You are herecontent / Letter to Dana Milbank

Letter to Dana Milbank


Letter to Dana Milbank about the Downing Street Memo and Corporate Media Complicity in War Crimes
To: milbankd@washpost.com, Sketch@washpost.com, ombudsman@washpost.com
Mr. Milbank---

Regarding Friday’s WashingtonSketch ("Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War"): what an offensive, intelligence-insulting, childish rant, totally lacking in professionalism and propreity. Give me a break.

First of all, the Washington Post--- as well as much of the mainstream press--- seems more than a bit confused about the Downing Street Memo. (In this age where apparently the words LIE/LIAR/LYING are taboo in political discourse, I will for the moment play along and simply suggest that you and your colleagues are merely confused, and your much more professional competition in the foreign press and the blogosphere just happened to have hit the truth a bit sooner than you have, that’s all). Your dismissive, trivializing treatment of the memo leads me to think you are under the misunderstanding that this is something akin to a few scribbilings on a cocktail napkin. Allow me to correct you: the Downing Street Memo is the ACTUAL MINUTES OF A BRITISH CABINET MEETING, CONDUCTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THOSE OFFICIALS MET WITH THEIR AMERICAN COUNTERPARTS, DISCUSSING WHAT EXACTLY TRANSPIRED IN THAT JOINT MEETING. The label, "memo" has unfortunately led more than a few folks unwilling to do the easily-accomplished research (yourself included) about the nature of this document to take the easy road and treat it as some peripheral, flimsy piece of desperate evidence on the part of the antiwar movement...a movement, I might add, that does not follow party lines, contrary to your feebleminded, overly-simplistic condemnation of it. Actually, I have no doubt that you understand the serious magnitude of the DSM and its damning evidence showing that the platform for Iraq was entirely based upon--- I’ll say it since you won’t--- lies; otherwise, why the desperate article on your part?

An easy question, an easy answer: to save your own ass. If not your own personally, certainly the Washington Post’s collective one--- after all, you and your colleagues helped sell this war, didn’t you? You and your brothers-in-arms at the New York Times, with your historically-respectable reputation and considerable clout in the journalism arena, took your position and abused that power by convincing the reading public that we simply had no other choice but to go into Iraq...despite the ample evidence available showing that such White House statements were not based upon fact. Ever heard of "objectivity"? Your colleagues apparently haven’t; had such a thing been considered, the Washington Post would have spent a bit less time regurgitating the White House version of truth and spent a little more on examining the inconsistencies and contradictions in their supposed "intelligence." Instead, you sold us on a war based entirely on lies, a war that any true patriot (not the blind flag-wavers you seem to support) who has read the Constitution realizes is an act of treason committed by Bush et.al., a war where we have violated the Geneva Conventions and summarily punished an entire nation under the guise of "bringing freedom"...and folks are beginning to realize this. You failed to follow the basic journalism tenet (obvious even to the readership you treat as simpletons) of objectivity, and instead you duped America into war and killing and rape and torture. Over 100,000 people are dead, and it’s your fault. All the flailing and pitiful attempts to distance yourselves from this war will not change the fact that the Washington Post’s’ pages are sopping wet with blood. YOU LIED TO US. YOU ARE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING US TO THIS POINT. And then you have the nerve to try to further insult us by treating the Downing Street Memo as some peripheral, flimsy argument on the part of the antiwar movement? Who do you think you’re kidding?

Contrary to your condescending views of your readership, what you were so desperately trying to accomplish in Friday’s sad excuse for journalism was brilliantly transparent. You fooled no one, and here’s the kicker: you failed miserably. You did not in any way, shape, or form save your own or the Washington Post’s ass, but instead provided glorious spotlighting for the miserable failures that have apparently become Daily Operating Procedure at the Washington Post in coverage of all things Bush. There you are, fires all around you, and you’re just standing there spitting with a dry mouth! What a spectacle! Too bad it’s not funny; it’s hard to laugh when thousands of people are dead because of the Washington Post.

And so, on Friday, you followed the oh-so-predictable pattern at the Post, upon realizing that a story isn’t going to just die as hoped, of launching into attack mode...easy to spot after several years of such treatment in your pages on nearly anything that casts Iraq, or Bush, in a critical light. The DSM story gets bigger and bigger, thanks to the foreign and independent press and the bloggers--- folks who have time and time again shown you how your job was meant to be done--- and now that it is clear that it won’t be gloing away, off you go with a nasty, belittling diatribe where anyone raising a dissenting voice is assigned to the loony bin. Given, it was feeble and pitiful and utterly transparent, but on the page it was indeed mean and childish and, quite frankly, more the sort of hysterical blathering I’d expect from the likes of Michael Savage or Ann Coulter. Is that the sort of company you wish to keep? Who am I to complain...it’s your demise.

Considering the high standard for political discourse you have set with your name-calling and (not even particularly clever or well-written) middle-school-cafeteria sarcasm, I thought it only fair to respond to your maturity with words you shouldn’t fail to understand...and if I have indeed given you too much credit, I trust that you can reflect upon the past four years of Washington Post reporting and put two and two together to see what I mean:

You, sir, are a filthy whore. Your colleagues at the Washington Post--- every last one of you who has ignored the truth in favor of pushing the Bush agenda, every one of you who has insulted the intelligence of your readership and abused their trust and now has the sheer GALL to belittle them for seeking the truth--- whores, every one. Rather than considering such quaint concepts as objectivity in your journalism, you have instead opted to take sides with the Bush Administration and assist them with their war crimes. That makes you a whore. Attempting to silence dissent? That too makes you a whore.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/letters/
by : WRH reader
Tuesday 21st June 2005

Tags

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



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.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.