and what's wrong over at npr?

national public radio's intelligence correspondent mary louise kelly covered john conyer's hearings and does as writer joe reinhart claims , ignore completely ray mc govern's testimony.

she refers to the 4 people giving testimony as "not an unbiased panel"--- "the witnesses--we heard from 4 witnesses --cindy sheehan who has been outspoken in protesting the bush administration's policies ... a boston lawyer who opposes the bush administration ,and also from joe wilson who of course is the former US ambassador who's been very critical of the bush administration and has actually written a book titled 'the politics of truth inside the lies that led to war', so this was not an unbiased panel"


her "unbiased" reporting on congressman conyers' hearings are available for listening at NPR's program "all things considered "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4706664


she refers to the people interested or involved in the downing street memo investigation primarily as "a strong herd of liberal bloggers" but ray mcgovern 27 year veteran of cia--if my memory is correct-- did the daily cia morning briefings for the first president bush--making mc govern hardly a "liberal".

"a strong herd of liberal bloggers of anti-war demonstrators and of politicians --as we saw from today's hearing -who are determined not to let this story die and they have been very successful in the 6 weeks since this memo first came to light in getting the media to pay attention"--- does she use the term "herd" as in mindless cows or sheep following blindly ?

or does kelly mean citizens determined that the media finally do it's job in a democracy and cover a story that the media's tried to ignore since the downing street memo first came out

she repeats the whitehouse line of john conyers being a member of congress who voted against the war and is merely "re-hashing an old debate"

interesting to note is that the republican-controlled congress recently cut by 25 percent the funding for public broadcasting --republicans citing the "liberal bias" of pbs as their reasoning ---this coverage , or better yet miscoverage of this story by npr shows that the exact opposite is the case ---the public media supposed to be most unbiased ,is found to be blatantly covering up for the bush administration ...npr is really sinking to new lows.



what's worse is that mary louise kelly repeats almost verbatim the spin issued by the white house in response to the charges.

"press secretary scott mccllean ...he insisted again the focus of the president is gonna be not on the past but on the future in trying to look ahead in iraq ...the whitehouse of course has been determined to have the opposite outcome (on citizen demands for congressional investigation into the downing street memo ), to let this die away and they have insisted repeatedly that there is nothing new in this memo , they were simply investigating the options for war in the summer of 2002 --no decision had been made ."--npr intelligence correspondent mary louise kelly

she slanders the hearings as "polarized" on party lines --reminds listeners that no republican members of congress were there.

she slanders the four witnesses giving testimony to the hearing as- "not unbiased"... she slanders representative conyers by repeating whitehouse spin about him being originally opposed to the war and "rehashing old debate" and in effect also slanders, by calling them a "herd of liberal bloggers" , the more than 500,000 citizens who signed conyers' internet based petition after the downing street memo came out --demanding congressional hearings into whether bush deliberately slanted the facts on iraq into lies to convince congress and the public that iraq was a regional and global threat to the Us.

then ms kelly finishes by repeating almost verbatim whitehouse press secretary spin on the matter --the whitehouse repeatedly insists don't focus on the past --look forward ---don't rehash old debate --look forward--the liberal herd may be determined to force investigation of this story -and has forced the butt-kissing media to do so ---but the whitehouse of course has been determined to have the opposite outcome , to let this die away and they have insisted repeatedly that there is nothing new in this memo ,they were simply investigating the options for war in the summer of 2002 --no decision had been made .

this short-memoried npr "intelligence" correspondent ends with a subtly worded , subtly spun and delivered suggestion effective only for the "true bush believers/the still gullible"-- that we are to swallow the now obvious lie --"no decision had been made" in advance to go to war in iraq --yet the facts clearly show the future bush administration neo-cons authored a paper to bill clinton in 1998 demanding regime change in iraq--candidate bush in 1999 said to his biographer that if he got the "chance to invade" he wasn't going to waste it-- and intended to use that "chance" to ramrod his domestic agenda up congress' arse --the first national security council meeting of dub bush's presidency in jan 2001, treasury secretary paul o'neil said in his later book that he was stunned that the first topic was toppling saddam hussein --without mentioning any evidence of any threat or danger he posed--it was assumed that toppling saddam was just something that had to be done --with no reason given---and 9 months later , before the dust from the destroyed world trade center towers had cleared --the bush administration was trying frantically to connect the attacks to saddam hussein--followed up by dick-head cheney's repeated and highly unusual visits to cia headquarters --pressuring intel anaylsts to 'dig deeper' and rejecting evidence to the contrary of the whitehouse wmd/al qaeda lies to justify an invasion of iraq .