Four years ago that didn't even rate a mention. Today the WaPo buries them on Page A04. Its an improvement of sorts, but only a very modest one. Now that we all know these reps were, you know... right... should they be getting more coverage than this?
Here's a taste:
Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.
With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence.Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar, both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command -- a part of which is in Spratt's district.
"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.
The article is full of quotes like these, all of which were made prior to both the vote to authorize the use of force and the launch of the war itself. But once again, the Post buries what should have been part of the lead:
The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.
"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.
126 Dems voted against the final resolution, and not one - NOT ONE - was quoted in the Post the day after the vote. If you want proof that the media did their part to suppress "dissent" in the mad rush to war, you're not likely to find anything better. Despite the soaring popularity of the president, nearly 1/4 of the US House of Representatives, and more than half of House Democrats, voted against him and his war.
The Dems don't stand for anything? Their spineless creatures of politics who wait to see which way the wind blows before acting? They're weak on defense and unwilling to stand up for the troops? I'm sorry, no. Try again. A majority of the Democratic caucus voted against a war that we now know has been a disaster. Or in other words, they were right and the Republican caucus was wrong.
Doesn't that deserve more than page A04?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
