Global Exchange, CodePink and the After Downing Street coalition have been pressing mainstream media for serious coverage of the "Downing Street Memo." Thanks to you, efforts to bring forth the evidence that exposes the truth behind the war in Iraq have begun to pay off—the Associated Press has finally released a handful of stories covering the memo, last week's hearing organized by Rep. John Conyers, and the letter to Bush that he authored, signed by 122 members of Congress and over 540,000 Americans.
But big media outlets are still failing to address what many suggest could be "the Pentagon Papers of our time." National TV news shows and opinion leading print media outlets have downplayed the memo, insisting that it contains "nothing new." They've tried to justify their lack of critical attention by saying it was "conventional wisdom" that Bush wanted to invade Iraq. But as FAIR points out, if Americans knew the administration's ultimate goal was to attack, regardless of intelligence,
- Why would Bush have lied and said war was a last resort? - Why would the White House have needed to justify invasion by misleading Americans (as they still do) into believing that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda? -Why did the media have to selectively report information on the existence of WMD?
If administration plans were "conventional wisdom" outside the beltway, why would polls have shown a bamboozled American public—the majority of whom were in no hurry to go into Iraq—who were confused over the reasons for going to war even more than a year into the occupation? How is solid evidence of a rush to invade, without adequate intelligence or an exit strategy, not shocking and newsworthy? An investigation into whether the President lied to Congress and committed impeachable offenses is definitely news.
While many news outlets have brushed off the Downing Street Memo and the hearing held in Washington to discuss issues brought up by the memo, others have offered gross misrepresentations. Even that bastion of the "liberal media," The New York Times, dismissed those who attended the meeting—including distinguished members of Congress, prominent lawyers, diplomats, and families of victims—as less than credible "antiwar activists."
But some of the most irresponsible and spiteful coverage of the "Downing Street Memo" and the Democrats' hearing has come from the Washington Post. Dana Milbank's June 17 editorial, 'Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War,' distorted facts and mocked democrats for "taking a trip to the land of make believe," belittling their legitimate inquiry into Bush's reasons for risking the lives of soldiers and civilians as "antiwar theatrics."
Conyers responded with a letter to the Post, slamming Milbank's false claims and derisive tone. The Congressman refuted the notion that the memo has been unimportant to Democrats in Congress, pointing out that at least four representatives—including the minority leader—have brought the memo to the floor, and more than one hundred have signed Conyers' letter to the president. If more Democrats were unable to further show their support at the hearing, Conyers said it was likely because Republicans scheduled an unheard of 11 consecutive floor votes during the forum and refused to grant Democrats anything more than a small room in the basement of the Capitol for the meeting.
TAKE ACTION - FAX OR EMAIL THE WASHINGTON POST OMBUDSMAN
Conyers hammered the Post, now it's your turn. Counter the spin by writing a letter to the Washington Post ombudsman. Ask for serious, fair and responsible coverage of rising suspicions surrounding the "Downing Street Memo," not just Republican talking points.
Contact the Washington Post ombudsman, Michael Getler: Email: ombudsman@washpost.com Fax: 202-334-5269
Polls have been encouraging...success now hedges on pressuring big media into doing its duty to provide objective press and inquiry.
