Speaking of John Conyers, it appears his pathetic little display in the basement of the Capitol yesterday had its own bigot eruption:
A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday.
“We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations,” Dean said in a statement posted on the DNC Web site.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, organized the forum on Thursday at the Capitol to publicize and discuss the so-called Downing Street memo. That document suggests that the Bush administration believed that war with Iraq was inevitable and that the administration was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein…
One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to “dominate that part of the world,” a statement Dean also condemned.
Dean’s full-throated disavowal is available here.
At any rate, just goes to show you both sides have to delicately balance the passions of their nutters. Many of the people most passionate about the Downing Street memo tend to be from the A.N.S.W.E.R. wing of the left, and their history of overt anti-Semitism is long and thoroughly documented. The DNC’s dilemma is no different from the Republicans, whose most passionate advocates of certain issues, like, say, judicial nominations, come from the lunatic wing of the Christian right. A tough job extracting their motivation and support while quashing their general nuttiness.
At any rate, shame on the anti-Semitic bastards.
Just as a side note- Does Conyers think this display in the basement is going to give people a reason to vote for Democrats? Seriously- are they looking for the martyr vote, or something? Like it or not, people respect power, and don’t generally reward sad spectacles. Or am I way off base here?
Mike S
Yeah, we’ve got some idiots all right.
In Conyer’s defence, he was not allowed a committee room by Sencinbrenner for real hearings. Do you honestly believe that the Downing minutes shouldn’t be looked into? There is a lot of information in there that disputes much of what we were being told before the war. And the fact that %700,000,000 was moved from Afghanistan oporations to Iraq in July 2002, which was against the law, is something that should give honest people pause.
Kimmitt
It’s not tough to “quash” A.N.S.W.E.R. from the Dems’ perspective; those folks have their own Parties and they don’t vote for us or attend our caucuses.
This stands in stark contrast to the Christian wingnuts who not only vote Republican but make up a section of their core volunteer and fundraising group.
These are different sorts of problems. The Dems have to distance themselves from people that are not part of the Party. The Republicans have to distance themselves from some of their strongest supporters.
Darrell
Nice try Kimmitt, but moveon.org and Democratic Underground make it crystal clear that Dem party is heavily populated with loons. In fact, Conyers actually thanks the Democratic Undergound folks for their unwavering support of his kookiness.
And let’s be honest here, anti-semitic literature and mock impeachments on the part of Democrats hardly compare with the religious right’s attempts to circumvent Dem judicial filibusters. Can we drop the equivalence, pretending the Repubs are ‘just as bad’, every time Dems show their true colors?
Mike S
If only we had a blue dress.
Aaron
Detroit is the most Arab city in America. It makes sense that Conyers would be sympathetic to anti_Israel positions.
Mike S
A question.
If we on the left are right and the administration purposly mislead us into war by using bogus intelligence, or just plain massaged, mistated the accuracy of some like the Niger story and was hell bent on going to war regardless of the need. If all or most of our claims were true, would that rise to at least an offence that should be censured.
If so, shouldn’t there be an investigation of the admins use of intelligence? I’m not talking about one where Sen Roberts promices to do an investigation after the election, only to decide against it after the election. I’m asking about a real investigation.
Darrell
Another Washington Post story says Conyers was accompanied by more than two dozen Dem congressmen/congresswomen.
And lest you think this was limited to just those in attendance there with Conyers:
“At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations — that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an “insider trading scam” on 9/11 — that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.”
Let’s be clear. Significant numbers of Democrat congressmen + lots of other Dems at the DNC are actually giving credence to the ‘theory’ that an Israeli company had advance warning of 9/11
Not A.N.S.W.E.R., not PETA, but congressional Democrats and many others at the DNC advancing jew hating conpiracy theories unchallenged. A core constituency of the Dem party. Take a good look at today’s Democrat party
Tell me again, what have the Repubs done equivalent to that?
John Cole
Tell me again, what have the Repubs done equivalent to that?
You are aware that in some Republican circles, homosexuals are the root of all evil, aren’t you?
Molly McRae
You’re joking, aren’t you?
Please tell me you are basing your opinion of A.N.S.W.E.R. on more than just what FrontPage thinks of them.
I am still catching up on this little tempest and don’t have the slightest idea who or what ANSWER is. However, since they are being accused of anti-semitism, is it really fair to accept what a, shall we say, avid Zionist organization thinks about them.
Wouldn’t it be better to at least corroborate what they are saying? Maybe from someone who doesn’t have a dog in the fight?
Geek, Esq.
Dems get the LaRouchite weirdoes trying to crash their events all the time. My guess is that there wasn’t proper security.
Mike S
Oh Please. That is just assinine.
“At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations —
Darrell is reading straight out of Hewy Hewitt’s talikng points book.
I can now claim that the Republicans are advancing Hal Turner”s racism, Randal Terry’s call for the conquering of America and the murder of Abortion providers. After all they have been to GOP events.
Darrell
John, it would be nice if you could show evidence of any rally or other Republican sanctioned gathering with, say 10 or more congressional Repubs, in which literature was passed out saying “God hates fags” or something equivalent distributed without objection or challeng.
Oh my, no such evidence? Never happened? tsk, tsk
Darrell
Darrell is reading straight out of Hewy Hewitt’s talikng points book
Uh no, it was a direct quote from the Washington Post article
Mike S
Activists was supposed to be bolded. My comment may have made more sense if it had been. Then again maybe not.
Shawn
I think you’re wrong, John. Just FYI, I watched the meeting on CSPAN and the WaPo article read like fiction. It was filled with inaccuracies and exaggerations. In fact, I read the story yesterday, said, “Huh? I don’t remember that!” Then I watched it again last night. (Who you gonna believe, Dana Milbanks or your lying eyes?) I don’t think I will ever trust Dana Milbank’s reporting again.
I cringed when McGovern said that about Israel because I knew what would happen. Everything else would be ignored because of that one sentence. Forget about the DSM, siphoned funds, and unauthorized aggression! Ray McGovern said “Israel!”
To add to Mike S. questions… If the president in question were Bill Clinton, would you all still be okey-dokey with this? If you say yes, you will have no credibility in my eyes.
As I’ve said before, until six months ago I was registered as an Independent and voted Republican as often, or more often than Dem., very neutral with no investment in either party. I’m paying close attention now and I don’t like what I see.
I think Bush should be impeached. He won’t be, because party is coming before country. But if his name were Bill Clinton? He would be impeached… and he would deserve it.
Sojourner
moveon.org is not a Democratic organization. It’s a progressive group that works independently of the Democratic party.
Can you point out an occasion when the Democratic Underground officially represented the Democratic party?
Mike S
From Hal Turner. Previous GOP congressional candidate, from NJ IIRC, endorsed by Sean Hannity. Thanks to Darrell’s logic it is an indication of a large contingent of Republicans.
” TOP MEXICAN OFFICIAL SAYS “NO WALLS CAN STOP MEXICANS” FROM ILLEGALLY ENTERING U.S.
I say fine! Let’s not build a wall. SHOOT AND KILL THEM instead!
I urge the hunting and killing of all illegal aliens as they cross the border into America. I implore Americans to arm themselves with sniper rifles and night vision scopes and kill every Mexican man woman and child who illegally crosses the U.S border. I advocate extreme violence against illegal aliens as shown in the image below:
[Animated gif image]
The image shows a white man stomping a Mexican on the back of his head while the Mexican’s mouth is on the curb! Great tactic!!! I think it would be terrific to trap them by their ankles in steel bear traps then beat them to death when you return and fnd them in the trap. After they’re dead, they should be decapitated and their heads put on spikes as a warning to other Mexicans. I advocate putting poison in desert drinking water stations they use. They deserve to be doused with gasoline and set on fire. Another great idea is to shoot at them from planes and helicopters. Oh, if any American sides with the illegals, it would be a real public service to kill them too!”
Sojourner
Um, Darrell, all you have to do is look at the legislation being passed by Republicans. Why do you think the Repubs are putting this legislation through? Because they love gays? How about in Texas, where the governor invited gays to get out of the state if they don’t like being discriminated against. Is that more Repub love?
“Let’s be clear. Significant numbers of Democrat congressmen + lots of other Dems at the DNC are actually giving credence to the ‘theory’ that an Israeli company had advance warning of 9/11.”
Could we have some evidence for this? Attending a meeting where pamphlets were handed out hardly constitutes support for a position. Please provide proof.
Reid
“Attending a meeting where pamphlets were handed out hardly constitutes support for a position”
Even if the meeting is at the Democratic headquarters (“an overflow crowd watched witnesses on television in a conference room at DNC headquarters”), forcing the chairman to loudly disavow such anti-semitism after it occurred?
Would Dean do that if it was just some random MoveOn meeting? No, it was in a facility paid for with Democratic Party dollars.
Dems seem to be pretty good at shutting out moderates and centrists, or shouting them down (witness the love for Joe Biden). Why not the anti-semitic wingnuts?
KC
There are nuts on both sides. As a Dem, it’s tough for me to even talk to some of our side’s crazies. Here’s a quick example of what I’m talking about: I got into a discussion with a woman at a party a few weeks ago about the Downing Street Memos. She began to rant and rave about impeachment, how rotten Bush was, and how he was going to get kicked out of office. When I asked her how he was going to kicked out of office with Republican majorities in Congress (I just stayed away from the stupidity of the idea), she went off on a tirade about how it was going to happen. At that point, I gave up the conversation–how can anyone talk to people like that? She was committed to the idea of impeachment and unwilling to even look at facts on the ground, at least as they stand now. Yes, impeachment is possible, but highly improbable with a Republican majority, and I think, even with a Democratic Congress too.
Mike S
Reid
We do shout them down. But it’s the Randal Terry’s of our country that are in charge of the GOP now. And with quotes like the ones I’ll give you below, I’ll leave you to decide which is worse.
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you… I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good… Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”
…”You better believe that I want to build a Christian nation,” Terry
said, “because the only option is a pagan nation. Not that the government can make someone a Cristian by decree. A Christian nation would be
defined as ‘We acknowledge God in our body politic, in our communities, that the God of the Bible is our God, and, we acknowledge that His law is supreme.”
snip
“When I, or people like me, are running the country, you’d better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we’ll execute you. I mean every word of it.” He added, “I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.” “
So which is worse? A bunch of kooks who show up at dem events or a man like Terry, who is the darling of people like Rick Santorum?
Stormy70
The left needs to clamp down hard on the anti-semitism that’s creeping into the Democratic Party. Cynthia McKinney D-Ga is the most anti-semitic moonbat out there, but I don’t here you guys denouncing her. Keep trying to change the subject to problems in the Rep. party, while ignoring the dangerous ideology slowly invading your party. Anti-semitism has killed millions of people since Biblical times (Esther), and it needs to be condemned in the loudest voice possible. Good for Dean, he did the right thing by speaking out against this crap.
Reid
“So which is worse? A bunch of kooks who show up at dem events or a man like Terry, who is the darling of people like Rick Santorum?”
You see, this is the problem. You think I can only answer “A” or “B”. Because that is all the binary view of the currently dominant political culture allows.
My answer as to which is worse is “both.” I see both parties as being under the influence of their extremists, and willingly going along. The Democrats push further left, and the Republicans push further right.
Both sides are apparently blind to the gap they are creating (more here and here). The few that see it dismiss “the center” as irrelevant to winning. They just need a few more “of their own.” I hope that continues. Because the blindside blows that will come if it continues are going to be absolutely delicious to watch.
p.lukasiak
I’m just curious if there is any way to criticize the state of Israel anymore — or its disproportionate influence on US policy — without being labelled an anti-semite?
KC
I think that’s a fair question.
Sojourner
I’d like to hear an answer to that question as well.
Stormy70
Israel is one of our strongest allies, the Palestians are full of terrorist sympathizers and blow up Jewish civilians. This is not a hard choice for me. Keep on keeping on, Israel.
Jim Hathorn
You cannot exercise free speech anywhere if congress will lose a vote-or think they will lose a vote. So, Israel is off limits: Women are off limits and any minority who makes up large numbers of votes. Problems in education cannot be addressed because it makes minorites angry. Middle East problems cannot be dealt with honestly because it angers Israel. America is captive to its weak-kneed stand on freedom of speech.
melior
p.lukasiak:
Short answer: No.
(See, for example, the smears and death threats against John’s brother Professor Juan.)
Yes, the dead-fish head is being lopped off AIPAC, but the body will simply melt into further corruption, bribery, and yes, treason.
Birkel
John Cole,
Your blog continues to be of high quality but your comments sections have become more and more polarized. Do you have any idea why this has happened?
“ppgaz” is the voice of reason and cordialness (You can use -ness or -ity, I looked that one up.) for the Lefty commenters here. That’s quite a statement, IMO, but true. Again, what is causing that?
John Cole
I’m just curious if there is any way to criticize the state of Israel anymore — or its disproportionate influence on US policy — without being labelled an anti-semite?
Umm.. You just did.
I am not going to object to a statement such as:
“I believe the expansion of settlements is hostile and provocative and should be stopped.”
As opposed to:
“Israel is a terrorist state that massacres its opponents and co-opts their land.”
Or:
“I think Israel has too much influence in the determination of American foreign policy.”
As opposed to:
“The only reason we went to war in Iraq is because the jews in Israel wanted us to.”
In both cases, the first are legitimate arguments people could put forward. the second is nothing more than nonsense that sounds like something the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion wrote.
Far North
Maybe if Conyer’s had been permitted to use a committee room, security would have weeded out those undesirables with their anti-semetic hatred.
You know, Bush has a damn good idea. Whenever he travels around the country and speaks to groups of “Americans”, he invites only those whom already share his views and agree with him on everthing. And to drive home the point, those unpatriotic disbelievers in all things Bush are arrested if they somehow manage to make it into a Bush event.
Maybe that’s the answer. On second thought………..maybe not.
John Cole
Your blog continues to be of high quality but your comments sections have become more and more polarized. Do you have any idea why this has happened?
Beats me. I started moving away from knee-jerk support of the adminstration, and a lot more people from the other side of the aisle are here, thus making it more combative.
Part of the blame can be laid on me for my oft-combative and in your face mode of writing. I often set the tone.
Also, the comments may not necessarily be more hostile, just that before it was hostility we all agreed upon. Now the hostility is, shall we say, more bi-partisan, and rather than a firing squad, it appears like a circular firing squad.
Another reason are the topics- people feel strongly about the issues- Schiavo, abortion, partisanship, etc.- those are all hot topics. I don’t know anyone who feels mildly about Schiavo, for example.
At any rate, if it gets too out of control, I will address it. For now, I would just say everyone calm down a touch and fight hard, but not below the belt. And don’t feel the need to hold back yourself, but try not to get personal.
Stormy70
I love the comments section here, since hardly anyone agrees with anyone else. It’s not boring, and most of the commenters are good people, despite their wrong-headed views :-).
KC
One of the reasons I like this blog is because its comments section is usually filled with some pretty thoughtful discussion. Sometimes there are some tear downs etc., but mostly it seems like everyone in comments takes it as it comes and stays above board. You go to Atrios and you see a lot of “fuck Bush” garbage–it’s obvious where things are going. You go here and you can actually get into a little discussion, maybe heated sometimes, but come out feeling like you’ve learned a little more about what someone else thinks about an issue. In some cases, you can learn a little about your own persepctive too.
Just a little praise for your blog, John.
James Emerson
This runs counter to your assertion of John Conyers “pathetic little display,” but in the letter Mr. COnyers sent to WaPo as a response to Millbanks rightwing slant and outright fabrications everything is made clear.
Link : http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002990.html
EmanG
It seems that the majority of this conversation is missing the entire point of Conyers “sad little gathering”. That the administration lied to Congress and the american public in the run up to the war. Rep Conyers held this meeting in the only place allowed him as the Repub leadership denied his every request for a more suitable place to discuss relevant information about whether or not the war was legally begun. Perhaps that is a more germain topic?
Stormy70
Congress gave authorization for force against Iraq, and Conyers let the moonbats come to his little tea party.
Sojourner
The Repub apologists don’t care that they’ve been lied to. They’ll happily bend over and take whatever comes their way.
The rest of us already knew it was going on but are embarassed for the MSM that the Brits had to prove it.
ppgaz
Birkel …. I’m voice of cordiality here? Owwwww! I’m meltingggggg!!
Good heavens. Oh dear. Land o’Goshen. Mercy.
I can’t figure out quite what the topic is in this thread, but if it’s polarization ….. I say this every few days or so, so I may as well be consistent:
Nobody on the left declared war on half of the American people. The right did that. My anger toward them is grounded in that fact.
Policy fights? Bring ’em. But call me and half the people in this country traitors, or somehow morally inferior? Uh, no, that’s where I draw the line.
Nobody on the right … or left, for that matter … has any business talking that way about half of the people in this country. That isn’t American, and we aren’t going to stand for it. If the loonies want to declare me to be their enemy, then so be it. I am their enemy. I didn’t ask for the role. I don’t even want it.
But if you call me cordial, my cover is blown. Can’t we all just get along?
Darrell
Sojourner, what has Bush “lied” about? I’m not talking mistakes here, I’m talking what did he knowingly lie about. WMD’s? Virtually every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had them. Hans Blix said he had them. So did Bill Clinton.Tell us, what were the ‘lies’?
As for Conyers little impeachment hearing soiree, I believe he and a number of other Democrats cultivate anti-semitic bigotry and invited those attendees who passed out the literature without objection. Are we expected to beleive that it was a coincidence that anti-semitic literature was being distributed BOTH at Conyers event, and simultaneously at the DNC?.. This incident highlights the fact that a large segment of the Dem party are certifiable kooks, which is why there were no objections to hate literature being distributed until after the Washington Post blew the whistle. It’s clear that more than a few Dems actually believe and willingly spread the lie that “the Jews” were in on 9/11. How rational and intelligent of them
Ask yourself, ever heard Conyers, or other Dems for that matter, ever denounce Cynthia McKinney? Race baiting is routine standard operating procedure with most Dems IMO.
Republicans have problems, but Dems are really going over the deep end, showing their true colors as of late
Darrell
But call me and half the people in this country traitors, or somehow morally inferior?
Keep thrashing those straw men ppgaz
ppgaz
Darrell, your retort is beyond lame, beyond even the level of troll.
If you don’t know what the right wing of the GOP is about, what they say, and what they want … well, good for you. A lot of other people do. It’s not exactly a secret.
There is nothing “straw” about it. Absolutely nothing. Unless its the stuff that fills your head.
jcricket
John – The rise of anti-semitism on the left is truly disturbing to me. But, as others have pointed out, the Democrats were crammed into a basement because the Republicans who control Congress denied them meeting space. Second, contrary to Milbanks article, the anti-semitic crowd was not a big part of the event. Third, Dean (your favorite) came out and completely denounced any of the anti-semites who were there.
When’s the last time Ken Mehlmen or Bill Frist or George Bush clearly, unequivocally denounced the witch-hunts against Michael Schiavo? Or the death threats against federal judges? Or the homophobia running rampant in the GOP?
Just to be clear: I “mildly” supported this war when it started based on Bush’s assertion that Saddam was really poised to take out Israel or part of Europe or whomever with nuclear or chemical weapons. I had a really hard time with all the anti-war protests that turned into anti-Israel protests. In fact, it even made me support the war a little more.
But now, after all the evidence that’s come out, and all the polls showing 60% or more of the country against the war – the ANSWR folks simply aren’t evidence the entire anti-war crowd is full of crazies. They’re just always going to be there. I choose to ignore them.
Kimmitt
John – The rise of anti-semitism on the left is truly disturbing to me.
Okay, hang the hell on. There is anti-semitism everywhere, but what you mostly see on the vast majority of the non-commie Left is dissatisfaction with Israeli policy and frustration with our current relationship. This is not antisemitism, as antisemitism requires someone to think that Jews are a separate race (as versus a random ethnic group with its own religious tradition) and that said group has bad qualities intrinsic to that group. None of this is the case. The problem the Left has, whether or not you fully agree with it, is exclusively with policy and expected outcomes.
The Right likes to play this stuff up because it creates a moral equivalency between the Party which contains fifteen or so Southern and Western Senators who won’t even sign onto a symbolic anti-lynching statement after it’s been passed and the other Party. But there is no there there.
Sojourner
Well, let’s see. He claimed there was no way to prevent 9/11. The 9/11 report showed that wasn’t true.
He claimed we needed to go to war because of WMDs. As the Downing Street memos show, he didn’t give a rat’s ass about WMDs. It was just an excuse to sucker the American people into a war they really didn’t want.
How about Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy? Or did he just confuse SS with his budget?
How about the promise of billions of dollars of aid to Africa to fight against AIDS, when he only ended up sending a fraction of that?
How about his promise to fully fund No Child Left Behind? That didn’t happen.
How about his promise to be a uniter, not a divider? The good news on this one is that after all those lies, nobody believed this one.
And the list goes on… and on… and on…
jcricket
The problem the Left has, whether or not you fully agree with it, is exclusively with policy and expected outcomes.
I’m actually not really disagreeing with you Kimmitt. I was talking about what you call “the commie left” (the ANSWR crowd, etc.).
BTW, I’m on the left (not the Joe Lieberman psuedo-left either, a real lefty). I’m definitely not arguing that all criticism of Israel, AIPAC or America’s relationship with Israel is anti-semitic. But I do have to say that I regularly see people on the _far_ left (again, I’m probably to the far left if you ask someone like Hindrocket) make statements that criticize Israel in ways _far_ worse than policy disagreements.
I’m simply tired of people “singling out Israel for criticism” far and above the criticism they level at the worst places on the planet (Zimbabwe, Myanmar, etc.).
But yes, you’re right that your “average” lefty isn’t anti-semitic, or anti-Israel. At least not in America.
Bob
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
Advertisement: Story continues below
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.
torridjoe
Wouldn’t it be considered anti-Semitic to firmly believe that if you’re Jewish you’re going to hell no matter what you do? Because millions of GOP voters known as Southern Baptists believe just that.
Darrell, you wrote that Democratic Congresspeople gave credence to the ‘9/11 warning’ theory. When were you planning on linking to the statements that indicate this?
Birkel
Bob,
That’s not convincing. Can you guess why?
ppgaz,
Don’t go and try to ruin it. Just say thank you and move along. As for whether the Left declared war on anybody… I take that characterization to be silly.
Generally,
Some prominent Lefties do seem to be pro-Palestine, anti-Israel writ large. To deny that is to deny the obvious. The denunciation Chairman Dean offered might be more persuasive if he thought I’d ever made an honest living or if he didn’t hate me. Other than that…
Birkel
torridjoe,
If you wish to characterize differences in religious belief as anti-semitism (or anti-other things) perhaps you could start with Islam. Apparently they believe you’re not even worthy to touch their holy book.
Let us read your equal condemnation of Islamofascists and perhaps many of us will give you greater credence.
I’m just sayin’…
frontinus
Yes, Paul, there is. You start by not tying them to 9/11. Now back in your cage with Mr. Burkett.
Reid
torridjoe, as a born and bred North Carolina Southern Baptist, I can tell you there are millions of Southern Baptists who do not believe Jews are going to Hell, nor vote for the GOP. Just as there are millions of Democrats who do not belong to ANSWER, and do not engage in anti-Semitism.
But it is entertaining that you’ve counterattacked the stereotyping of one group by stereotyping another.
Rick
but in the letter Mr. COnyers sent to WaPo as a response to Millbanks rightwing slant and outright fabrications everything is made clear.
Milbanks RIGHT WING?!!! Oh, my sides.
And hey, everybody: heard the latest about the “DSM.” Seems they were typed up by a reporter, who destroyed the “originals.”
Unless someone steps forward to acknowledge authorship, well, this kerfluffle has another “fake but accurate” odor.
Cordially…
Darrell
jcricket wrote: I’m simply tired of people “singling out Israel for criticism” far and above the criticism they level at the worst places on the planet (Zimbabwe, Myanmar, etc.).
BTW, are you aware that Conyers and several other Dems went to that UN conference on racism, which turned into a drooling anti-Jew hatefest? Any Dems denounce that? No? Conyers spoke earlier this year at a Lyndon LaRouche organized event lending his credibility by speaking. ..LaRouche having claimed that there is a “hard kernel of truth” to the Protocols of the elders of Zion.
As a general rule, lefty Dems are almost across-the-board Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, sometime slipping into jew hating anti-semitism as we see with Cynthia McKinney and as we saw with the pamphlets being distributed both at Conyers event as well as at the DNC.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Kimmitt
I’m simply tired of people “singling out Israel for criticism” far and above the criticism they level at the worst places on the planet (Zimbabwe, Myanmar, etc.).
That’s not at all sensible — any serious lefty group is swift and complete in its denouncement of those two regimes. However, the US is not a close ally to either regime, and the general opinion of the Left is that our close allies should be held to higher standards than those we oppose. This is not anything resembling an unreasonable opinion.
Why do Lefties tend to spend more time protesting Israel’s actions? Because Israel is a democracy that receives huge piles of dollars from the US, which means that there is far more chance of affecting its policies than those of either Zimbabwe or Myanmar.
Kimmitt
Let me give you an example:
I think we should invade Myanmar and depose its current regime. I think it would do a lot more good than the Iraq invasion, and I think we could go in, get the job done, and leave quickly. We don’t have the troops for it right now, but that’s life.
I think we should tell the Israelis that if they keep building settlements, it’s going to cost them foreign aid.
These are different levels of condemnation, wouldn’t you say?
HH
“In Conyer’s defence, he was not allowed a committee room by Sencinbrenner for real hearings.”
And after witnessing the parade of long-discredited moonbats (Joe Wilson anyone?) that showed up, why should he have?
HH
“Dems get the LaRouchite weirdoes trying to crash their events all the time. My guess is that there wasn’t proper security.”
Er, until very recently, Conyers was embracing the LaRouchites… and where exactly is his condemnation of the nuttery that took place to match Dean’s?
HH
I see Conyers, in his indignity at the “right wing” Milbank did attempt some sort of condemnation, while also downplaying what happened in a fake hearing on his watch. Yes, we’re all ‘friends of Israel,’ except when we’re not, right?
torridjoe
Birkel–I’ll certainly agree that Islam is, in many fundamentalist doctrines, anti-Semitic. I’m not aware of a major Muslim contingent within the GOP however (at least not since Iraq), so I don’t see how that’s all that relevant.
Reid, if you don’t believe they’re going to hell for being Jews, kudos. But you’re out of step with SBC doctrine, which clearly pegs that destination as their birthright. Of course, it’s not just Jews, it’s ANYBODY who’s not Southern Baptist. As my friend Chuck Currie has said, ecumenical relations on doctrine are not an SBC strongpoint.