Endorses Washington Post Boycott

On Monday, donna neversurrender of launched a boycott of the Washington Post. We are endorsing this boycott for a number of reasons:

  1. As David Swanson details below, the Post served as nothing more than a propaganda organ of the Bush administration before their illegal and suicidal invasion of Iraq. (We re-named it the "Pentagon Post" (or "PentaPost" for short) on 2/26/03 when the Post wrote a black-is-white editorial urging invasion.)
  2. Now that the Downing Street Memos have revealed the truth about Bush's Iraq War lies, the Post refuses to provide serious coverage of the memos and the outrage they have unleashed, preferring instead to unleash the contempt and lies of its columnists.
  3. I have asked repeatedly for a correction to one flat-out lie about us - that was "the event organizer" of the June 16 hearing organized by Rep. John Conyers - and have not received so much as an acknowledgment of the request, let alone a correction. Many of you have written eloquent letters in support of my request, for which I am most grateful. To my knowledge, none of you have received the slightest courtesy of a reply either.

donna's announcement is clear and right to the point:

Remember what we did to Sinclair Broadcasting before the election when they wanted to run the Swift Boat Liars Special?  We can and must do it again to the Washington Post because articles like Millbank's are the equivalent of the Swift Boat Liars. We only need to target one media outlet and the rest will get the message that they can and will be next.

The manner in which the Washington Post treated Congressman Conyers' Hearing on the Downing Street Minutes is indicative of the censorship in the lying, biased, corporate owned media and it's time we tell them we're not taking it anymore.

Let the Post know when they treat us with contempt, and disrespect our country, our congress, and our democracy, lying and shilling for the bush administration, we will do something about it and we do mean business. 


Corporate HQ:
Michael Getler: 
Dana Milbank: 
Letters to the editors:

If you live in the DC area, we urge you to cancel your subscription or stop buying the Post at the newsstand. And send an e-mail to everyone above explaining the reason for your decision. (As always, please keep your e-mails civil.)

And even if you do not live in the DC area, donna has compiled a list of the Post's advertisers with their contact info so you can call/write/fax them and tell them you will boycott their products as long as they advertise in the Post.

We will support this boycott until the Washington Post announces a change in its policy about its coverage of the Bush administration's lies about Iraq - and all of the administration's other lies, which go unchallenged by the Post seven days a week.

We also demand accurate, fair, and complete coverage of the opponents of the Bush administration - both elected Democrats and progressive activists.

The Post is not the only news organization that deserves to be boycotted. We will endorse other such efforts as they are posted.

The bottom line is simple. When it comes to the truth, the news media has to make a choice: you're either with us or you're against us.


A bloodless counter attack!

I'm certainly not happy that we need to resort to economic blackmail to get a leading newspaper to . . . do its job.
But how else can you fight back at a power structure that has melded the press into a bullhorn for a single point of view.
And has used the mainstream media as a cloak so that mendacity, greed and corruption have a place to hide, outside of the reach of the average citizen.
If the Downing Street documents have shown us nothing else, they've shown that the Bush administration has gotten us involved in an illegal war, with bombing that began long before we were even aware of the "attack Iraq" strategy. And, things like bombs being illegally dropped on telephone exchange buildings are just the sort of items a Washington Post or a NY Times is supposed to uncover.
Instead, they dusted off pompoms and led the cheers for Shock-and-Awe.

It's time to launch this bloodless counter attack!

Jack Ballinger

I just sent in a letter

I just sent in a letter cancelling my subscription. I wrote a letter to the editor immediately after reading Milbank's mocking column and have not heard anything since. I took my two daughters to the rally but we couldn't stay to watch the petition being delivered because we needed to head back home to Stafford to play rehearsal. I do not consider myself an extremist. I am baffled by the lack of media interest in the abuse of power by the Bush administration. The concerns of the American public are being completely ignored by the Washington Post. I don't know what else is expected of the public- how can we get our voices heard other than to work with our elected representatives, such as Rep. Conyers and to gather together in protest? We've written our LTEs that have been ignored. What else can we do?!

Support Wednesday, June 29 Demonstration against the Wash Post

A group of Metro area anti-war groups are planning a 5:00 pm demonstration on the street in front of the
Washington Post's main office, 1150 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC, to protest their coverup of the Downing
Street papers--not just the July 23 cabinet meeting minutes, but the whole collection of 8 documents that
have been leaked. Cancelling your subscription is fine, but not nearly enough. Everybody within hailing
distance of this address who can possibly make it, is urged to attend--this is the opening round of a
concerted campaign to turn the Post into a newspaper again (if it ever was). We will be contacting other
media of all kinds, and you never know when one of them may decide to cover something like this--we will
include the foreign press in our press release distribution.

We are currently in the process of getting police permits. Please contact me before showing up, just to
make sure we haven't had to postpone it. I will also post again here when plans
are finalized.

Peter Rush

Solid judgement vs BOYCOTT

There is no need to use a loaded expression as BOYCOTT, I would think.

You just use your good senses and make a free decision to excise good judgment
such as:.

" Selecting and buying or supporting a worthy product"

* A worthy Newspaper is a paper that prints news and does not silence news or distorts it.


Sent to Editor and Dana Milbank. Wash Post. 6/19/05.

Dear Sirs, As a proud American I am gratified to see there are still reporters like your Dana
Milbank. In perilous times such as we live in today it is reassuring to know that the traditions
of the Press are being upheld. I salute you for your committment to Free Speech and a Free Press.
It is essential to maintaining our civil rights and liberties that freedom of expression is granted
to all, even to those with whom we may disagree or who may distort and manipulate facts and events
to serve their own agendas. We need a Press of all hues, Red, White, Blue and Yellow. Dana Milbank
carries on the traditions of the latter. Free Speech includes the freedom to not tell the truth if
it suits your purpose, but....The Truth Shall Set You Free !.
May all the powers that be preserve and defend us.
Patrick Monk.RN. SF. Ca.

A lil help if you could?

I apologize for reposting, but I believe that this letter contains a very good argument for retraction. This is now personal to me. I don't like people who don't know me, implying that I am racist. So if Mr. Milbank does not respond with an apology, or Mr. Getler doesn't ask for his resignation, then I will do everything in my power to guarantee that both of them are collecting food stamps.

Mr.Fertik, please read this letter and refer it to a lawyer if you can, to see if I have any legal grounds for a new letter, this one with an "Esq." in the letter head. I have next to zero resources, being that I just got on my feet. But your reputation is more at stake than mine. I have no problem howling this in the moonlight for as long as it takes, even if that is exactly what the refer to me as doing. Hey, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?

Besides, you guys gave me cool stickers.

The following is my contribution to truth. Read the articles contained in the links, and do what you think is appropriate. Please be respectful. There are some Republicans possing as Democrats writing nasty letters to discredit us.

Mr. Getler,

I'm writing in response to your article yesterday in defense of Dana Milbank, and his recent articles. I'm surprised to see that there was no mention of his article from Friday, June 17th titled "Democrats Play House to Rally Against War". The article that caused Congressman John Conyers to write a letter demanding an apology.

I'm sure that you got more than a few of those "hateful, obscene, and sometimes anti-Semitic" letters from people as offended as I was over this article. Personally, I wonder why there is no mention of this report, or commentary, or whatever you feel comfortable classifying it as.

If you feel the need to use the anti-Semitic "label" in your article to describe the letters you have received as of late, then I should point out that your friend and colleague, Dana Milbank, is just as guilty as they are in their use of such rhetoric. In case you missed it, I included the quote.

"At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

This is the text of the so implied "Anti-Semitic Document" handed out at DNC headquarters. "Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush. Filed by Philip J. Berg, Esquire".

I would like to refer you to count IV, section 61 A, titled "Explicit warnings from foreign Sources"(note subsections 9, 14, 16 and 19), thru section 61 B, subsection 21 D beginning, "Alhazmi opened a $3000...". This is the source, and section printed and handed out at DNC HQ. I was given a stack outside of DNC HQ that I took home to eventualy distribute in Philadelphia. I'm not in the habit of handing out someone elses literature without scrutinizing, or disclaming my reservations. Nowhere does this document blame Israel for the attacks. This document states that Israel WARNED U.S. officials numerous times. If anything, it states that Israel did what an ally should do. And in the absence of an American response, looked out for their citizens (probably Mosad agents warning family members).

I do not profess to know who was behind the "put options" purchases in the days before 9/11, but I do know that someone did it. But this is not the point of this letter. The point is that a public apology to Congressman Conyers and his supporters should be made by Mr. Milbank for this, and now you for failing to fully understand what he has done. Dana Milbank is misrepresenting the facts, and and in doing so, the people he was reporting or commenting on. Whatever his capacity was when writing this piece, this was out of bounds, and extremely insulting to me, and everyone present at DNC headquarters on 6/16/05.

The label "anti-Semitic" is a tool of character assassination. Whether merely insinuated, or espoused aloud, it can be a one way ticket to a professional black list or worse.

And one other thing. I was one of those people at the DNC Headquarters Thursday. So I tend to take slander, or liable personally.

If a retraction is not filed, I may be forced to seek legal council. I expect immediate action, giving equal space and placement in your publication. To assure this, I am sending this to letter to every "Wing Nut" internet posting I can find by my bedtime. It's now 5:00pm, and I don't usualy get to bed untill 2:00am.

Respectfully awaiting your response,

Your letter is outstanding...

... but I don't see grounds for a lawsuit. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the legal definition of libel (which is a subset of defamation) is harm to a person's name and reputation. A quick google search of the "definition of libel" will give you all the gory details. But I greatly appreciate your support, and the support of everyone who has written to the Post about this journalistic atrocity.

Well, it was worth a shot.

Mr. Fertik

I figured it was a long shot. Thanks for setting me strait on that. Alow me to show you my latest letter. feel free to do with it as you please.

Dear friends, neighbors, and countrymen,

We have seen the neo-conservatives’ ability to use talking points and code words, such as “obstructionist”, to devastating effect in recent years. They propagate, and repeat their message thru a network that I would describe as the “Whisper Wall Effect”. Let me explain.

Standing in the middle of the whisper wall, (as the true journalist usually will) you can’t tell what is being transmitted by the two people at either end of the whisper wall, or even be able to realize that they are communicating at all. But then, all of the sudden they stand and repeat the same exact phrase. Not everybody will understand this analogy at first, but those who know what a whisper wall is, will understand how a layman would see this as extraordinary, or not even know of its existence.

Within this analogy, I would compare the whisper wall to entities such as the Evangelical Church, groups such as the Project for a New American Century, talk radio, the so called “liberally biased media”, and the so called “town hall meetings” that key Administration officials hold for the cameras and the select few who have been cleared by Administration staff and forced to sign the “Loyalty Contract”.

Karl Rove, or others tied with the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party, will choose a key word or phrase, and have Administration officials and staff emphasize these words in inner-departmental memos, and correspondences and speeches to supporters. The next thing you know, everyone is singing it like the latest pop song.

The best, and from what I see, the only way to defend against this tactic is to find a way to throw the same tactic back in their face.

By taking positive terms used to glorify themselves and their actions, and vehemently denouncing their use of the term due to the disparaging differences between the person/entity of action/initiative, and the term being used. Repeatedly using the term in such context as;

a) (word/phrase) has nothing to do with (entity/action).
b) How could you call (entity/action) (word/phrase)
c) Well, let’s compare (word/phrase) to (entity/action)
d) Use word play to associate the word or phrase with the actions of the people being promoted, or the initiatives being proposed.
e) Repeatedly say, “I refuse to call him/her/them/what they propose/what they did, (word/phrase). One has nothing to do with the other. Unless you can call (word/phrase) (action /entity)”.
f) And be sure to drop these rebuttals right on to the dinner tables of the people who propelled that person or group to their current position. Voters at home for elected officials, or shareholders, board members, employees, or customers for industry leaders. (Example: No child left behind, turns into Your child left behind). Always, I repeat, always try to personalize it for their constituency. Nothing will shut them up faster than making them think that continued support of their position will cause their base of power to “jump ship”.
By taking negative terms used against their targets, and finding a way to classify them with the exact same term, you neutralize the attack. This will expose them to public ridicule under charges of attempting to re-write the definition of the term in order to either demonize their opposition, or to provide cover for their own indiscretions or out right criminal acts.

Actions of an obstructionist.
Is it;
a) Senators who hold up the nomination of a sitting President’s choice for a key appointed position because the executive branch refuses to release documents deemed pertinent to the Senators’ abilities to properly perform there constitutional duty of Advise and Consent? Or;
b) The President and the Executive branch refusing to release documents deemed pertinent by presiding Senators to make an informed decision on the viabilities of a sitting President’s nomination of a divisive person to a key appointed position as pertains to their constitutional duties of Advise and Consent?

Is it;
a) Congressmen and Senator who hold up an energy bill because the executive branch refuses to release the minutes of a meeting between the Vice-President and leaders of the energy industry, including some implicated and/or suspected in crimes that resulted in economic damage to millions of American families and/or foreigners, that they believe is necessary to determine the need/benefits for said bill to be passed? Or;
b) The President and the Executive branch refusing to release the minutes of a meeting between the Vice-President and leaders of the energy industry so that Congressmen and Senators can make an informed decision on the need/benefit of an energy bill that is pending in their perspective legislative bodies?

Is it;
a) Using existing Senate rules to block the nomination of judges deemed unworthy of the job by enough Senators to effectively and legally reject the nomination? Or;
b) Attempting to change existing Senate rules because not enough votes can be found to effectively and legally pass the nomination of judges deemed unworthy by enough Senators?

The advantage of this method is in the lack of necessity for a “Whisper Wall” apparatuses. With nothing more than the word or phrase, penned and proliferated by the neo-conservative propaganda machine and a computer with a good search engine, we can swiftly and efficiently neutralize and re-direct almost anything they throw at us.

I would advise the use of this method immediately regarding the use of the word “obstructionist”. I have given three recent examples that could easily be deployed. These are examples of national issues. But they could be easily tailored to any individual using such talking points. Just get to know who it is that is saying it, and have unimpeachable facts to hit back with. As an example, I would refer you to my recent letter posted on my site to Mr. Getler from the Washington Post regarding an article by Dana Milbank.

“If you feel the need to use the anti-Semitic "label" in your article to describe the letters you have received as of late, then I should point out that your friend and colleague, Dana Milbank, is just as guilty as they are in their use of such rhetoric. In case you missed it, I included the quote and the link.”

"At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

I then produce the document and the source of the document in question. The document, by the way gives three instances in which warnings were issued by the Israeli government to American authorities, effectively clearing Israel of wrong doing in the eyes of the author.

I continued, “I do not profess to know who was behind the "put options" purchases in the days before 9/11, but I do know that someone did it. But this is not the point of this letter. The point is that a public apology to Congressman Conyers and his supporters is should be made by Mr. Milbank for this, and now you for failing to fully understand what he has done. Dana Milbank is misrepresenting the facts, and in doing so, the people he was reporting or commenting on. Whatever his capacity was when writing this piece, this was out of bounds, and extremely insulting to me, and everyone present at DNC headquarters on 6/16/05.”

We need to do something. Time, more and more seems to be a factor. And I say this with dual meanings. The Democratic Party is highly factional. This is an unavoidable by-product of our firm belief in the Constitution. Though this trait is of the highest commend ability, it slows down our response time and can, at times, be a self-muting train wreck. This could not be more evident than in the response from Chairman Howard Dean regarding the “anti-Semitic document” that I referred to earlier.

Without reading the document in question, Dean said, “Unfortunately, some members of the audience took it upon themselves to distribute anti-Semitic literature at the Wasserman Conference room where an overflow crowd observed the proceedings on television. We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations”. (Much love to Chairman Dean. It was the whole Democratic party that was caught with there pants down on this one).

If he had read the document first, or demanded Dana Milbank to produce the document in question, or just contact someone from, who was also assailed in the Milbanks article, and asked if they know of this aleged document, he would never have made such a statement and would, in contrary, be demanding a retraction like I have. Now it seems that Dana Milbank has no fear of my wrath, because I have gotten nowhere. You want to know why? Because, I’M THE ONLY PERSON THAT SAW THE THIS MISREPRESENTATION. And no one seems to be saying anything about it. By the time something is done about this, the damage will have already have been done.

Now let’s talk about time in a diferent, and more sobering scale. America is in jepordy. Not just our freedoms, not just our homes, not just our bank acounts. America herself. We are being driven over a cliff by this Administration.They are making more enemies than we can kill. Soon, either the world’s economy and their governments will colapse, or the whole world will just get tired of this Administration’s shit, and we’ll have to fight everybody. One way or another, troubling times are fast approaching. This could never be more throughly defined than in the interview with Julian Robertson on CNBC wit Ron Insana, summerized by Al Martin of, and obtained by commenters on Conyersblog.

Recently, Karl Rove, speaking in New York said something that illustrates the neo-conservetive modus-operandi. “Conservetives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks, and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks, and wanted to prepare indictments and offer theropy and understanding to our attackers”. This was, hands down, thee most dispicable lie I’ve ever heard from a member of this Administration. Many, as they damn well should be, are incessed over these remarks. But might I point out an unintentional truth hidden within this treacherous remark. Indictment are exactly what we want, for the planners, the purpotrators, and the proffiteers, of the events of 9/11. Whether we need to use brute millitary force to serve these indictments to those overseas, or the first Amendment to force the removal and/or inpeachment of private and public citizens under every law on the books including, but not limited to treason (art 1. sec.6), trading with the enemy
, privatly conducting unsanctiond foreign policies, use of propaganda on U.S. citizens, lying to Congress, abuse of power, and the attempted overthrow of the U.S. Constitution

“Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane .... But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion”.
Dr. Henry Kissinger, circa 1957.

These are the words written by Kissinger for his Doctrine. Is this the blueprint for this method of deception adopted by the neo-conservative branch of the Republican Party? Is this why he was initially chosen to head up the 9/11 Commission? If so, this means that they plan to overthrow the Constitution, and are all guilty of treason against the United States of America, and her citizens.

Time may no longer exist for us to fix the problems we face due to their egregious actions, but we must do what is necessary to snatch total victory from these treasonous demagogues.

Take back our country, before it is no longer worth having.


By the way, did we happen to meet at that day in DC?

I was waiting until I calmed

I was waiting until I calmed down enough to write coherently to respond to Mr. Milbank, however this from the ombudsman sent me to my keyboard without the calmness that I had hoped for.

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."

So I just wrote this and sent it to him:

Dear Mr. Michael Getler;

While Mr. Milbank is certainly entitled to his opinion, as a journalist, he is not entitled to distort the facts of any story. What is the point of mocking Congressman Conyers and the other democrats who held the inquiry? Is it just a game of kick the weaker party, while they are basically powerless or was there some other point that was not discernable in his little screed. Even after a second read I could find nothing informative in the piece.

I am guessing that Mr. Milbank is practicing in the hope of some day getting his name on the short list of op-ed writers with wit and brilliance, who's columns we all remember and quote for years after they have left the business. If this is his goal he might be better off staying in real journalism and try to do a bit of homework on his subject, since the latest attempt "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War" was filled with errors. I hate to be harsh, but anyone could have checked out the facts on this story, without having to lift their butt off the seat of their computer chair. It is not as if he is being asked to get up and walk somewhere for heaven sake.

Making fun of the lack of ambiance of the room seems a bit simple minded to me, but if he thought it would add some very badly needed color to the article I can understand his vain attempt there, however there are 18 different memos circulating that have all been authenticated by the British and I would think that this might be more of a story than the decor of the hearing room.

There must be some young Jimmy Olson that could take over the column in Milbank's place. Just as a thought Mr. Milbank might be sent on assignment to Phoenix to visit the grave of Barry Goldwater and report back to us, if there is any credence to the rumor that Mr. Goldwater is spinning in his grave over what the neocons have done to his republican party. That could produce a prize winning column in itself.

It is not up to me to tell you how to run the Washington Post, it is however my pleasure to inform you that I am helping to organize a boycott of your paper and it's sponsors. The feeling among many democrats is that if you have no respect for us and find Mr. Milbank's ridicule entertaining we prefer not to be associated with you, in any small way. If of course Mr. Milbank were willing to apologize to Congressman Conyers and to Bob Fertik and I would be happy to continue to read the WP with my morning coffee. That is only a suggestion and I expect to see it happen when pigs fly and neocons start telling the truth and I start to read the Washington Post again.

You may find that the powerless democrats have more power than you thought. We are still a large percent of the buying public and there are many outlets where we can get both national and international news without insult to our party affiliation or to our intelligence.

Just another Democrat wingnut or as I prefer a proud member of the reality based community
(Here I signed it with my real name, address and e-mail address)

P.S. Mr. Milbank knows full well that no one from wrote or called him with any threats or ethnic/anti-Semitic slurs. Making accusations of that nature is way over the line. It is not only way beneath us it is illegal. Unless he has traced the calls and knows who might have threatened him he owes Mr. Fertik a public apology for that charge alone.

Proud member of the reality based community.

Great letter Di!

Great letter Di!

I see that guy Millbank on

I see that guy Millbank on the Kieth Oberman show all the time, I am always puzzled as to why they interview him as a reference and political insider at the Post, the guy sucks..

I wonder if the freepers have gotten to him in our name ??


Wonderful letter to Milbank

Tuesday 21st June 2005 (07h29) :
Letter to Dana Milbank about the Downing Street Memo and Corporate Media Complicity in War Crimes

This is the letter that I wish I had been able to write. Since I couldn't I am so glad that someone did.

Proud member of the reality based community.

Yes, that was a terrific

Yes, that was a terrific letter, thanks for the link.

I & Million Americans Agree with Bush

Dennis J. Gulleson


Dennis J. Gulleson The Iraq

Dennis J. Gulleson

The Iraq war was not an illigal war...if it was of-course the Liberal
Judicial Justices would have said so. Sounds like that the Democrats
needs a greesed up and stop squaking for nothing!

Would that be the SCOTUS?

Would that be the SCOTUS? Last time I checked, it was 5-4 in your favor. If I'm wrong, then I'll accept my "greesing" and stop my "squaking".

I need a reality check

I need a reality check folks:

Trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The police however do NOT require proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to pursue leads. If they did we would never get anywhere.

In order to expose a truth journalists use to behave like the police.

My question is this: does any journalist in the USA truly believe President Bush DIDN’T lie about when he decided to go to war?


Not convinced? Try this: I have a trick I use to help peal away any internal biases. Ask yourself which side of the coin you would bet your loved ones life on. Go ahead it works. Democrats should use it when dealing with scandal within our party. Republicans should use it. Journalist MUST use it.