by Rep. John Conyers
The New York Times has had some remarkable coverage about Senator Feingold's censure resolution. Remarkable in its naivete and lack of balance.
Today's Times featured an editorial entitled, "Time for Facts, Not Resolutions," suggesting that:
"[T]he censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now.
They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings." Just how exactly does the New York Times editorial board propose that Democrats conduct investigations as a minority party? Do we Democrats just ask the Republicans to hold hearings, subpoena government officials and documents, and expect them to "fulfill their sworn duty to investigate?" Tried that. Didn't work.
On January 20th, relegated to a basement room, I conducted my own hearing on the NSA warrantless wiretapping. I invited bipartisan participation, bringing in witnesses to discuss the legal arguments for and against the NSA domestic spying.
The New York Times says:
"We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law."Well, I had the hearing on January 20th, what did the New York Times have to say about that? Nothing. No coverage. Did the Republicans "fulfill their sworn duty to investigate" as a result? Nope. Tried that. Didn't work.
I do appreciate the New York Times' favorable view of someone who "proposed creating a bipartisan panel." Maybe I feel that way because I have already done that, in December, in response to the administration's alleged acts of wrongdoing - lying about the decision to go to war; manipulating intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using confidential information to out a CIA agent in political retaliation against her husband; flagrant violations of federal wiretap laws. In December, last year, I introduced a bill, House Resolution 635, which calls for the creation of a special bipartisan committee to investigate the activities of the Bush Administration leading up to war.
When I introduced this resolution December 22nd, it was accompanied by a 182-page report, with 1,000 footnotes, documenting compelling reasons to investigate the White House. Oh, and I also introduced resolutions censuring both Bush and Cheney. Imagine my pleasure when the New York Times finally took notice two-and-a-half months later.
Well, sort of.
Actually the story was about how Feingold's resolution was going to be a boon for the Republicans. It was an interesting piece of "balanced" reporting to be sure.
Essentially, we are told, that we have just handed the November elections to the Republicans. Who do we go to for this information? Paul Weyrich - a veteran conservative organizer, Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Republican spokesman Brian Jones, and National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Carl Forti.
Perhaps more alarming is the transparent manner in which New York Times journalist, David D. Kirkpatrick volunteers as his sources in this article: "Paul Weyrich ... declared last month in an e-mail" or "The Republican National Committee sent the editorial out to its e-mail list of 15 million supporters" or "Rush Limbaugh told listeners on his syndicated radio program" or "The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, a conservative standard-bearer" or "Conservative Web sites and talk radio programs have lavished attention on the impeachment resolutions" or "for three days the Republican Party has sent radio hosts news bulletins."
Perhaps Kirkpatrick's "sources" may have explained to him I have done a bit of work. He mentions that I have "proposed an initial inquiry into a censure or impeachment of Mr. Bush over the war." He continues, "[s]o far, the Conyers proposal has attracted support from about two dozen of the chamber's 201 Democrats." About two dozen? An inquiry into censure or impeachment?
This flippant account of what must count for research is preposterous. There were actually 32 Members of Congress on my resolution. Maybe that's about two dozen. Or maybe that's more than 15% of the Democrats in Congress and a number that's growing every week. Maybe the author could have signed up for my email, or even called me or my staff if he wanted to know the facts. Or he could have gone to Congress.gov to find out who has signed up as a cosponsor.
Maybe it is "Time for Facts." Just don't go to the New York Times looking for them.
Contributors
Links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(1766)
-
▼
March
(153)
- The Road to Dubai - New York TimesThe New York Tim...
- Ned Lamont: the unlikely insurgent
- Immigration Follies
- What Bush knew, when he knew it
- "Saddam chose to deny inspectors"
- Five minutes to midnight
- Poll: Opposition to Gay Marriage Declining
- Moment of Truth
- "Latino Giant" Awakens
- Democrats To Unveil "Real Security" Plan
- Lieberman faces tough fight
- Progressive vision for all of the Americas
- Rich Yet Broke
- McCain's embrace, Halliburton's profits and Tom De...
- Rove, "Out of touch."
- Fw: "I think we will be here forever", says a U.S....
- The White House shake-up that wasn't
- Impeachment? Hell, no. Impalement.
- Rove "Cooperating"
- Rumsfeld and the Big Picture
- Detainees' Rights-Scalia Speaks His Mind
- Woman With Perfect Memory Baffles Scientists
- North of the Border - New York TimesThe New York T...
- Anti-War Groups Monitored
- That's Sicilian!
- The Voice of Fear and the Voice of Hope
- On Torture and Being Good Americans
- Does This Mean Saddam Wasn't Responsible for 9/11?
- "Crashing The Gate"
- Bush Makes Iraq the Vital Reason for his Impeachme...
- Bush backlash
- Shiite Death Squads Out of Control
- Solving Cuba's Katrina Donation Problem
- Bush Wants to Make IMF and World Bank Even Worse
- The Procrastinator-in-Chief
- Look Who's Talking!
- Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
- Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder
- NSA Could've Monitored Lawyers' Calls
- "Nonprofit" Profits
- Feingold Stands Alone Again When Standing on Princ...
- Retraining Laid-Off Workers, but for What?
- Letter to the Secretary - New York Times
- But They Voted For This Government....
- Good Versus Evil Isn't A Strategy
- Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement
- Fw: Outsourcing
- How long can you tread water?
- Downtime with Dick
- Apocalyptic President
- Rumsfeld shows no sign he's ready to leave
- Changing the Script
- The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
- No Light in the Tunnel
- Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges
- Criminalizing Illegal Immigration
- What Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Have Wrought
- Liberators?
- Unstoppable?
- Fighting the Wrong War
- The President Still in Denial
- Why Cheney won't go
- The president and the straw man
- America's Blinders
- The Gall of Bush
- Bernie Sanders Interview
- Lawmakers get out of the Hous
- The president's greatest hits
- Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
- Shame
- Reminds me of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Amer...
- Fw: Entering the Fourth Year of War and Occupation...
- "Don't talk about it; be about it."
- Meanwhile . . .
- How to spot a baby Conservative
- Carlos Santana Speaks Out Against Bush
- The Democrats . . . Still Ducking
- Rumsfeld Is "Absolutely Crazy"
- Still Optimistic About Iraq? You Just Might Be a F...
- Rewriting the Science
- Worst Presidency in History
- Huh? Feingold's the Careless, Reckless One?
- The Iraq War: Three Years Later
- The battle to ban birth control
- Adios IMF
- Bush vs. Clean Air Act
- An A for Vendetta
- Bush vs. Clean Air Act
- "Hanoi Jane"
- Three Years and Counting
- Task Force 6-26
- Digby Speak
- The Last Days of the Ocean
- What Might Have Been
- Losing Ground
- Clear and Present Dangers
- Three Years Later
- More Rough 'n' Ready Russ
- The "Long War"? Oh, Goodie
- The New York Times Shills Again
-
▼
March
(153)
No comments:
Post a Comment