You are herecontent / Democratic Accountability Is Hateful and Obscene

Democratic Accountability Is Hateful and Obscene

The Washington Post
June 19, 2005 Sunday
Final Edition
SECTION: Editorial; B06
LENGTH: 1069 words
HEADLINE: Memos, 'Wing Nuts' and 'Hit Lists'
BYLINE: Michael Getler
The bulk of the mail last week, by far, was focused once again on the "Downing Street Memo." This is the memo produced by a national security aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, based on notes taken in a meeting with Blair and his top advisers on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq. It is marked "Secret and strictly personal -- UK eyes only" but was leaked to the Sunday Times of London and published May 1.

Included in the note-taker's account was an assessment by the chief of British intelligence, after returning from a visit to Washington, that: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The memo, and the coverage and interpretation of it, continue to generate contention, especially among critics of the war and Bush administration policy. The overwhelming majority of e-mails I received last week seemed to have been prompted by a write-in campaign sponsored mostly by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal, self-described media watchdog organization.

Their target this time was a column by Post staff writer Dana Milbank on June 8 in which the term "wing nuts" was used. Many of the e-mailers said the reference disparaged the real concerns of many people that the administration misrepresented the situation that led the country to war.

Milbank is one of the paper's most talented and observant reporters. On the other hand, for the past several months he has also been serving as a columnist, frequently writing observations that go beyond straight reporting in a column labeled "Washington Sketch" that appears in the news pages of the A-section. On Friday, for example, The Post covered an unofficial antiwar hearing on Capitol Hill only in a Milbank column. Several readers found this inappropriate.

Unfortunately, it has never been announced or explained to Post readers that reporter Milbank is also now columnist Milbank. The reference to "wing nuts," as in left-wing nuts and right-wing nuts, appeared in the June 8 column, not a "news story," as many e-mailers wrongly stated. This is also understandable because FAIR neglected to tell its subscribers that this was clearly marked as a "Washington Sketch" and not a news story.

Milbank's column was about the June 7 Bush-Blair news conference in Washington and it reported that ", a group of left-wing activists" had sent e-mails offering a "reward" for anyone who could get an answer from Bush about the report that intelligence had been "fixed" around Iraq policy. Later in the column, Milbank wrote that a reporter who did ask such a question, and who had no idea of the activists' e-mails, "wasn't trying to satisfy the wing nuts."

Post Assistant Managing Editor Liz Spayd said "the term referred to one specific group" and not everyone who was questioning coverage of the memo. As for the term "wing nuts," she said "that word is probably sharper than it should have been." I agree. It was a needless red flag that undoubtedly would be read as disparaging beyond the group that Milbank was referring to. But columnists do get more leeway and the term has infiltrated political discussion in these heated times.

Here's Milbank's view: "While you have been within your rights as ombudsman over the past five years to attempt to excise any trace of colorful or provocative writing from the Post, you are out of bounds in asserting that a columnist cannot identify as 'wingnuts' a group whose followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech."

Much of the mail criticizing Milbank was also directed at op-ed columnist Michael Kinsley, who, in a June 12 column, said leftist activists' continued focus on the memo showed an ability to develop "a paranoid theory." Later in the week, The Post's editorial page also weighed in on the Downing Street memos (another has been leaked), saying: "They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002." That also brought mail.

I have a different view. The July 23 memo is important because it is an official document produced at the highest level of government of the most important U.S. ally. Its authenticity has not been disputed. Whatever some people said or wrote three years ago, there has never been -- except for this memo -- any official, authoritative claim or confirmation that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Blair denied that at the news conference. But could the secret minutes of such a meeting be wrong? Maybe there's a different interpretation, or maybe "fixed" means something different in British-speak.

Or maybe Blair could produce the former intelligence chief, and the note-taker, for a news conference or open parliamentary session and let reporters or legislators ask for an elaboration on the assessments in the memo.


A story on June 10 by staff writer Robin Wright seemed to violate The Post's guidelines on use of anonymous sources and drew criticism from a few readers. The lead said, "Bush administration officials alleged yesterday that Syria has developed a hit list targeting senior Lebanese political figures in an attempt to regain control of its neighboring state." But the quotes supporting this claim came from only one unidentified "senior administration official" who said the information came from "a variety of credible Lebanese sources."

Wright says that she had multiple sources. But that was not evident in the story. The story essentially laid out the case regarding Syrian activities. The New York Times, reporting the same story, pointed out that the official volunteered the information to reporters from at least two news organizations and that it was meant as a signal to Syria. The Times story questioned a spokesman for the official about why the assertions could not be made openly. It said intelligence officials could not immediately substantiate the information's reliability, and quoted a State Department official as saying that no one in the administration had seen the "hit list" and that its existence could not be independently verified.

Michael Getler can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail at


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post Ombudsman Michael Getler's insipid attempt to gloss over Dana Milbank's nasty June 17 column about the Conyers hearing on the Downing Street minutes has convinced me that the Washington Post has no decency,and even worse, no shame.

Dozens of people-- readers from Democratic Underground, Raw Story, and this web site bombarded Milbank, Getler and the Post on Friday with angry e-mails about Milbank's shabby and puerile attempt to disparage the Conyers hearings. I was one of the writers. So, for that matter were Rep. Conyers himself, and Ray McGovern, who testified at that hearing.

Not only did the Post not respond to any e-mails - at least to my knowledge - nor did it print any of them including Conyers', but it glossed over the entire issue in these few words in Getler's Sunday Ombudsman column on the editorial page:
"On Friday, for example, The Post covered an unofficial antiwar hearing on Capitol Hill only in a Milbank column. Several readers found this inappropriate."

More than "several" found Milbanks' column inappropriate, and we found it inappropriate for more reasons than the Post's lack of coverage. Milbank's column, in which he mocks Conyers and dismisses the hearing as a "trip to the land of make-believe", is the most vitriolic, biased and ugly piece of writing I have ever seen composed by a newspaper staffer in my 30-plus years as a print journalist. (I left journalism in disgust several years ago and now work as a technical writer)

Worse, Getler attributes some of our concern to our inability to tell the difference between hard news reporting and column writing, since Milbank now pens a column called the "Washington Sketch."

It is a matter of some irony that Milbanks' hit piece on Conyers appeared on the 33rd anniversary of the Watergate break-in that launched a Washington Post investigation leading to the resignation in disgrace of President Richard Nixon.

One might surmise that not only has the Post burned its laurels from the Watergate period, but also managed to flush the ashes into oblivion.

This is the Post's smoking gun of servility to this Administration, their final signal of having lost their gonads:

"...a national security aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair" happens to be his TOP "aide", the HEAD of MI6, their equivalent to our CIA - as everyone who is keeping up with this knows.

To call MI6's Richard Dearlove "a national security aide" is like calling the head of the CIA "a federal worker". He was THE man in British Intelligence,

Pathetic, pathetic, abysmal . . . no respect have I anymore for thee, construct of Bradlee.

It makes me wonder if the Post would have pursued the Watergate story without having two Jimmy Olsen's assigned to it. Two cub reporters aced the whole national and Washington press corps then, and the Post got to reap decades of respect from it. No more, no more, no more...

SHAME on the Washington Post!

Michael Gelter, you are a shill, not a journalist. I won't even waste a "shame on you" on you, you weasel.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.