Name: Anonymous 2005-07-10 17:39
(It may be easy to disagree with points of view given at the World Socialist Web Site, but I feel this is well written and deserves credit. Truth is truth, even when it's spoken by liars. In fact, most propagandists resort to speaking of shocking truths to hold up their sophistry.)
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
The Washington Post and the Downing Street memo
By Joseph Kay and Barry Grey
22 June 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
On June 16, Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, held a hearing in the Capitol on what has become known as the Downing Street memo.
The �memo� consists of minutes of a British cabinet meeting held in July 2002 in which the chief of Britain�s intelligence service MI6 reported on his recent discussions with Bush administration officials in Washington. The intelligence head, Sir Richard Dearlove, said that in Washington war �was now seen as inevitable� and that �intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy� of removing Saddam Hussein �through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.�
The document, labeled �secret and strictly personal,� first came to light in the May 1 issue of the British Sunday Times. It ignited a political firestorm in Britain and played a significant role in the May 5 election, fueling anti-war sentiment and contributing to a sharp reduction in Prime Minister Tony Blair�s parliamentary majority.
The enormous publicity given the memo in Britain stood in the sharpest contrast to the virtual silence it evoked in the American media�a silence for which there is no innocent explanation. The �mainstream� media made a calculated political decision to bury the memo and keep the American people in the dark.
The memo provides irrefutable evidence, from the highest levels of the British state, that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched on the basis of lies concocted to justify a predetermined policy. Among the lies were the repeated assurances of Bush and other top US government officials in the months and weeks preceding the war that no decision had been made to go to war and the US was exhaustively pursuing all peaceful alternatives.
It would seem that a senior congressman holding a hearing on such a document�more than two years after the US invasion, with US troop deaths topping 1,700, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, some $200 billion already expended on the war and occupation, and the primary pretext for the war, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, exposed as a fiction�would be considered the minimum, if long-delayed, response in a democracy. All the more so under conditions where a raft of opinion polls show that a large majority of the US population is now opposed to the war.
But the Washington Post, the capital�s leading �liberal� newspaper, not only relegated Conyers�s hearing to its inside pages, it published a sneering and derogatory account that did not seek to conceal the newspaper�s fury over the congressman�s attempt to break through the wall of silence on the memo.
The World Socialist Web Site is no political supporter of Conyers, a Democratic politician who has worked for decades to maintain the subordination of American workers to the two-party system. Nevertheless, his treatment at the hands of the Post is quite extraordinary. The newspaper casts Conyers, one of the most senior members of Congress, as a buffoon, in order to denigrate the anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments expressed by the participants at his hearing.
To underline its attitude to both the hearing and the Downing Street memo itself, the Post published its account in its June 17 �Washington Sketch� column�a feature usually devoted to lighthearted commentary on the peccadilloes and curiosities of political life in the nation�s capital. Written by veteran Post journalist Dana Milbank, the column was headlined �Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War.�
The derisive headline captured the flavor of the text. Conyers and a number of other House Democrats, Milbank wrote, �took a trip to the land of make-believe.� The �dress-up game looked realistic enough,� he continued, for �two dozen more Democrats to come downstairs and play along.� The �hearty band of playmates� indulged themselves, according to Milbank, in a �fantasy.�
Milbank found it particularly uproarious that Conyers was forced to hold the hearing in a small room in the basement of the Capitol, and that he lacked the power to issue subpoenas: �...subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House,� he chortled.
As Conyers subsequently pointed out in a letter to the Post, �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.� Conyers added that the Republican leadership in Congress took other measures to derail the hearing, including the scheduling of �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.�
Such anti-democratic practices by a majority party determined to deny any minority rights and block any discussion of the administration�s war policies are evidently of no concern to Milbank and his superiors at the Post. On the contrary, they seem to find it amusing that such methods are used to silence anti-war sentiment and suppress public discussion of the British memo.
Milbank continued: �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.� In making the case that the memo is of no importance, Milbank introduced as exhibit one: �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.�
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
The Washington Post and the Downing Street memo
By Joseph Kay and Barry Grey
22 June 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
On June 16, Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, held a hearing in the Capitol on what has become known as the Downing Street memo.
The �memo� consists of minutes of a British cabinet meeting held in July 2002 in which the chief of Britain�s intelligence service MI6 reported on his recent discussions with Bush administration officials in Washington. The intelligence head, Sir Richard Dearlove, said that in Washington war �was now seen as inevitable� and that �intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy� of removing Saddam Hussein �through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.�
The document, labeled �secret and strictly personal,� first came to light in the May 1 issue of the British Sunday Times. It ignited a political firestorm in Britain and played a significant role in the May 5 election, fueling anti-war sentiment and contributing to a sharp reduction in Prime Minister Tony Blair�s parliamentary majority.
The enormous publicity given the memo in Britain stood in the sharpest contrast to the virtual silence it evoked in the American media�a silence for which there is no innocent explanation. The �mainstream� media made a calculated political decision to bury the memo and keep the American people in the dark.
The memo provides irrefutable evidence, from the highest levels of the British state, that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched on the basis of lies concocted to justify a predetermined policy. Among the lies were the repeated assurances of Bush and other top US government officials in the months and weeks preceding the war that no decision had been made to go to war and the US was exhaustively pursuing all peaceful alternatives.
It would seem that a senior congressman holding a hearing on such a document�more than two years after the US invasion, with US troop deaths topping 1,700, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, some $200 billion already expended on the war and occupation, and the primary pretext for the war, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, exposed as a fiction�would be considered the minimum, if long-delayed, response in a democracy. All the more so under conditions where a raft of opinion polls show that a large majority of the US population is now opposed to the war.
But the Washington Post, the capital�s leading �liberal� newspaper, not only relegated Conyers�s hearing to its inside pages, it published a sneering and derogatory account that did not seek to conceal the newspaper�s fury over the congressman�s attempt to break through the wall of silence on the memo.
The World Socialist Web Site is no political supporter of Conyers, a Democratic politician who has worked for decades to maintain the subordination of American workers to the two-party system. Nevertheless, his treatment at the hands of the Post is quite extraordinary. The newspaper casts Conyers, one of the most senior members of Congress, as a buffoon, in order to denigrate the anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments expressed by the participants at his hearing.
To underline its attitude to both the hearing and the Downing Street memo itself, the Post published its account in its June 17 �Washington Sketch� column�a feature usually devoted to lighthearted commentary on the peccadilloes and curiosities of political life in the nation�s capital. Written by veteran Post journalist Dana Milbank, the column was headlined �Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War.�
The derisive headline captured the flavor of the text. Conyers and a number of other House Democrats, Milbank wrote, �took a trip to the land of make-believe.� The �dress-up game looked realistic enough,� he continued, for �two dozen more Democrats to come downstairs and play along.� The �hearty band of playmates� indulged themselves, according to Milbank, in a �fantasy.�
Milbank found it particularly uproarious that Conyers was forced to hold the hearing in a small room in the basement of the Capitol, and that he lacked the power to issue subpoenas: �...subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House,� he chortled.
As Conyers subsequently pointed out in a letter to the Post, �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.� Conyers added that the Republican leadership in Congress took other measures to derail the hearing, including the scheduling of �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.�
Such anti-democratic practices by a majority party determined to deny any minority rights and block any discussion of the administration�s war policies are evidently of no concern to Milbank and his superiors at the Post. On the contrary, they seem to find it amusing that such methods are used to silence anti-war sentiment and suppress public discussion of the British memo.
Milbank continued: �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.� In making the case that the memo is of no importance, Milbank introduced as exhibit one: �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.�