[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE OVER DIRTY TRICKS?

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 18, 2003

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this morning's media lavishly covered Prime 
Minister Blair's speech to us last night. It was an important event and 
I will have more to say about that next week. But I want to call my 
colleagues attention to another news item that I found shocking. 
Unfortunately it was buried in the ``Reliable Source'' gossip column of 
the ``Style Section'' in today's Washington Post. It reported a White 
House effort to smear a journalist, an effort that I found desperate 
and pathetic but, most of all, outrageous.
  It seems the Bush Administration was so unnerved by a TV network news 
segment on rapidly rising GI frustration in Iraq--and one soldier's 
calling on camera for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's resignation--that 
they decided to ``shoot the messenger.'' Reportedly, an anonymous White 
House operative tipped internet columnist Matt Drudge that the TV 
reporter on the news story was not only gay but also, far worse, ``a 
Canadian.''
  Does the Watergate phrase ``dirty tricks'' ring a bell? Or has that 
been banished from the political lexicon like the ``L word?''
  There's an old saying: ``If you're not outraged, you don't understand 
the situation.'' I want to know where the outrage is about this 
despicable tactic. Where are the outraged editorials and columns? Why 
wasn't this a front page story? Even if it was a scoop for the 
``Reliable Source,'' why wasn't there a separate news story about it? 
Where were the interviews of outraged media pundits on this morning's 
TV news shows? Where is the outrage from ACLU? And I hope there will be 
further comments on this by other outraged Members of Congress from 
both sides of the aisle.
  The leak to Drudge may indicate how nervous the White House is about 
their unraveling post-war plan and its tragic consequences for our 
soldiers. Indeed, if this is the only way they can respond to reporting 
on the Administration's mess in Iraq, things must be pretty desperate.
  It also indicates the kind of supporters whom the White House thinks 
will judge its policy on the basis of the nationality and orientation 
of those reporting on Iraq for U.S. media. The fact that most Americans 
will regard both factors as silly and irrelevant is beside the point. 
The malicious intent is clear.
  This kind of dirty trick must be labelled for what it is, and stopped 
in its tracks, or we will see similar sleaze seeping out of this White 
House whenever it feels politically threatened. If the media brushes 
this off as just one more skirmish with critical press, then both they 
and the American people will surely be the losers.

                          ____________________