Friday, June 17, 2005

To ombudsman[at]washpost[dot]com, re: "Democrats Play House..."

I wrote this letter to the ombudsman at the Washington Post (ombudsman[at]washpost[dot]com), in response to Dana Milbank's article "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War".

I am deeply disturbed by Dana Milbank's article "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War".

The tactics by Republicans in not allowing the Democrats a suitable room in which to hold today's hearings, the 11 Republican-scheduled floor votes to take place at the same time as the hearing, and the refusal of the White House today in admitting Rep. Conyers to the White House to deliver petitions from over half a million American citizens, are games fit for a child, and a bad-mannered one at that, and not for representatives of the American people. Such behavior from our representatives deserves the kind of ridicule that Dana Milbank has directed at Congressmen and Congresswomen who, in circumstances beyond their control, did the best they could to do their constitutional duty as representatives. Their integrity and resolve to continue their duty as representatives when others irresponsibly derelicted that duty, even in the thick of unprecedented obstruction, is very honorable. Dana Milbank's article ridiculing their courage is a great dishonor to these patriots and to everything that America stands for.

Furthermore, his complete lack of acknowledgement of the partisan behavior which led to the circumstances that he blames the democrats for - when it is indisputably the direct consequence of
decisions made by republicans - represents tacit consent for these decisions made by these republicans. Actions which, under all concievable cicumstances, are strongly indicitative of divisive partisan hubris and the active suppression of differing views. (Which led to this whole fiasco in the first place, as anyone was a reporter during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq would be disingenuous to deny.)

Let me say at least that his article got one thing right: that it is objectionable that Judiciary congressmen and congresswomen were not allowed to use the Whitehouse to hear testimony from the American people, who, by design of the American government, are the rightful owners of that building. However, I disagree with his overt implication that this was a decision made by the Democrats. Rather, it is clearly a decision made by the Republicans, and the Republicans, not the Democrats, are the rightful objects of criticism where this objectionable phenomena is concerned.

You see, when someone gets shot, it is usually the person who shot the person that is considered to be "in the wrong", not the person who got shot. To turn this logic on its head is a very disturbing convolution of justice. That is why I am deeply disturbed by this article; because it adds insult to injury. And it is especially irresponsible and disturbing when coming from an editor of a reputable news source. That is, to be more precise: it adds public insult to public injury.

Please see to it that his articles are kept respectable, responsible, and decent.

Thank you,
Kevin M. Baas

downing street memo


Post a Comment

<< Home