American Politics Journal -- A Case History in the Culture of Lies: The Washington Post

A Case History in the Culture of Lies 1 | 2 | 3 | Footnotes | SPJ | McKinney

The Strange Case of Cynthia McKinney

Actually, it wasn't strange. It was standard smear politics. Take what someone says, stretch it into what they didn't say and then ridicule them for it. The only thing that's strange is that McKinney hasn't gone down to punch Post editor Len Downie a few feet below the nose.

Let's take this smear step by step. Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, long known as an impassioned defender of the poor and powerless, was one of the early dissenters in Bush's "War on Terra". As early as October of last year, the Republican Party labeled McKinney disloyal, a traitor, an enemy of America. More recently, the Post tried to turn her into a laughingstock. They may have accidentally turned her into a heroine.

Unlike Barbara Lee, Congresswoman from California, McKinney did not vote against granting Bush extraordinary powers in the wake of September 11th. But when she rebuked New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for rejecting a $10 million Saudi donation to the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, the right wing exploded. They labeled her "Hanoi Jane", temporarily displacing Jane Fonda from the role of most hated liberal in America. Here are some quotes:

Cynthia McKinney: Today's Hanoi Jane ...in this War Against Terrorism, we have Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., -- Jihad Cindy -- to demoralize us and give aid and comfort to the enemy.
-- Debbie Schlussel [9]
This is the kind of "justice" the American apologists for terrorism seek. They believe all will be right with the world when Osama bin Laden is whistling behind bars, growing his beard to the floor, writing his memoirs, and breaking bread with kindred congressional visitors like Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney and Jim McDermott.
-- The "other Ann Coulter" (as she was called by Chris Mooney in The American Prospect), Michelle "Malkin" Maglalang [10]
Look -- the brutal truth here is that Cynthia McKinney is not on our side. She's on THEIR side. She wants the terrorists to prevail! I'm not saying that Cynthia McKinney hates America. I am saying that she hates what America is. Individualism, competition, free enterprise, capitalism, private property rights, the accumulation of private wealth through hard work -- these are all aspects of daily life in America that Cynthia McKinney and her socialist fellow travelers in Congress don't like. They want to see America brought to its knees by the terrorist onslaught.
-- Neal Boortz [11]
airheaded, racist bi*ch… a waste of skin… cutest little commie in Congress… traitor… No one would prosecute a woman of color who holds office. The negroes would riot and she would stoke the fire…. a bi*ch, she is the worst c*********g m***********g G**-d****** b***h son of a wh*** piece of s*** in congress
-- Free Republic website [12]

If McKinney were an enemy, a buddy of bin Laden's, then presumably any means to destroy her would be justified. But character assassination by an all-powerful media does almost as well. And so The Washington Post commissioned the well-regarded Juliet Eilperin, formerly of Roll Call, for a sleazy little hit piece on McKinney, published April 12th [13]. National Review picked it up from there [14]. The New York Post picked it up on April 14th [15]. The Washington Times picked it up on April 17th [16] and went back into the echo chamber, with Howard Kurtz giving Jonah Goldberg megadittoes on the same day [17]. The smears therefore appear to originate with The Washington Post and propagate out to what is normally thought of as the right-wing media.

The essence of the smear is contained in the title, "Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot" [13]. But when one reads the article, the quotes of McKinney do not imply a plot, nor do they blame Bush for the murders of 9/11. McKinney asked what the Administration -- presumably especially the intelligence agencies -- knew. Since it has been reported in numerous mainstream sources (London Independent, Jane's, Los Angeles Times) that the intelligence agencies were given warnings (of what specificity, we do not know), this is an extremely good question. McKinney noted that the Administration tried to shut down the normal process of Congressional investigation and asked, "What do they have to hide?" Probably nothing, but given that Congress routinely investigates everything from the shootings at Waco to insurance for soybeans, one has to wonder why there is so much resistance to having Congressional hearings on the murder of almost 3,000 Americans.

Furthermore, it is true that defense companies have profited from war fever, that one of those companies is the Carlyle Group, and that former President George HW Bush happens to be employed by Carlyle. Eilperin was careful not to report the fact that the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion dollars or McKinney's remark that the Crusader system does not work or that the Carlyle Group may be skirting congressional rules or that McKinney's job on the Armed Services committee requires her to inquire into whether tax dollars are being spent efficiently. Nor did Eilperin report that McKinney says that she received a lot of hate mail. Indeed, in insertions into the transcript of remarks on FreeRepublic.com, Freeper "FinnMan" asks that McKinney, "reconsider going back to Africa since you think the United States is so rotten and terribly unfair to you" and says, "black folks can't vote garbage".

The only comment of McKinney that even requires some thought is "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York…?" This clearly does not refer to the Administration but to people outside the Administration. In context, it points primarily to those alleged to have profited from trading in the stock market. However, it could also refer to Saudi Arabia. It is not credible that so many Saudi Arabian terrorists could have come, mostly legally, to the United States, with some (according to the Los Angeles Times) obtaining flight training at a secure, i.e., military facility. Why is asking questions of the Saudis such a touchy subject?

Finally, Eilperin labeled McKinney "radical" and a devotee of "conspiracy theories", and used Carlyle and Bush spokesmen as hand puppets to heap scorn on McKinney. The major target for this attack seems to have been McKinney's challenge to the legitimacy of the person currently acting as President. Yet McKinney cited former President Jimmy Carter as her authority for that sentiment -- would the Post allow such jeering quotes and disrespectful language about Carter? For that matter, why does the Post mingle election talk into an article about 9/11? Presumably, this is an attempt to discredit the questions that millions of citizens ask about both topics.

Here are the quotes Eilperin found so odious. Note her abuse of ellipses to remove the context from the quotes:

We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?
persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." "What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th, . . .
[Referring to the fact that former President Jimmy Carter stated that no responsible oversight group would have certified George Bush's election results in Florida]"an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."

Furthermore, one must understand is that these quotes are excerpted from a lengthy radio appearance with Dennis Bernstein on 3/25/02 on KPFA, Berkeley [18]. One could also have written an article based on the following excepts:

We are the most powerful nation on the face of the planet because we have combined raw power with American ideals such as dignity, freedom, justice, and peace. These ideas and ideals are admired around the globe and are more important, in my view, to our position of global strength than our ability to shoot a missile down a chimney. We might be feared because of our military, but we are loved because of our ideals.
It's always good to hear from people who think like you. I definitely hear from people who don't think like you. And that's healthy. It's a part of the American process. But just as it's healthy for me to hear from people who don't think like me, it's also very healthy for people like me to have a voice and to be willing to speak. And it's totally inappropriate, I believe, for my patriotism to be questioned, my feelings of attachment and loyalty for America to be questioned.

Eilperin left those on the cutting floor.

The smear against McKinney continued to mutate. Alerted by The Washington Post that McKinney was fair game, Southeastern Legal Foundation and other elements of the "get Clinton" movement were back in action. They discovered that "since 9/11", McKinney had received numerous contributions from people with foreign-sounding, possibly Arabic or Muslim names, and that many of these contributions came from out of state. Contributors included Abdurahman Alamoudi, alleged to be of Hezbollah and Hamas. But, in true Wile E. Coyote cartoon fashion, the terrorist trail led around in a circle to…George W. Bush. It turns out that he, too, accepted contributions from some of the same people. So did former Republican Senator Spencer Abraham and a number of other political figures.

There are three points that no political commentator with an ounce of irony in his marrow could leave unsaid. The first is that, in fact, a senior Washington figure has accused the Bush Administration of foreknowledge:

The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the Sept. 11 attacks, high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists' method of operation surprised them. Many stick to that story. Actually, elements of the hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.
--Robert Novak, right-wing anchor of Crossfire, in Townhall.com, 9/17/02 [19]

One can confidently bet that no one in Washington will accuse Novak of being a "radical" or a "conspiracy theorist".

The second is that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in a huff of self-righteous indignation at McKinney put up an online poll asking whether people believed that the Administration was responsible for the attack of 9/11. The poll was promptly taken down when it was discovered that about half the responses were in the affirmative [20].

Finally, it must be said in sorrow that not all those who smeared McKinney came from the right-wing or the corporate media. Chris Suellentrop of Slate, David Corn of The Nation and Joshua Micah Marshall should read the transcript of what McKinney said and examine their own faces for mud. And where are the Democrats? Where is the Congressional Black Caucus? Charlie Rangel is a decorated hero. John Lewis is an undecorated hero. But today they are hiding under the table with Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt.

Next: But Surely They Are Reasonable People! >>
1 | 2 | 3 | Footnotes | SPJ | McKinney