Conyers: New York Times ... Shills Again

[ProSense]

Rep. John Conyers
03.17.2006

New York Times Shines Shills Again

The New York Times has had some remarkable coverage about Senator Feingold's censure resolution. Remarkable in its naivete and lack of balance.

Snip...

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.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/new-york-times-sh_b_17489.html

[ProSense]

1. Building a case for th "I" word

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY STAFF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
JANUARY 17, 2006

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION

PREPARED FOR
REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN



TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1
I. MANIPULATION OF IRAQ INTELLIGENCE...............................................................................2
II. TREATMENT OF DETAINEES.............................................................................................5
III. LEAK OF A COVERT CIA AGENT’S STATUS........................................................................7
IV. AWARD OF HALLIBURTON CONTRACTS ...........................................................................9
V. WHITE HOUSE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE KATRINA RESPONSE ..............................................10
VI. SECRET NSA WIRETAPS .....................................................................................11
VII. VICE PRESIDENT’S ENERGY TASK FORCE...................................................................12
VIII. WITHHOLDING OF MEDICARE COST ESTIMATES ..........................................................13
IX. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AT MULTIPLE FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE WHITE HOUSE.................14
X. POLITICIZATION OF THE FEDERAL SCIENCE-BASED AGENCIES ..........................................15
XI. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS LAWS ........................................16
XII. CONTRACT ABUSES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ................................17
XIII. INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AT EPA ....................................................................18
XIV. INFLUENCE OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS ON U.S. TOBACCO POLICIES .....................19
XV. FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT’S CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES.............19

Snip (pg. 1)
This report identifies 15 key oversight issues involving President Bush and his Administration that Congress has failed to investigate. They are:

• The role of the White House in manipulating intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda;
• The responsibility of senior Administration officials for the abuse of detainees;
• The role of White House officials in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent;
• The role of the Vice President’s office in the award of Halliburton contracts;
• The responsibility of senior White House officials in the failed response to Hurricane Katrina;
• The secret wiretapping of U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency; The identity of the energy industry contributors who met with the Vice President’s energy task force;
• The role of the White House in withholding key Medicare cost estimates from Congress;
• Evidence of conflicts of interest at multiple federal agencies and the White House;
• The increasing politicization of science-based federal agencies;
• The failure of the Department of Justice to enforce voting rights laws;
• Contract abuses at the Department of Homeland Security;
• The influence of industry lobbyists in writing EPA regulations;
• The influence of the tobacco industry lobbyists on U.S. tobacco policies; and
• The role of former Attorney General John Ashcroft in illegal campaign finance activities.

The report examines the response of the Republican-controlled Congress to these 15 oversight issues. In each case, a large “accountability gap” has emerged. Despite repeated requests by Democratic members and news reports raising allegations of serious misconduct, the Congress has failed to convene hearings, issue subpoenas, and take the other steps necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight role.


Snip (pg. 4)...

On multiple occasions, Republican Committee chairmen in the House have denied requests from ranking Democratic members to hold hearings into the manipulation of Iraq intelligence. On July 15, 2003, Rep. Waxman asked Rep. Porter Goss, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to hold hearings in the use of the forged nuclear evidence.9 On October 4, 2004, Rep. Waxman asked Rep. Tom Davis, the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, to hold hearings on new revelations casting doubt on the “nuclear tubes” evidence cited by multiple Administration officials.10 On June 30, 2005, Rep. John Conyers and over 50 other Democratic members of Congress asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of House Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings into the “Downing Street Memo,” a British document suggesting the United States and the United Kingdom may have manipulated intelligence about Iraq.11 And on November 4, 2005, Rep. Jane Harman asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to examine “how intelligence products and presentations were developed, whether dissents were properly reflected, and what steps, if any, were taken by the IC to correct misstatements of intelligence by senior Administration
officials.”12 All of these requests were ignored or rejected.

On the Senate side, after pressure from Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said in February 2004 that the Committee would look at this issue.13 But he subsequently stated the matter is “basically on the back burner.”14 Following the disclosure of the Downing Street Memo, Senator John Kerry and other Democratic Senators again urged Senate intelligence committee hearings on Iraq intelligence, but the Chairman declined this request.15

more...

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060117103554-62297.pdf

[flpoljunkie]

2. Conyers really nailed the NYT editorial board! My favorite part...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/new-york-times-sh_b_17489.html?view=print

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.

[1932]

3. That is an excellent part of the post.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. after reading Kirkpatrick's spew, I found this thread - my reponse

"Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick

I was wondering who was in line to take over the role of sycophantic stenographer for the White House since Judith Miller's uncloaking took place. I only have to look at your recent lopsided and partisan scribblings to see that the White House money is being well spent again. Damn, they choose well.

A question: Do you consider yourself a journalist or a cheerleader? If the former, aren't you folks supposed to have standards? Oh, I forgot. This is the Miller/Bumiller/Jayson version of the new and improved NYT. A whole new set of standards must now apply.

So it must be the latter. A cheerleader. Just like King George, do you see your role as a flag-waving, closed-minded support of all things neocon, ignoring, or better yet, refusing to even check facts before you spew your spin?

Having read your latest, I happened upon Rep. Conyers' interesting post on Huffington. Not only does the emperor wear no clothes, but his merry band of MSM cheerleaders (Take a bow, David) are dressed the same. Boy, does he ever puncture your musings. You might learn a lesson about I N V E S T I G A T I V E journalism by reading it. How's Jayson doing, anyway?

I know that the chances of you reading this are slim. (Oh, no, nothing can make me change my mind - I earn too much WH payola this way) I know that the chances of getting a response are slimmer. Defending the indefensible is tough. It is much easier to ignore it and call it spam.

But, in the faint hopes that some strand of ethical, moral and rational thought remains someplace in the dark, dank, Rovian brain matter of yours, do you ever worry about the fact that the Bush administration is leading this country from one disaster to another? That our very freedoms are under attack by use of warrantless wiretaps and now, warrantless searches, seizures and arrests? That we have spent 16,000 on every individual living in Iraq since our deceit-based invasion, and that things are actually worse now than under Saddam? Do you think about these things, or does Rove provide you with a list of approved subjects and an outline of what he expects to have paid for?

The other alternative is that you made a mistake. A real journalist would own up to it. But, I forgot. This is the NYT. You guys don't do apologies. Or corrections. Or follow-ups.
My, has your paper fallen, or what?"

I do not expect a reponse.