairman" and mocking tones.

I was riveted by the hearing watching it repeat last night. Such fantastic thoughts that I've said here and have never been repeated on any TV screen, such as "Didn't the soldiers take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic?" "George W Bush has them signed up to promote "freedom" around the world."

Is this the purpose of our military? A very fundamental discussion that never gets discussed.

Also-the most telling part of his whole little pissed diatribe was that he put the word neo-con in quotes. The quote unquote "neo-cons" are not fantasy, Mr. Millbank. That is where you are at your own peril.

[Orion The Hunter]

70. RE: Conyers strikes back with gusto!!

Just an FYI - Here is a link to Conyers' rebuttal of Milbank's story (and never has that word rung more truly):

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Congressman_Conyers_hammers_the_Washington_Posts_D_0617.html

[Generator]

72. Thanks! Great read

What I love about Conyers is not just his courage, but his very calm and deliberate eloquence so missing in today's politics.

[Matariki]

73. this is clearly the rove spin they're attempting

"playing house", "playing dress-up". It's pathetic. It fit's well with George Lakoff's analysis in "don't think of an elephant" on invoking the 'strict parent' routine.

[Don Claybrook]

74. My first letter to Dana Milbank

Gosh, I hope he still likes me after this:

Hello, esteemed Bush Administration boot licker. Do they pay you, a la Armstrong Williams, or have they threatened your family?

I'll leave the rest of the excoriation to those thousands who are no doubt writing to you right this minute. I'll leave you with a brief question I hope you'll ponder (you'll either ponder it now, or you will later). When you come to the end of your days, as we all one day will, what will you be able to say for yourself? Will the $2.2M home gain you anything? How about the nice cars, the good restaurants, and the invitations to the White House Press Dinner? Will those have netted you anything? Will the appeasement have done you any good, when all you have left is the hollow remnants of what was probably once your conscience?

Will you be comforted at the end of your days knowing that your greatest accomplishment was to bend over and ask the biggest group of murderous, lying thugs since 1945 to go gentle on you? Go ahead, make that your legacy. Take it with you. Savor it; it's the only thing you'll own one of these days. Of course, the worst part about this mess is that you're completely cognizant of what you're doing, of that I'm sure. And yet you still chose this path.

I expect you have lots of emails to sift through. Don't bother replying to mine unless lightning strikes and you decide to admit you were wrong--I'll be sure to publish that admission on every blog google can connect me with.

I'll let you get back to prostituting yourself to the powerful.

With utmost sincerity,

Don Claybrook
Louisville, KY

[Matariki]

75. sweet! n/t

[lachattefolle]

84. I love it! Here's mine:

Mr. Milbank:

I detested your article impugning the hearing conducted by Representative John Conyers, a man of great integrity. Furthermore, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for your inferior reporting skills. Any ten-year old can google more factual information than you imparted in your smarmy article. By the way, did you and Jeff Gannon attend the same school of journalism?

XXXX

I kept having to delete sentences because I was putting so many four letter words down.

[Griffy]

76. heres my letter to the post!! Fact or Fiction.. !

In the article today titled "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War" (A6 on 6/17/05) the writer Dana Milbank totally misrepresents the facts in order to create a opinion piece out of facts. It is obvious the Mr. Milbank is fixing the facts around his opinion, and by doing so is further discrediting the Post and himself. It would only have taken a tiny bit of effort to uncover the REASON that these hearing were being held in that room. Instead the writer chose to characterize this as something different. Real issue are being discussed that effect us all, and Mr. Milbank feels it is best to obfuscate the truth for whatever reasons. He you no shame.. no pride? I would be glad to give you the real facts if you are incapable of finding them, but I doubt thats the reason. I also doubt anyone has the nerve to discuss this directly, for Mr. Milbank to get the facts right or get out of the business. Its not about liberal or conservative, its about fact and fiction! Which do you want the Washington Post to be.. fact.. or fiction, you decide...

America is watching, and WHEN the truth is known.. we will remember those that fought to hide it!

[seafan]

77. Never forget the words of M. Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mohandas Gandhi

[dissent1977]

79. The librul media strikes again

Please tell me this was on the editorial page and was not supposed to be taken as serious journalism.

[LiberalEsto]

81. Nope. Page A-6, the Congress page

At least they didn't try to pass it off as news.
It was called a "Washington Sketch."

Washington Retch is a better description.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. In other news, a team of UN inspectors checked the American Press Corps

for evidence of Journalistic testicles - and found none.

[MasonJar]

82. I went to the article and found "contact us" at the bottom of the

page and wrote him a nice long review of his pathetic article. I hope I sent it correctly; I am not good on the computer. He is a new addition to my ever-expanding black list.

[neuvocat]

83. He's just mad because he's got a girl's name.

C'mon folks. Do you really think anyone could take him seriously after that first line?

[amb123]

86. Mr. Milbank . . .

WHO PAID YOU? :mad:

Bring back Ben Bradlee!

[sundancekid]

88. reply to dana moron milbank by ray mcgovern

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

Dear Dana,

What's happened to you? You were often quite good when you were on the Post's White House beat...perceptive—occasionally even courageous—especially in exposing White House dishonesty. Is that why you were taken off that beat and assigned yesterday to trivialize the historic proceedings in the Capitol basement and Congressman Conyers' courage in convening them?

You used to get your facts straight, at least. It appears that in your new assignment meticulousness is not a requirement. Even your "search of the congressional record" concerning mention of the Downing Street Minutes came up short. Do you not consider Sen. Harry Reid a member of Congress?

It troubles me that you should find it "awkward" that I mentioned Israel and its interests as perceived by the "neocons" as a motivating factor in the Bush administration's decision to launch an unprovoked war on Iraq. That, Dana, is a no-brainer. Let me suggest you simply familiarize yourself with the documents of the "neocon" Project for a New American Century.

I did not say that "Israel should not be considered an ally." I think the transcript will show that I simply noted the fact that Israel is not an ally of the United States. It is a point of fact. And I, for one, object not only to the president's repeated references to such an "alliance," but to his behaving as though there were one. Is it possible that he actually believes there is one? If so, I doubt that any in his shrinking circle of advisers would take the risk of disabusing him of that notion, particularly if his father's national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, is correct in saying that our current president has been "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

I am among the first to defend Israel's right to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders, and to deplore our nation's slowness in recognizing and doing something to stop the Holocaust. (And I deplore violence of all kinds—whether against Israel, or initiated by it.) But, unless I am mistaken, an alliance requires a treaty ratified by the Senate. Have I missed something?

What is saddest of all is your willingness to be enlisted in the cabal against Rep. James Moran (D-VA). The record will show that Moran's question to the panel did NOT, as you write, include "wondering whether the true motive was Iraq's threat to Israel." The thought was all mine, and I stand by it.

What does merit the word "awkward" is that I have to write you this note. I used to look forward to reading your column. Until now, I had thought that your professional standards—like those of an intelligence analyst—ruled out the kind of slant reflected in your column today.

Were I not to have admired your past record, I might even think you are campaigning for a Gold Star from your editors, since your inaccurate, tendentious report dovetails so well with their torturous effort to play down the implications of the Downing Street Minutes. Those minutes are, indeed, a smoking gun. You'll see.

Yours truly,

Ray McGovern

Dana Milbank's Article
Dana Milbank's Email Address


Mods: am putting this in with more than 4 paragraphs because there has been a glitch on the site and too often folks cannot get past the first paragraph when they have to click the "more" link ... sorry, hope this is still ok.

[Guaranteed]

90. And, today, Dana Milbanks pretended we still live in America. nt

[LuPeRcALiO]

91. nasty is right.

ratting out bogus anti-semitism is about as close to assassination as you can get without a gun.

[Julius Civitatus]

94. Nasty, nasty hatchet job from Milbank

Possibly one of the worst I ever read.

For the record, I wanted to remind people Milbank became a major WP reporter on the WP during the 2000 elections. I remember him as a major Bush cheerleader and a nasty Gore hater (who wasn't a Gore-hater in press, anyway).

Although a few times he seemed to try to redeem himself in the last few years, I still felt he only did it when he felt "safe enough." Only when Dubya's poll numbers were low would Milbank dare criticize Bush and his minions.

What I DON'T understand is why did Milbank publish such a nasty, utterly contemptible piece. It's disturbing.

He has become the ultimate "presstitute." Karl Rove couldn't have done a nastier hatchet job.

:argh:

[LiberalEsto]

98. Presstitute -- fabulous word!

I'm going to use it from now on!
Thanks!
:applause:

[suegeo]

96. Milbank: mad-cow tainted meat

In the marketplace of ideas, Milbank is the equivalent of mad cow tainted meat.

Or the raspberries you bring home, only to find out the mold was hidden on berries in the innermost sections of the container.

Or the cow tongue or hooves that the butcher put on a styrofoam slab, and wrapped in plastic. Eww.

What an a-hole whore.

[Puglover]

97. My letter...

Dana Dana Dana
I'd try to write you a well thought out letter in response to the garbage you passed off as journalism regarding the Conyers hearing on the DSM but Dana it would be a waste of my energy. I'll simply tell you something I suspect you already know. Dana you are a whore. Oh wow are you a whore. And not even a good one.

Our young men and women are dying in Iraq and the best you can do is a smarmy hitpiece that sounds as if it were written by a petulant cheerleader?

You and your elitist pals in the beltway are beneath comtempt.

JFP

edit typo

[Royaras]

99. Okay, I'm a day late, but I just HAD to respond.

Mr. Milbank:

After reading your article, “Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War,” I have come to a few theories:

1) You are a White House-paid flack, a lá Armstrong Williams;
2) You are gunning to replace Scott McClellan when he resigns out of the exhaustion from coming up with non-answers to White House reporters;
3) You are a nom de plume for John Guckert/Jeff Gannon;
4) You are auditioning for an on-line blog position for Roger Ailes.

Any of these are plausible excuses for the hatchet job of an article with your byline. Your article is one of the most singular examples of biased reporting I have come across this side of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. How ironic that it comes on the anniversary of Woodward & Bernstein’s historic reporting of the Watergate scandal. To what depths has the Washington Post fallen? Once the towering member of the Fourth Estate that caused a corrupt administration to be held accountable, you have now traded your integrity for kneepads in service of a far more corrupt administration.

I know that people of your political bent don’t like to have little things like facts get in your way of mocking and patronizing, but I must address a few items in the interest of those of us in the “reality-based community”:

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

I guess it’s inconvenient to note that the reason the meeting was held in a small basement room was because Rep. Sensenbrenner refused them access to a regular meeting room, the same congressman who violated points of order to end a Judiciary Committee meeting on the Patriot Act. Those calls of “obstructionism” so deftly laid on the doorstep of Democrats strangely never makes its way across the aisle. Do you think it coincidence that the House had ELEVEN votes during those three hours as well, a spurt of business not usually seen when Republicans are holding meetings?

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

Seriously, could you be more patronizing if you tried? I’m sure that it is just an oversight and not intellectual dishonesty that caused you to neglect to mention that John Conyers was formerly the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the honorific is simply bestowed on him in recognition of his past position. We still call Bill Clinton “Mr. President” although we all know he no longer holds the office.
Since you have spared Chairman Sensenbrenner your outrage for his violation of parliamentary procedure, I assume that your knowledge is lacking over the proper method to record a meeting, which would include asking for “unanimous consent.” As to the two dozen other Democrats, is it possible that they support John Conyers’ request that President Bush be answerable rather than a desire to play “dress up” on C-SPAN3? In fact, Mr. Milbank, you neglected to mention (again an oversight I’m sure, far be it for you to suggest that Conyers is acting alone) that 122 House members have signed his petition, along with more than 560,000 American citizens.

Finally, you and the editors of the Washington Post owe Cindy Sheehan an apology for your tactless and heartless dismissal of her testimony. Ms. Sheehan entrusted President Bush with her most precious son. Just days after President Bush amused you at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner with his looking for WMDs under the table (to which I am sure you laughed heartily, comfortable in the smug knowledge of being part of the political majority), Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq looking for those same WMDs, ones that according to the Downing Street Memo President Bush knew would not be found.

Apparently, invading a sovereign nation and militarily forcing a regime change (in violation of international law) is something with which Democrats should not be concerned. There is no problem when partisanship runs so high that the majority party ignores documentation that points to potentially treasonous acts on the part of our president and his cabinet. Your mocking and patronizing tone is shameful for all of us who love this country and think that it should embody the ideal that it is trying to encourage/coerce other nations to embrace.

Let me remind you again that in the glory days of your once-fine publication, the words of Woodward and Bernstein encouraged the Republican-controlled Congress to see past party lines and begin inquiries when it was clear that the Watergate scandal went all the way to the top. Now, thirty-three years later, the WaPo is a pathetic shill for high crimes, dismissing and diminishing anyone who asks for accountability.

Is your blind apologist stance worth the price of your soul?

[Rainscents]

100. Do anyone else notice, this web site is down? You can't get in.

Hehehe... So many pissed of letters, they couldn't handle it!

[The Animator]

101. Heh heh... Dana is a girls name heheheheh

[checks-n-balances]

102. Wow - everybody's letters to the disgraceful "Mr." Milbank were excellent!

They top what I wanted to say, and didn't have time to write over the weekend, but I'm still inspired to write anyway.

I hope he reads every damn one of them and realizes how much he is enabling this organized crime syndicate that has taken over our country. In no way is the man a credible writer, let alone any kind of respectible journalist. :puke:
:mad:

[Apollo11]

103. My message to the Post

I bet Milbank will just delete all our angry messages without reading them first. That's why it's better to write the ombudsman and letters page (cc to milbankd).

I am also certain that curse words will NOT help our cause. Don't forget that Milbank is the nut job. We are not the crazy people here. Making it look any different will help him out.

Here's my attempt:

-----Original Message-----
From: me
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Washington Sketch of June 17


Dear Washington Post,

I want to register my disappointment with the low journalistic standards and strong political bias reflected in the Washington Sketch of last Friday (June 17"): "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War" By Dana Milbank.

The whole article is very dismissive of Democratic Congress members' efforts to uncover the truth about how the Bush Administration made decisions leading to the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq, resulting in the loss of many thousands of military and civilian lives, including the deaths of more than 1900 coalition soldiers.

I strongly feel that Dana Milbank does not approach this subject with the seriousness and sense of balance that one would expect from a newspaper with the reputation of the Washington Post.

At a time when polls are showing that only 41% of the public is supporting the Bush Administration's handling of the situation in Iraq, here is the Post providing evidence to support the allegations made by those who claim that the American press is either controlled by or otherwise afraid of the Republican right.

I trust that the Post will publish an unequivocal apology to Rep. Conyers and to your readers for letting us down on such an important issue.

Yours sincerely,

My Name

Post reader and concerned citizen
City, State

[LiberalEsto]

104. There will be frost warnings in Hell

if the Post actually apologizes to Conyers,

But your letter is eloquent and makes excellent points. Bravo!

LibE