Media Matters for America

In March 3 articles, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) and Los Angeles Times noted that the state-owned Dubai Ports World (DPW) has agreed to a 45-day investigation of the potential national security implications of its bid to acquire operational control of six U.S. ports. But both articles omitted the highly relevant fact that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United Sates (CFIUS) -- the Bush administration panel that initially approved the acquisition and will now investigate it -- opted not to conduct such an investigation when it first reviewed the deal. Moreover, both articles quoted members of Congress criticizing the deal in committee hearings but failed to note that during these same hearings, these congressional members asserted that the Bush administration was legally required to conduct a 45-day investigation of the deal.

A federal law known as the Exon-Florio provision requires a 30-day review of direct foreign investment in the United States and provides for an additional 45-day investigation of potential national security implications. CFIUS did not conduct a 45-day investigation of the DPW deal. Instead, it approved the deal after only the initial review.

DPW is owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates -- a country that some major media outlets have said has a "mixed" record on terrorism. A 1993 amendment to Exon-Florio -- known as the Byrd Amendment -- mandates a 45-day investigation if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

As a result, Republicans and Democrats have argued that the Bush administration flouted the law by initially approving the deal without the additional investigation. For example, in a February 22 USA Today op-ed, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) wrote that "CFIUS only completed a brief 23-day staff review and didn't even begin the 45-day investigation required by law." Neither the Times nor the Journal mentioned this argument.

Following congressional and public criticism of the deal, DPW and the Bush administration agreed to have CFIUS conduct a 45-day investigation.

In the Times article, staff writers Joel Havemann and Richard Simon noted that at a March 2 House Armed Services Committee hearing, "legislators castigated" CFIUS members for their initial approval of the deal "at a relatively low level of the bureaucracy," but the Times did not mention that CFIUS had opted not to conduct the 45-day investigation provided for by federal law.

From the March 3 Los Angeles Time article, "Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites":

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover, which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S. terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment[s] in the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny. That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

The Times quoted from Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) opening statement at the hearing:

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in U.S. hands."

But the Times did not report that in that same statement, Hunter criticized CFIUS for originally failing to investigate the deal's national security implications and suggested that such an investigation was "warranted" under the Byrd Amendment.

From Hunter's March 2 written statement:

HUNTER: Not too long ago this Committee sat together to discuss the Chinese National Oil Offshore Corporation's bid to merge with Unocal. In that instance the CFIUS review did not believe that the merger deal warranted the 45-day investigation, known as the Byrd Amendment.

Once again, today we find ourselves in a similar situation where none of the participants in CFIUS believed that the DP World acquisition warranted a 45-day investigation. While I think everyone on this Committee recognizes that government is imperfect and is prone to making mistakes, the Congress and the citizens of this country do not have to tolerate a process that repeatedly makes the same mistake.

It was only the huge public outcry and the pressure from the Congress that ultimately led to increase scrutiny of the DP World deal. Recently the officers of DP World requested that CFIUS conduct the 45-day investigation.

Moreover, in uncritically reporting that CFIUS -- which initially approved the deal -- "determines whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies seek to buy American industry or invest in it," the Times ignored questions about whether the committee actually looked into security concerns during its initial 30-day review. In a March 1 interview with CNN, King reportedly told congressional correspondent Ed Henry that he spoke with officials from the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security who were involved in CFIUS' approval of the deal. King said:

KING: I started asking questions about, did you check the al Qaeda connections of the companies, of anyone who was there before 9/11 who's still there now who could pose a problem? And I was told, "Well, Congressman, you don't understand, we don't conduct a thorough investigation. We just ask the intelligence director, 'Was there anything on file?' And he said no."

[...]

KING: No, I can't emphasize enough, there has been no investigation into terrorism whatsoever on this contract.

On March 2, the Times reprinted a Baltimore Sun article that reported that "King's account ... seemed to contradict the testimony of administration officials, including Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, who have said repeatedly that the earlier review resolved any national security questions." But the Times omitted this information from its March 3 article.

Similarly, the Journal article (subscription required) -- by reporters Greg Hitt and Jason Singer -- noted that "the Bush administration is preparing to open a new 45-day investigation of the national-security implications of that deal," but did not mention that the administration never conducted a 45-day investigation to begin with. The Journal added that a British judge who reviewed the deal "noted" that CFIUS "gave the proposed acquisition a clean bill of health."

The Journal also noted that at a March 2 Senate Banking Committee hearing, senators criticized the administration's approval of the deal. According to the Journal, "The deal was cleared by a U.S. interagency panel in January after a security-risk investigation that was 'deeply flawed,' charged Maryland Sen. Paul Sarbanes, the panel's top-ranking Democrat." But the Journal made no effort to explain why Sarbanes believed the process was "deeply flawed." In fact, in the same statement, Sarbanes explained his view that the administration violated the law by failing to conduct a 45-day investigation into the deal's national security implications. From Sarbanes's written statement:

SARBANES: Exon-Florio was amended in 1992, most importantly to mandate a 45 day investigation if a foreign government-owned company acquired a company in the U.S. whose operations relate to the national security. The 1992 amendment also required a report to Congress by the President after the conclusion of any Exon-Florio investigation; in that report to the Congress, the President was charged by the statute to provide a "detailed explanation" of why he had either permitted or rejected the acquisition in question.

[...]

Exon-Florio states that:

"The President or the President's designee shall make an investigation, as described in subsection (a), in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States."

How could one reasonably question the fact that the Government of Dubai's control of the corporation that their operating of major terminals in some of the largest ports in the United States "could affect national security"? Port security is a major component of our defenses against terrorism. Our ports are critical to the national economy and to our conduct of international trade. And our ports employ tens of thousands of our citizens. Still, despite ownership of DPW by the Government of Dubai, no 45-day investigation occurred.

I co-sponsored the 1992 amendment to Exon-Florio that provided for a 45 day investigation. Senator Robert Byrd, the sponsor of the amendment, said on the floor when the amendment was being considered that:

"[I]t requires that any acquisition that involves a company controlled by a foreign government, as was the case with Thomson's attempt to buy LTV Corp.'s missile division, must automatically receive the more detailed 45-day investigation."

Like the Times, the Journal also quoted from Hunter's March 2 statement without noting his concerns about CFIUS' apparent failure to comply with the Byrd Amendment.

From the March 3 Wall Street Journal article, "White House Fails To Calm Port Furor":

The deal was cleared by a U.S. interagency panel in January after a security-risk investigation that was "deeply flawed," charged Maryland Sen. Paul Sarbanes, the panel's top-ranking Democrat.

[...]

"This problem is not going away," said House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.). Mr. Hunter said he will introduce legislation to force foreign companies to divest holdings of U.S. infrastructure assets deemed important to national security.

Ostensibly at DP World's request, the Bush administration is preparing to open a new 45-day investigation of the national-security implications of that deal. During the investigation, the company has pledged it will "not influence or attempt to influence" any of the U.S. operations.

[...]

The British judge said he reviewed legislation proposed in the U.S. to potentially block the deal and considered DP World's response to the furor. He said Eller is at least partly to blame for fanning the uproar over the deal and noted the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, the 12-member interagency panel that reviews foreign transactions, gave the proposed acquisition a clean bill of health.

During the March 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity claimed: "There's nobody at Guantánamo Bay that's there for nothing." Hannity made his remark in response to co-host Alan Colmes's charge that many detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, "never did anything" that warranted their detention. In fact, Stuart Taylor wrote in the February 3 edition of National Journal that "[a]t least eight prisoners at Guantanamo are there even though they are no longer designated as enemy combatants." In addition, a February 8 Seton Hall University School of Law study, authored by two lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees, analyzed Defense Department data on 517 Guantánamo Bay detainees, finding that more than half "are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies," and that a plurality have no apparent ties to Al Qaeda. A March 6 New York Times article about the Pentagon's release of 5,000 pages of documents regarding Guantánamo detainees reported that although many of them have confessed to terrorist ties, "there are many more, it seems, who sound like Abdur Sayed Rahman, a self-described Pakistani villager who says he was arrested at his modest home in January 2002, flown off to Afghanistan and later accused of being the deputy foreign minister of that country's deposed Taliban regime."

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, many of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay are reportedly being held without evidence of having committed hostile acts against the United States, or of having ties to Al Qaeda. Hannity and Colmes made their comments during a discussion with Flagg Youngblood, program and development director at Young America's Foundation (YAF), about former Taliban spokesman and current Yale University student Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. YAF is a conservative organization that, according to its mission statement, "is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values."

Despite Hannity's suggestion that "[t]here's nobody at Guantánamo Bay" being held "for nothing," ample evidence exists to the contrary. For instance, as Media Matters has previously noted, a February 3 National Journal report documented the apparent lack of evidence against many of the detainees:

Some of the men [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld described [in a June 27, 2005, statement] -- the terrorists, the trainers, the financiers, and the battlefield captures -- are indeed at Guantanamo. But National Journal's detailed review of government files on 132 prisoners who have asked the courts for help, and a thorough reading of heavily censored transcripts from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals conducted in Guantanamo for 314 prisoners, didn't turn up very many of them. Most of the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo -- for four years now -- are simply not the worst of the worst of the terrorist world.

Many of them are not accused of hostilities against the United States or its allies. Most, when captured, were innocent of any terrorist activity, were Taliban foot soldiers at worst, and were often far less than that. And some, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence -- even the classified evidence -- gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It's based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars.

[...]

Even as the CIA was deciding that most of the prisoners at Guantanamo didn't have much to say, Pentagon officials were getting frustrated with how little the detainees were saying. So they ramped up the pressure and gave interrogators more license.

The questions to the detainees about 9/11 and Al Qaeda and about each other were so constant, so repetitive, so oppressive that some prisoners, out of exasperation or fatigue or fear, just gave in and said, sure, I'm a terrorist. False confessions and false accusations are rampant, according to the lawyers and the Defense Department records.

One man slammed his hands on the table during an especially long interrogation and yelled, "Fine, you got me; I'm a terrorist." The interrogators knew it was a sarcastic statement. But the government, sometime later, used it as evidence against him: "Detainee admitted he is a terrorist" reads his tribunal evidence. The interrogators were so outraged that they sought out the detainee's personal representative to explain it to him that the statement was not a confession.

The National Journal reported that, according to Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's "bin Laden unit," "[b]y the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantánamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives."

Further, the National Journal also reported that several prisoners are being held even at Guantánamo after "no longer [being] designated as enemy combatants":

At least eight prisoners at Guantanamo are there even though they are no longer designated as enemy combatants. One perplexed attorney, whose client does not want public attention, learned that the man was no longer considered an enemy combatant only by reading a footnote in a Justice Department motion asking a federal judge to put a slew of habeas corpus cases on hold. The attorney doesn't know why the man is still in Cuba.

Additionally, a February 8 review of government documents by Seton Hall law school professor Mark Denbeaux and attorney Joshua Denbeaux, counsel to two Guantánamo detainees, found, among other things, that "[f]ifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies" and that "[o]nly 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for [the] capture of suspected enemies." The report also found that "[f]or 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified."

The March 6 article in The New York Times reported that the recently released Pentagon documents regarding the detainees "underscore[] the considerable difficulties that both the military and the detainees appear to have had in wrestling with the often thin or conflicting evidence involved." From the article:

Among the hundreds of men imprisoned by the American military at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, there are those who brashly assert their determination to wage war against what they see as the infidel empire led by the United States.

"May God help me fight the unfaithful ones," one Saudi detainee, Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi al-Shirbi, said at a military hearing where he was accused of being a lieutenant of Al Qaeda.

But there are many more, it seems, who sound like Abdur Sayed Rahman, a self-described Pakistani villager who says he was arrested at his modest home in January 2002, flown off to Afghanistan and later accused of being the deputy foreign minister of that country's deposed Taliban regime.

"I am only a chicken farmer in Pakistan," he protested to American military officers at Guantánamo. "My name is Abdur Sayed Rahman. Abdur Zahid Rahman was the deputy foreign minister of the Taliban."

From the March 2 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: All right. Well, we have people in Guantánamo Bay who never did anything, according to our own Justice Department, who had no connection to terrorism, and yet they're locked up, incarcerated, no attorney, no legal justice system working on their behalf. But would he [Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi] be better off at Yale or being trained as a terrorist some place?

YOUNGBLOOD: Well, again, he said he was the luckiest man on earth that he wasn't in Guantánamo Bay.

COLMES: He is very lucky not to be. You're right.

YOUNGBLOOD: You're right. So I think that's probably the place where he should be, if he admitted that himself.

COLMES: Right. But he's not a terrorist, as you suggest.

HANNITY: Hang on. There's nobody at Guantánamo that's there for no good reason.

COLMES: That's not what the Justice Department says.

HANNITY: Excuse me. Do you mind? There's nobody at Guantánamo Bay that's there for nothing. I want to talk about this guy. Not only is he a spokesman for the Taliban, he's an apologist for the Taliban. He made excuses for the Taliban, one of the worst, most brutal regimes in the last hundred years of human history. Isn't it true?

In his March 3 Wall Street Journal opinion column, deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger asserted, "nothing has been more destructive to Washington's current ability to function than the belief that 'Bush lied' about WMD" in Iraq, then claimed that the notion "was refuted by the Robb-Silberman Commission." In fact, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- co-chaired by former Sen. Charles Robb (D-VA) and Republican attorney and former judge Laurence H. Silberman -- did not investigate whether President Bush or members of his administration misled the public about Iraq intelligence. Nor, for that matter, has any other governmental entity to date. Rather, as Media Matters for America has previously noted (here and here), the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that "[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure" in the buildup to the Iraq war, though even that conclusion has been disputed by some senior intelligence officials.

Henninger's assertion that the Robb-Silberman Commission exonerated Bush of the charge that he "'lied' about WMD" is false. In its March 2005 report to President Bush, the commission noted: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community." Indeed, Bush's February 6, 2004, executive order establishing the commission limited the scope of its investigation to the production of intelligence:

[T]he Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery.

Similarly, the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq determined that intelligence assessments were not tainted by political "pressure." But the committee postponed until after the 2004 presidential election analysis of whether the Bush administration misused that intelligence, pledging to include it in the second -- as yet uncompleted -- phase of the report.

As Media Matters has previously noted, even the conclusion of these two reports that analysts received no "pressure" in gathering intelligence has been disputed by some senior intelligence officials, including W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of the Middle East office of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and Richard Kerr, a onetime acting CIA director who led an internal investigation of the CIA's failure to correctly assess Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

During the March 2 broadcast of CBS Evening News, anchor Bob Schieffer reported on the deal in which Dubai Ports World (DPW) would take over the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), and assume control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports as well as a separate deal in which "another Arab company" plans "to buy plants in the United States that make parts for planes and tanks." However, in both instances, Schieffer failed to mention that the companies involved are owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- a legal distinction that is central to whether the deals should be subject to an additional 45-day review for national security concerns. The administration initially resisted conducting the 45-day review in the DPW deal but finally acquiesced to an investigation of the transaction.

Scheiffer failed to mention that DPW and Dubai International Capital, the other "Arab company" he referred to, are both owned by the government of Dubai. The Washington Post has reported that Dubai International Capital is seeking to purchase a British firm that "has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors."

As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), numerous media outlets, in reporting on the ports deal, have failed to mention that DPW is owned by the Dubai government, instead choosing to describe it as an "Arab company" or a "Dubai-based company." In simply describing DPW as a company based in an Arab country, these media outlets have obscured the source of the bipartisan controversy over the takeover. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, as well as other critics, have argued that, in approving the deal, the administration flouted a federal law governing the transfer of American assets to foreign, government-owned companies. Enacted in 1988, the Exon-Florio provision established the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets. As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

From the March 2 broadcast of CBS Evening News:

SCHIEFFER: Well, the deal is about to go through for an Arab company to buy the British company that operates major U.S. ports. A Bush administration official says tonight it is expected to happen by Monday. Under pressure from Congress, the Arab company has agreed to hold off actually running the ports while the U.S. government does a security review. It turns out the government will also be reviewing plans by another Arab company to buy plants in the United States that make parts for planes and tanks.

On the March 2 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, right-wing activist David Horowitz claimed that "[t]here are 50,000 professors" who are "anti-American" and "identify with the terrorists." Horowitz, the president of Students for Academic Freedom and a proponent of an "Academic Bill of Rights" for American universities, is the author of The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006).

According to statistics from the Department of Education, there are just over 400,000 tenured and tenure-track full-time university professors* in the United States. If Horowitz's numbers are accurate, that means approximately one out of every eight tenured or tenure-track college and university professors is a terrorist sympathizer.

From the March 2 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

MICHAEL SMERCONISH (guest host): David Horowitz, you wrote a book, your new book where you expose this on college campuses. Do you think what we're talking about now is symptomatic of what's going on across the country or is this an aberration?

HOROWITZ: There are 50,000 professors with the views of [fellow Scarborough Country guest and Citizens for Legitimate Government founder Michael] Rectenwald and [Colorado high school teacher] Jay Bennish, who are anti-American, they're radicals, they identify with the terrorists, they think of them as freedom fighters. It's a huge danger for the country. And I tell you, if there was a Christian teacher who was ranting in that way against abortion in the classroom, they would be toast.

Bennish is accused of issuing, during a class, what Horowitz has described as "a Communist political rant on the evils of America, capitalism and George Bush in that order." Bennish has been suspended from his job pending an investigation; Horowitz wrote: "May his suspension last a long time and be a warning to other teachers who think that abusing their students serves a higher cause."

*Tenured and tenure-track professorships are, according to Horowitz, the positions of significance on college and university campuses. He wrote in an April 2003 column for FrontPageMag.com, of which he is editor-in-chief: "Now it is virtually impossible for a vocal conservative to be hired for a tenure-track position on a faculty anywhere, or to receive tenure if so hired. The conservative faculty members I encounter who have achieved this feat, invariably tell me that they were forced to keep their political orientation to themselves until they achieved tenure. Alternatively, they were hired and tenured twenty years ago before the left secured its grip on the hiring process."

During the March 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly told Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), "You know I love you as a guest. You're one of the best. You're a paranoid crazy." O'Reilly made his remark during a discussion on the thank-you note Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. reportedly sent to James C. Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, in which, according to news reports, Alito wrote that "the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me." During Alito's nomination hearing, Dobson publicly supported his confirmation and helped mobilize Christian conservatives to join him in supporting Alito.

During the segment, Lynn offered his view on what Alito meant in his thank-you note to Dobson:

LYNN: OK, deciphering this letter is not as difficult say as breaking The DaVinci Code. I think it's very clear that Justice Alito here is saying to James Dobson -- and by the way, the letter's to Dobson and his entire staff -- "Thank you for all the work on my behalf," which included sending out three million e-mails saying, "Vote for this guy, Alito" --

O'REILLY: Help and support. Right. Right.

LYNN: -- for this help and support, a national plan, radio campaign, print campaign, and a lot of other things that helped him get the job.

Now, he's saying, "Thanks a lot for all of that specific help to get me the job, and trust -- trust me," meaning, "I'm going to be on your side," and that's exactly what James Dobson understood it to mean when he said, "They get it. They understand."

O'Reilly responded, "Reverend, look, with all due respect and you know I love you with as a guest. You're one of the best." He went on to add, "You're a paranoid crazy. ... You're paranoid and you're crazy."

From the March 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight: more controversy about religion and government. After being confirmed as the newest Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito wrote a bunch of thank you notes to supporters and one of them went to Dr. James Dobson, the Focus on the Family leader. In the body of that letter, Alito wrote, quote, "The prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force." Apparently, that is causing some concern.

Joining us from Washington: Reverend Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Now, Reverend, I read the letter. It's -- it is as benign as you can -- and you don't like it. Why don't you like it?

LYNN: OK, deciphering this letter is not as difficult say as breaking the Da Vinci code. I think it's very clear that Justice Alito here is saying to James Dobson -- and by the way, the letter's to Dobson and his entire staff -- "Thank you for all the work on my behalf," which included sending out three million e-mails saying, "Vote for this guy, Alito" --

O'REILLY: Help and support. Right. Right.

LYNN: -- for this help and support, a national plan, radio campaign, print campaign, and a lot of other things that helped him get the job.

Now, he's saying, "Thanks a lot for all of that specific help to get me the job, and trust -- trust me," meaning, "I'm going to be on your side," and that's exactly what James Dobson understood it to mean when he said, "They get it. They understand."

O'REILLY: All right, let me -- let me --

LYNN: What else could it mean, Bill?

O'REILLY: Well, Reverend, look, with all due respect and you know I love you as a guest. You're one of the best. You're a paranoid crazy. Honest. You're paranoid and you're crazy.

LYNN: Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln --

O'REILLY: Let me read it to the folks so they can know how crazy you are. Quote: "As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me." And you're seeing this as some kind of conspiracy to bring God into it? Come on.

LYNN: No, no, not a conspiracy to bring God, a message to James Dobson and his millions of radio listeners that this is something that --

O'REILLY: A secret message?

LYNN: No. It's not very secret. It says, "Thanks for getting me this job --

O'REILLY: No, it doesn't.

LYNN: -- I'm going to be good to you."

On the March 2 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly threatened to turn over the personal information of a caller to "Fox security" because the caller mentioned MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. As Media Matters for America has noted, in recent weeks, Olbermann has repeatedly awarded O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World" designation during his show, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. O'Reilly has responded, on several occasions, by asserting that MSNBC "is a true ratings disaster." The caller began by telling O'Reilly, "I like to listen to you during the day." Continuing, the caller stated, "I think Keith Olbermann's show," at which point O'Reilly disconnected the call, proclaiming: "Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit."

Co-host E.D. Hill -- who also co-hosts Fox News' Fox & Friends -- chimed in: "Maybe Mike is from the mothership." O'Reilly responded that the caller was "going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around." Warning his listeners, O'Reilly continued: "When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?"

Apparently, O'Reilly decided that mentioning Olbermann's name was "untoward" or "obscene." After Hill agreed with O'Reilly's apparent policy of turning over a caller's personal information to the authorities as being "fair," O'Reilly warned again that callers making "untoward" and "obscene" statements "will be held accountable. Believe it."

On the February 23 edition of his Fox News television program, The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly announced the launch of a petition on his website, www.BillO'Reilly.com, calling for the reinstatement of Phil Donahue, who previously hosted a show on MSNBC in the same 8 p.m. ET time slot as Olbermann's show. During the February 24 edition of Countdown, in response to O'Reilly's campaign, Olbermann aired a number of video clips from past Countdown editions and commented on several of the claims in O'Reilly's petition.

The weblog Crooks & Liars noted that the caller apparently was blogger Mike Stark, who has suggested on his Calling All Wingnuts blog that he is engaged in a campaign to call in to The Radio Factor to irritate O'Reilly.

From the March 2 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Orlando, Florida, Mike, go.

CALLER: Hey Bill, I appreciate you taking my call.

O'REILLY: Sure.

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olbermann's show --

O'REILLY: There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.

HILL: Maybe Mike is from the mothership.

O'REILLY: No, Maybe Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?

HILL: That's fair.

O'REILLY: So, just -- all you guys who do this kind of a thing, you know, I know some shock jocks. Whatever. You will be held accountable. Believe it.

We'll be right back.

On March 3, the second day after the Associated Press released video footage from August 28 and 29, 2005, shedding new light on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal all failed to run any new news stories on the videos and Hurricane Katrina. By contrast, The Washington Post, USA Today, and the Associated Press all published second-day follow-up stories on the tapes, which appear to contradict President Bush's September 1, 2005, claim that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

In a flawed correction and a new report, The New York Times continued to misrepresent congressional proposals on port security in the wake of a proposed agreement that would allow a company owned by the government of Dubai to control port terminals in six major U.S. cities. The Times falsely reported on February 28 that Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) proposed barring all foreign companies from operating port terminals, then failed to identify that mistake in a March 2 correction to the article. The Times then falsely reported on March 3 that House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) proposed limiting the prohibition to companies owned by foreign governments. In fact, it was the Democratic senators who had proposed limiting the prohibition to companies owned by foreign governments, and it is Hunter who has said he will propose the more extensive ban on all foreign companies.

On March 2, the Times issued the correction to the February 28 article, written by reporters Carl Hulse and David E. Sanger, that had distorted the proposal by Clinton and Menendez to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from operating U.S. port terminals. The correction stated -- falsely -- that the error related to the article's suggestion that the bill would apply only to companies owned by foreign governments when it would actually also impact any company controlled by a foreign government:

Correction: Mar. 2, 2006, Thursday:

An article on Tuesday about concerns raised by the Coast Guard over the deal with Dubai Ports World referred incorrectly to legislation proposed by two Democratic Senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. It would ban companies controlled by foreign governments -- not those owned by them -- from taking over operations at American ports. (The Dubai company is controlled by the emir of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.)

But the Times misstated its original error. While the proposed legislation would indeed affect companies that are either "owned or controlled by foreign governments," the Times' error was in falsely reporting that the Clinton-Menendez legislation would prohibit all "foreign-owned companies" -- not just those owned by foreign governments -- from controlling operations at U.S. ports, as Media Matters for America documented at the time.

Then, in the March 3 article by Hulse and fellow reporter Heather Timmons, the Times compounded its original error by reporting that Hunter's proposal would "force foreign governments to relinquish ownership of critical installations," including port terminals:

In the House, Representative Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would introduce a bill to force foreign governments to relinquish ownership of critical installations.

Mr. Hunter said Dubai's record on handling nuclear materials and other weaponry disqualified it from having one of its state-owned businesses operating port terminals.

"Their track record is terrifying," he said.

But other news organizations have reported that Hunter's proposal -- unlike the one put forth by Clinton and Menendez -- would apply to all foreign companies, not just those owned or controlled by foreign governments. These include Reuters, Knight Ridder, and the Los Angeles Times. Reuters quoted Hunter telling reporters: "Any foreign companies that own critical infrastructure would be required to divest so it's owned by Americans."

Responding to a viewer's email on the March 1 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly called Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (Robert Greenwald Productions Inc.), "a dishonest piece of trash." The Factor viewer wrote in his email that "after watching the movie 'Outfoxed,' I had a low opinion of you [O'Reilly]. But now that I've actually watched the Factor, I believe you are just what the world needs." O'Reilly also complained that "the guy [Greenwald] who made it, [is] now working for Court TV, if you can believe it." Greenwald is working in conjunction with Court TV and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to produce The ACLU Freedom Files, a series of 10 half-hour episodes that intend to show "how civil liberties affect all of us, every day."

As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Reilly has previously attacked the producers of Outfoxed. For instance, on the August 25, 2005, broadcast of the Factor, O'Reilly lumped together as "extremists" those "who think that documentary Outfoxed tells the truth" about Fox News with those who "admire the philosophy of the Third Reich." The producers of Outfoxed responded to O'Reilly's claims with this video. And on August 7, 2004, O'Reilly denied a charge made in the documentary that his network has a pro-Republican bias by falsely claiming, "We put more liberals on the air than conservatives."

From the March 1 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And Eden Manns, Sydney, Australia: "Mr. O'Reilly, after watching the movie 'Outfoxed,' I had a low opinion of you. But now that I've actually watched the Factor, I believe you are just what the world needs."

You know, that film was a dishonest piece of trash, sir, and the guy who made it -- now working for Court TV, if you can believe it.

On February 11, the Associated Press reported that Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- intended to purchase the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O) in a $6.8 billion deal, thereby acquiring the leases to terminals at six major U.S. ports. The AP's disclosure that the Bush administration had approved the takeover a month earlier sparked a bipartisan outcry from members of Congress, governors, and national security experts. Many cited what some major media outlets have described as the UAE's "mixed" record on terrorism and further claimed that the administration flouted federal law by failing to conduct a full review of the national security implications of the deal. In response to these concerns, DPW -- which had reportedly been working in close coordination with the White House -- requested on February 26 that it undergo the full investigation. While the deal is expected to be finalized today, DPW has suspended the part of the transaction relating to U.S. ports pending the results of the additional review. If members of Congress and the Bush administration ultimately agree to the transfer of these leases, DPW would assume control of the terminal operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans.

Faced with widespread criticism in recent weeks, the Bush administration and several of its supporters have promoted numerous false and misleading claims intended to downplay approval of the DPW transaction and cast their critics as racist, politically opportunistic, or both. The media, in turn, have often repeated these claims without challenge or correction, as Media Matters for America documents below.

#1: DPW is simply "Dubai-based"

In reporting on this controversy, numerous news outlets have ignored the fact that DPW is state-owned, referring to it simply as an "Arab company" or "Dubai-based." But the distinction between a company owned by a foreign government and one simply based in a foreign country is critical as a matter of law.

Indeed, critics argue that, in approving the deal, the administration ignored a federal law governing the transfer of American assets to foreign, government-owned companies. Enacted in 1988, the Exon-Florio provision established the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets. As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

In its initial, 30-day examination of the deal, however, CFIUS determined that the deal gave rise to no national security concerns and declared this full review unnecessary. But critics of the deal have noted that the UAE does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state and was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, they have cited a discovery by U.S. investigators that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission's finding that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks." These critics contend that because DPW is controlled by a member state of a country with what is arguably a "mixed" record on terrorism, CFIUS' review of the transfer was not in accordance with the law.

But despite the obvious relevance of DPW's state ownership, news outlets such as the Associated Press and CNN, in their reports on the story, have repeatedly failed to inform their viewers and readers of this fact.

#2: There is no difference between DPW and the British company that previously managed the ports

In failing to report that DPW is state-owned, certain news outlets have bolstered the false premise advanced by the Bush administration that the widespread criticism of this deal is based on the company's Arab ownership and is therefore discriminatory. In order to make this point, the White House has repeatedly suggested that there is no difference in legal status between DPW and P&O, the British company that currently manages the ports. For example, President Bush said during a February 28 press briefing, "[W]hat kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company ... from the Arab world." But such comments ignore the fact that, unlike DPW, P&O was not controlled by the British government or any other foreign government prior to its acquisition.

Nonetheless, numerous news outlets and media figures have uncritically repeated such claims without noting there is a substantial difference as a matter of law between DPW and P&O. In some cases, they have done so without even reporting that DPW is state-owned. For example, a March 1 Associated Press article quoted Bush's February 28 comment suggesting anti-Arab bias on the part of those criticizing the deal, but at no point informed readers that DPW is controlled by the government of Dubai.

In a February 24 article, Washington Post staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum went a step further, reporting the administration's suggestion as fact. He wrote that "lawmakers said they feared that national security might be compromised by letting a Middle Eastern firm manage key U.S. ports." While Birnbaum noted later in the article that DPW is state-owned, he did not explain the legal significance of this fact. Nor did he note critics' argument that because the company is controlled by a foreign government with a mixed record on terrorism, the administration should have conducted the full review required by law in such cases.

In his February 28 column, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen also concluded that the opposition to the ports deal was "really about security anxiety and a dislike of things and people Arab." But Cohen based this position on the Bush administration's false premise that there is no difference as a matter of law between P&0 and DPW. He quoted the president's comment on February 23 that "[w]hat I find interesting is that it's OK for a British company to manage some ports, but not OK for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror."

#3: DPW decided on its own to request an extended security review

In response to the escalating criticism of the Bush administration's approval of the ports deal, DPW offered on February 26 to submit to an additional review of the national security implications of the transfer. But in reporting on this development, media outlets have repeatedly credited DPW for taking the initiative, while failing to note critics' argument that the additional investigation should have occurred prior to the administration's approval of the deal.

As noted above, the Exon-Florio provision requires CFIUS to carry out an additional 45-day review -- on top of the customary 30-day investigation -- when the acquisition of American assets by a foreign, government-owned company provokes national security concerns. Lawmakers from both parties, including Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), have specifically argued that because CFIUS declined to carry out this full investigation during its original examination of the deal, the initial review was not in accordance with the law.

The substance of these objections is crucial to understanding DPW's decision to undergo the additional scrutiny -- not to mention the controversy at large. Nonetheless, news outlets such as the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have reported on the development without providing this context.

#4: The administration's review of the deal was very thorough

In the days after the ports controversy erupted, a chorus of Bush administration officials asserted that CFIUS' review of the DPW deal had been adequate and thorough. On the February 19 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff described the transaction as having gone through "a very thorough review." A February 21 AP article quoted Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales saying that the administration employed a "very extensive process" for reviewing such deals. White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on February 22 that the panel "went through a very thorough review process before this transaction was allowed to proceed forward." The State Department also joined in; spokesman Adam Ereli stated that the administration's approval was the "result of this very thorough, very exhaustive, very careful review," and spokesman Sean McCormack claimed that CFIUS "did a thorough review of all aspects of this proposed sale."

Numerous news outlets and media figures uncritically reported these expressions of confidence in the review process. On the February 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, for example, correspondent Major Garrett reported McCormack's comments without noting critics' claim that the review had been insufficient. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, now a CNN world affairs analyst, appeared on the February 20 edition of The Situation Room and granted the administration the benefit of the doubt on this issue: "I have to assume that they made a very thorough examination of this before signing off. ... I assume that has been done." A February 22 Washington Post editorial claimed, "None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal went through normal security clearance procedures." More recently, a February 26 Los Angeles Times editorial argued, "No one can dispute that ... the deal has been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security."

In repeating or advancing such claims however, media have ignored evidence that the review may not have been so "thorough" after all. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, and one to whom national security considerations would presumably be highly relevant, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend." Nonetheless, articles appearing in the February 22 editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times all reported the administration's claim that the review had been thorough but failed to note Rumsfeld's admission that he had been in the dark about it.

Continued scrutiny of the CFIUS review soon yielded more disclosures regarding the actual nature of the investigation. On February 23, the Post reported that "CFIUS met only once during a 23-day review of the sale and that the few objections raised were quickly addressed." On February 27, Collins released an unclassified version of a document showing that the U.S. Coast Guard had "cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations." A February 28 Scripps-Howard column underscored the Coast Guard's concerns, noting that Al Qaeda -- in a 2002 letter translated by the U.S. government -- claimed that it had infiltrated numerous UAE agencies and that the emirates were "well aware" of this fact.

Most recently, Rep. King asserted on March 1 that officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments had told him that the CFIUS review did not examine possible ties between the UAE and terrorist groups. "There was no real investigation conducted during the 30-day period," King told CNN. Over the course of the following day, however, most news outlets ignored King's allegation .

#5: The administration extracted "extra security concessions" from DPW

Some media figures, such as NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory, have uncritically reported that the Bush administration, in outlining conditions by which DPW would assume control of the six U.S. ports, "extracted extra security concessions" from the company prior to approving the deal. But these "concessions" are reportedly little more than pledges to comply with U.S. law. According to a February 23 AP article, the administration "secretly required" DPW to merely "cooperate with future U.S. investigations." A February 24 New York Times article similarly reported that the secret "assurances" the administration drew from DPW were primarily "centered on compliance with existing United States law."

#6: Federal agencies control and conduct all port security

In their reporting on the ports deal, certain news outlets have advanced the administration's claim that the ownership of port terminals has no effect on the level of security. For example, Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron reported on February 27 that DPW "will simply operate terminals, loading and off-loading cargo. Security and port ownership remain entirely in U.S. hands." A February 24 Washington Post editorial claimed that "the six ports now in question will be far less dependent on Dubai's goodwill, because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting." But, according to Clark Kent Ervin, the former Department of Homeland Security inspector general, the company managing the port is responsible for significant security operations.

The claims made by Cameron and the Post editorial page echo recent Bush administration statements in defense of the deal. At a February 22 press briefing, McClellan asserted that DPW "won't control security at the ports. The security is under the control of the Coast Guard and under control of the Customs and Border Patrol, and it will remain that way." On February 23, Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said of the DPW deal, "[T]his not about outsourcing port security, which is in the very capable hands of the United States Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Patrol. This is about commercial operations at a port." On February 28, Bush himself said, "I can understand people's consternation, because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security, when, in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security."

But in a February 24 article, Post staff writers Paul Blustein and Walter Pincus countered that such a claim "overstates the role government agencies play." The article included a quote from Carl Bentzel, "a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security," who said, "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present." Blustein and Pincus also noted that "private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities."

Moreover, in a February 23 New York Times op-ed, Ervin noted that "the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading."

#7: With the Dubai Ports deal, Democrats have just discovered the issue of port security

In response to the controversy over the DPW deal, some media figures have claimed that the Democrats criticizing the Bush administration's approval of the transaction had previously ignored the issue of port security. On the February 22 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, following a report that highlighted criticism of the deal by Sen. Schumer and Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ), New York Times columnist David Brooks said, "I think a week ago, none of the people we just saw in that report knew a thing about port security or cared anything about port security." That same day, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh similarly claimed that Sens. Schumer and Clinton had only recently emphasized port security in an effort to "mak[e] the American people think they have any interest in our national security."

In fact, contrary to these suggestions, congressional Democrats in recent years have repeatedly stressed the need for greater port security and have urged Congress and the administration to act on the issue.

For example, the Democrats specifically cited by Brooks and Limbaugh have a substantial track record of promoting port security. In 2004, Schumer proposed an amendment to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports. In 2005, Clinton and then-New Jersey senator Corzine co-sponsored a successful amendment that provided $150 million for port security grants. Clinton also co-sponsored a 2005 amendment to provide an additional $450 million for such grants

Other Democratic critics of the DPW deal that have previously put forward legislation to bolster port security include Sens. Bill Nelson (FL), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd (WV), and Ernest Hollings (SC) and Rep. Jane Harman (CA).

Moreover, most Republicans in Congress have resisted Democrats' efforts to secure U.S. ports, as the Senate Democratic Policy Committee has documented. In fact, many of the Senate Republicans now calling for the Bush administration to revoke the DPW port deal have continually voted against Democratic attempts to strengthen port security.

#8: National security is a right-wing value

In a similar vein, numerous media figures have characterized Democratic criticism of the port deal as an attempt to move "to the right" of Bush and congressional Republicans on the issue of national security. For example, Time magazine national political correspondent Karen Tumulty said on February 24 that Democrats "rushed in to have the chance to get to the right of the Republicans." On February 26, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas said that the Democrats "need to get to the right of President Bush on something, and so, they have picked this moment." On February 22, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume said that "this issue has clearly enabled Democrats to appear at least to be to the right of the president." NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace also depicted Democrats as using this controversy to position themselves to the right of Republicans.

Implicit in such claims is the assumption that national security is a right-wing value. But as noted above, some of the Democrats who have most strongly denounced the deal have in recent years been among the most active proponents of enhancing port security.

#9: The Dubai Ports deal is a partisan issue

In reporting on the ports controversy, some news outlets have attempted to cast the criticism of the deal as coming strictly from Democrats. In fact, numerous Republican lawmakers have joined Democrats in objecting to the Bush administration's approval of the transfer. They include Sens. Collins, Lindsey Graham (SC), and Trent Lott (MS), Reps. King, Tom DeLay (TX), and Curt Weldon (PA), New York Gov. George Pataki, and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, among others.

Nonetheless, Fox News correspondent James Rosen reported on February 28 that Bush had "suggested Democratic opponents are engaging in a form of ethnic discrimination," in reference to a comment that the president directed at "members of Congress" in general.

In another example, on the February 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Cameron reported that congressional Democrats are "hoping for an election-year chance to appear more hawkish than the president on national security," in "pushing legislation to block" the DPW deal. Cameron went on to cite a pledge by Harman to propose a house joint resolution disapproving of the DPW deal and instructing CFIUS to conduct the additional 45-day review. But he ignored that Harman proposed this resolution jointly with Collins -- a Republican. (Harman introduced the House version of the measure on February 28, while Collins had introduced the Senate version a day earlier.)

For the second night in a row, ABC's World News Tonight, in reporting on newly released video showing President Bush receiving warnings that Hurricane Katrina could cause New Orleans levees to fail, did not mention Bush's comment, made days after the storm, that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On the March 2 broadcast of World News Tonight, ABC News co-anchor Diane Sawyer reported: "Democrats said they [the videos] showed the administration, quote, 'systematically misled the American people.' " Sawyer did not note, however, that Democrats are making this charge because the videos appear to contradict Bush's specific claim, made two days after Katrina hit, that no one "anticipated the breach of the levees." Also, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported that Bush "was peppering [former FEMA director] Mike Brown and others with questions on phone calls all day long," and claimed: "So, I think this is a case where the videotape doesn't tell the whole story." Stephanopoulos failed to note that some of the questions Bush "peppered" officials with were reportedly about whether the levees had been breached -- further indication that Bush's claim to not have "anticipated the breach of the levees" is false.

As Media Matters for America noted, the White House now claims that Bush's statement about the levees was accurate, as he was warned only that the levees might be "topped," rather than "breached." In fact, Bush himself reportedly asked, the morning Katrina hit, whether the levees had been breached. And, as a report in the January 24 New Orleans Times Picayune indicated, the White House received strong warnings hours before Katrina made landfall of the threat that the levees would be breached.

Sawyer and Stephanopoulos are just the most recent media figures to have ignored Bush's post-Katrina comments on the levees. As Media Matters documented, ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas also omitted Bush's comment from her report on the March 1 broadcast of World News Tonight, and MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell and CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield -- in separate March 2 interviews with White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy -- did not ask about the contradiction between Bush's statement and what is shown in the videos. The New York Times and The Washington Post also did not mention Bush's comments in their March 2 reports on the videos.

From the March 2 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:

SAWYER: And back in Washington, the circle of blame and recrimination on Katrina continued today -- Democrats reacting angrily to those new videos of the Bush administration preparing the day before the storm. Democrats said they showed the administration, quote, "systematically misled the American people," and they demanded yet another investigation. Well, our chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, has spent the day reading the transcripts and looking at those tapes, and he's here now, 'cause George, we want to know: What is the biggest question you think those tapes raise?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, when you look at them, Diane, you see that before the storm hit, the entire government was braced for the worst. And what really pops out is FEMA director Mike Brown's fear that the [News Orleans] Superdome was in big trouble. Take a look.

BROWN [clip]: As you may or may not know, the Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level. So, I don't know what the heck (inaudible) and I also am concerned about that roof. I don't know whether that roof is designed to stand -- withstand a Cat[egory] 5 Hurricane.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Brown warned of a catastrophe within a catastrophe. What's so mystifying is why no one followed up on that warning. And having so many people stuck in the Superdome with no food, water, or way out, was the government's central failure in this response.

SAWYER: That's right. And there, we saw it. We saw the water coming down through the roof, just as he feared. But you know, a lot of people watching these tapes of the preparations saw the president in his video conference -- he was in the Situation Room in Crawford, Texas -- and they said he seemed detached. Is that fair?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it's odd that the president didn't ask a question in the videotape. But you learn from the transcripts that this was actually the president's second briefing that day, and that he was peppering Mike Brown and others with questions on phone calls all day long. So, I think this is a case where the videotape doesn't tell the whole story.

On the February 20 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said that, given the chance, he would fire "rabid dog" media writer Neal Gabler as a contributor to Fox News' media critique program Fox News Watch. In a discussion with Fox News Watch host Eric Burns about comments made by Gabler during the February 18 edition of that show, O'Reilly advised Burns to "come down hard on this Gabler guy" for promoting "an idiot conspiracy theory" from a "far-left blog" that led Gabler to suggest it was "not bad PR" if the administration dragged out the story of Cheney's hunting accident to deflect attention from the more substantive news of the week.

O'Reilly went on to say that Gabler "shouldn't be on" Fox News Watch, noting that "this is the second time this guy did this -- the first time he smeared me about the Christmas controversy." As Media Matters for America previously noted, during the December 3, 2005, edition of News Watch, Gabler claimed that Fox News' coverage of a purported battle over public acknowledgement of Christmas was excessive; declared the so-called "war on Christmas" a "demagogic campaign"; and referred to O'Reilly and Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and John Gibson as "demagogues" who seek to "rally the masses."

Gabler's February 18 comments -- concerning Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of hunting partner Harry Whittington on February 11 -- were made during a discussion of news coverage of the incident with Burns, nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas, and political analyst and Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton. Thomas said, "I think it's a conspiracy, Neal, and you ought to pick up on this. This was a brilliant strategy by the vice president to reveal the pettiness of the press." Gabler responded, "But Jay Rosen [author of the PressThink weblog] also says this could be a conspiracy. And in this very sense. Look at what this did. This got [newly published photos of alleged abuses of prisoners at] Abu Ghraib off the front pages; it got [Senate testimony about shortcomings in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina by Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff off the front pages. While we're here talking about the idiocy of him shooting his friend, we're not talking about the major, major problems that this administration is having. That's clever PR. That's not bad PR." But when O'Reilly showed the clip of the segment during The O'Reilly Factor, he cropped out the reference to Rosen and accused Gabler of picking up conspiracy theories from a "far-left blog" -- presumably a reference to Rosen. When Burns defended his hosting of the program during which Gabler made his comments, by pointing to an impending commercial break, O'Reilly advised, "I would have edited it, to tell you the truth. I would have edited [Gabler's comments] out."

In a February 16 PressThink post, to which Gabler was apparently referring, Rosen claimed that Cheney's handling of the shooting was an example of what he called "rollback" -- a "larger aim" by the Bush administration "to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country" -- but Rosen also wrote that he "found something disingenuous about the performance of the White House press" in its coverage of the Cheney shooting incident.

From the February 20 broadcast of Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now, there are all kinds of irresponsible statements being made about the vice president, one of which occurred this weekend on the Fox News program News Watch.

GABLER (Fox News Watch video clip): This could be a conspiracy. And in this very sense. Look at what this did. This got Abu Ghraib off the front pages, it got Chertoff off the front pages. While we're here talking about the idiocy of him shooting his friend, we're not talking about the major, major problems that this administration is having. That's clever PR. That's not bad PR.

O'REILLY: Now, Gabler was referring to a conspiracy theory and one of those nutty far-left blogs. Joining us now from The Factor's New York studio, Eric Burns, host of the News Watch program. Hey, Eric, you gotta come down on this Gabler guy. I mean, he's just out of control, and I'll tell you why. Your program is a watchdog program of the media. And here you have Gabler picking up a far-left blog, an idiot conspiracy theory, spitting it out there. And you guys sit there -- not just you, but everybody else -- like Humpty Dumpty. What's going on?

BURNS: Now, Bill, if you would have continued to play the clip, you would see what the problem was. The problem was we were up against a commercial break. Jim Pinkerton jumped in at that moment to take issue with him. And Neal went back and forth with him very briefly. We were running over time and I had to jump in.

O'REILLY: But didn't you say, when you came, I -- listen, I'm up against the breaks all the time. And it's electronic breaks, so people know we have to hit 'em or we go off the air. But look, you should have come back and said to Gabler, look, you have -- this is a watchdog program. I like your program, Eric. I think you do a nice job. All right? But you got a guy like Gabler, and this is the second time this guy did this -- first time he smeared me about the Christmas controversy. We called him up, he's too cowardly to come on. You let him slide with that. And now you got him coming in here with this insane conspiracy thing. And I'm -- you know, I'm watching Fox News because I think Fox News is tough on these things. It's not a left-wing blog, all right? And you let this guy get away with it.

BURNS: No --

O'REILLY: And you shouldn't have.

BURNS: You're telling me that I let him get away with it, Bill. He's not my responsibility --

O'REILLY: You're the host.

BURNS: -- and what's -- no, no, but look, what's different between my show and your show is I've got four people on my program. And I will tell you that in both cases, both of the cases you referred to, at least two of the others, and maybe three, were ready to jump in. As a matter of fact, on the comment he made about you being what did he say, a demagogue or demi-god --

O'REILLY: Yes, the usual personal attacks that this guy traffics in all the time.

BURNS: I forget who it was, but somebody jumped in there. There was no way to jump in in this case. And in fact, because --

O'REILLY: All right.

BURNS: -- we have a produced open [video sequence] for the second segment, I can't come back to the topic.

O'REILLY: But don't you understand -- I would have edited it, to tell you the truth. I would have edited that out. Because look, here's the danger. Here's the danger. This guy Gabler, who you shouldn't have on your program, by the way -- if I -- and I don't run Fox News, but I'd fire him in a heartbeat and I'd bring in a responsible person. He traffics in personal attacks, this guy. He brings in insane stuff. You know, you're supposed to -- your show is supposed to be the watchdog of the media. And then you have a rabid dog in there. And it's just not playing.

BURNS: Look, Bill, I -- if the purpose of my being here is for you to tell me that I should host the show differently, that's something we can discuss at some other point.

From the February 18 broadcast of Fox News Watch:

THOMAS: Well, a Rasmussen poll shows only 27 percent of the public believe that it was really an important story. I think it's a conspiracy, Neal, and you ought to pick up on this. This was a brilliant strategy by the vice president to reveal the pettiness of the press and once again turn the American people against them. How's that?

GABLER: Well, first of all, [Fox News anchor] Brit Hume did not ask the major question [in his February 15 interview of Cheney]: Why'd you wait 14 hours? But Jay Rosen also says this could be a conspiracy, and in this very sense, look at what this did: This got Abu Ghraib off the front pages; it got Chernoff off the front pages. While we're here talking about the idiocy of him shooting his friend, we're not talking about the major, major problems that this administration is having. That's clever PR. That's not bad PR.

In a February 21 article on President Bush's multi-state tour this week to promote his latest energy proposals, Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei overlooked the White House's retreat from Bush's State of the Union (SOTU) pledge to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." While Samuel W. Bodman, Bush's secretary of energy, disavowed the promise the day after the speech, VandeHei noted only: "Since the [SOTU] speech, US officials have cautioned that reducing Middle East imports will be determined more by market conditions than government directives." The Post also reported that Bush planned to visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, but did not mention that just prior to Bush's visit, the federal government had reallocated $5 million to restore the jobs of 32 of the laboratory's employees who had been laid off as a result of the administration's budget cuts.

In contrast to VandeHei's report, a February 21 New York Times report by staff writer Elisabeth Bumiller noted that Bodman backed away from Bush's pledge just one day after the January 31 SOTU address, saying that Bush's stated goal was "merely an example" of possible efforts to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Bumiller also noted that during a February 20 speech on his multi-state tour, Bush "did not repeat [the] promise to cut back on Middle East oil imports that drew complaints from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Counties."

VandeHei also omitted from his article the fact that the government reallocated $5 million to restore jobs for 32 people who were laid off from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shortly after Bush's SOTU speech, in which he pledged to focus on increasing renewable energy. By contrast, the Times elaborated on the backstory, noting that Bodman approved the $5 million transfer over the weekend -- just before the President's arrival there:

A statement released Monday by the Energy Department said that Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, ordered the transfer of $5 million over the weekend to immediately restore the jobs, which had been eliminated because of past budget cuts, thereby avoiding a political embarrassment for the president. Mr. Bush is to visit the laboratory, in Golden, Colo., on Tuesday morning.

From the February 21 Post report:

In his State of the Union speech, Bush called for efforts to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." Short of imposing bans or outright embargoes, Bush's goal will be very difficult if not impossible to meet because there is little the government can do to prevent companies from buying oil from any nation they choose, say energy experts. Since the speech, U.S. officials have cautioned that reducing Middle East imports will be determined more by market conditions than government directives.

[...]

Later in the day, Bush toured a solar energy plant in Auburn Hills, Mich., before spending the night in Colorado, where he planned to speak about energy Tuesday at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Despite multiple reports on the subject, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press have ignored several important issues concerning a proposal by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to resolve any potential legal problems involving the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program by crafting legislation that would exempt the program from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In all but one of these reports the media have ignored the potential infringement on the constitutional rights of Americans that DeWine's proposal would authorize. They also have failed to note the sharp differences between this latest proposal and one DeWine offered in 2002, which would have given the executive branch greater latitude under FISA but was rejected by the Bush Justice Department as likely unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional, even though it was narrowly tailored to avoid constitutional problems.

Since it was first reported on February 15 that DeWine was crafting legislation to allow the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance program to be exempt from FISA, the proposal has been frequently referenced in reports on the debate over the program:

• Five Times by the AP (see here, here, here, here, and here)

• Four times by the Post (see here, here, here, and here)

• Three times by The New York Times (see here, here, and here)

• Three times by the Los Angeles Times (see here, here, and here).

But none of these reports noted that, by exempting the surveillance program from the restrictions under FISA, the DeWine proposal would grant the administration significantly more latitude -- and could thereby threaten Fourth Amendment rights to a significantly greater extent -- than his 2002 attempt to lower FISA's standard of proof for conducting surveillance of non-U.S. persons, who are entitled to less constitutional protection than the U.S. persons who would also be impacted by DeWine's current proposal. In fact, none of the reports even mentioned DeWine's 2002 bill, even though the Post and Los Angeles Times have previously reported on it.

As Media Matters for America has documented, DeWine offered legislation to reduce FISA's standard for conducting electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons from "probable cause" to "reasonable basis" in 2002, but the administration refused to support the legislation, saying in a statement from the Justice Department that it was likely unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

Beyond omitting any mention of DeWine's 2002 proposal, the recent reports' failure to explore what DeWine's current proposal would mean for the standard of proof required by the warrantless domestic surveillance program is even more glaring, given the widely varying administration accounts of what that standard is. As Media Matters has documented, while the Justice Department has maintained that the operative standard required for the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance is "essentially the same" as the "probable cause" standard required under FISA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, previously stated that the standard of proof under the NSA program is "a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant," and directly acknowledged, in response to a question from a reporter, that the warrantless domestic surveillance program had adopted a "lower standard" than required under FISA. Hayden is the former head of the NSA and was the first administration official to publicly defend the program.

Even general concern about the constitutionality of DeWine's latest proposal has been largely ignored. Of the major newspapers, only the February 17 Los Angeles Times report noted that DeWine's proposal could be unconstitutional:

Critics have called the DeWine approach inadequate.

"To simply exclude communications from the coverage of FISA and allow secret wiretapping without a warrant ... would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment," Kate Martin, director of national security studies at George Washington University, said in an e-mail message.

A February 21 Wall Street Journal editorial (subscription required) claimed that "plenty of data" indicate "high customer satisfaction" with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), the focal point of President Bush's health care plan. The Journal did not provide any such data. But contrary to the Journal's claim, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has found significant levels of dissatisfaction among people covered by the high-deductible, HSA-style plans -- also known as "consumer-driven" health plans -- that form the basis of Bush's health care proposal.

The Bush administration claims that "HSAs allow Americans to save tax-free dollars in accounts to pay for their health care expenses" and are "accompanied by high-deductible comprehensive insurance policies that cover preventive care and larger medical bills." The Journal editorial stated that the plan "combines an insurance policy with a deductible of $1,050 or more with a tax-free savings account to help people pay pre-deductible expenses." The EBRI survey focused on such policies, comparing two categories of health management -- high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), which "have a deductible of at least $1,000 for personal coverage or $2,000 for family coverage" (emphasis added), and consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs), which "had to meet these threshold deductible levels and have a tax-preferred savings account, such as a health savings account or health reimbursement arrangement" -- with comprehensive health plans "with no deductible or a deductible of up to $1,000 for personal coverage or up to $2,000 for family coverage" (emphasis added). The Bush plan is essentially what EBRI describes as a CDHP, requiring a deductible of more than $1,050 and offering tax-free accounts to cover medical expenses.

The EBRI study found that, among those covered by comprehensive health plans, 63 percent were "extremely or very satisfied," while only 42 percent of those covered by CDHPs expressed the same level of satisfaction. Dissatisfaction ranked much higher among those with the Bush-style plan than those enrolled in more traditional, comprehensive plans. Of those enrolled in CDHPs, 26 percent said they were "not satisfied," whereas only 8 percent covered by comprehensive plans were dissatisfied. EBRI also reported that 61 percent of respondents with comprehensive care said they were "extremely or very likely to stay" with their plan if offered the option to change, but only 46 percent of those with CDHPs said they were likely to stay with their plans. Thirty-three percent of those with CDHPs said they were "not likely to stay" with their plans if given the opportunity to switch, compared with only 11 percent of respondents with comprehensive coverage who said they were not likely to stay given the chance to change plans.

The survey also revealed that those with CDHPs were less likely than those in comprehensive plans to seek health care due to cost, especially respondents with an income below $50,000 per year. Of adults with health problems, 40 percent of those in CDHPs said they "have delayed or avoided getting health care due to cost." People enrolled in comprehensive plans were far less likely to delay or avoid seeking care for reasons of cost; only 21 percent with comprehensive coverage said that they had done so. Among those polled with annual incomes below $50,000, the percentages of those delaying or avoiding care for reasons of cost rise to 48 percent of those enrolled in CDHPs and 26 percent with comprehensive care. Overall, 35 percent of people with CDHPs say they have avoided obtaining care because of cost, compared with only 17 percent of those enrolled in a comprehensive plan.

From the February 21 Wall Street Journal editorial:

The centerpiece of his [President Bush's] strategy is the Health Savings Account, which combines an insurance policy with a deductible of $1,050 or more with a tax-free savings account to help people pay pre-deductible expenses. Critics say the relatively high deductible makes HSAs work only for the "healthy and wealthy."

But in fact HSAs are what health insurance would have looked like all along if the employer-insurance tax exemption never existed. That is, insurance for catastrophic illness to prevent destitution but not for routine care. (Think of it this way: What's the deductible on your car insurance?) And with more than three million HSA policies already in existence, there is plenty of data showing high customer satisfaction among policy holders of all ages and incomes.

On the February 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume gave himself high marks for the manner in which he conducted his exclusive February 15 interview with Vice President Dick Cheney -- Cheney's first public appearance since accidentally shooting his hunting partner, Texas attorney Harry Whittington, on February 11. According to Hume, "[t]he last thing in the world that Dick Cheney needed on that day was a soft interview," and "my job was to simply sit there and walk through this episode with him and ask all the relevant questions. ... That's why, you know, there's no problem about asking about the drinking."

In fact, Hume neglected to ask a number of "relevant" questions, as Media Matters for America noted. For example, Cheney appeared to accept responsibility for shooting Whittington ("Well, ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger."), but Hume failed to ask Cheney why he allowed surrogates -- without challenging or correcting them -- to publicly blame Whittington for the accident. Also, following Cheney's admission to drinking a beer prior to the accident, Hume did not ask about statements by Katharine Armstrong -- the owner of the ranch where the incident occurred and Cheney's designated spokesperson -- that were mutually inconsistent and appeared to conflict with Cheney's admission. Moreover, notwithstanding Hume's evident pride in "asking about the drinking," the Fox News website withheld the portion of the interview dealing with Cheney's drinking, despite promising visitors streaming video of the "full interview," as Media Matters documented.

From the February 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, which featured host Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Let me just -- because -- before we leave this subject, Brit, I -- you became part of the story this week with your interview, the only interview with the vice president, and some of our colleagues in the press said -- compared it to "Bonnie interviewing Clyde", "a Soviet leader sitting down with Pravda." How do you respond?

HUME: You know, I thought there'd be more of that than there was, actually, but that kind of thing completely misses the point of what was going on here. The last thing in the world that Dick Cheney needed on that day was a soft interview, because he was trying to get this thing over with. And the only way to get it over with was to answer every question that anybody might have, within reason. So, you know, I was headed down to the White House to do the interview that day, and I was thinking, you know, I've had interviews with Vice President Cheney in which he has not been tremendously forthcoming, and I thought God, you know, what am I going to do if he does that?

And then the more I thought about it, the more I thought there's no way he was going to do that. But my job was simply to sit there and walk through this episode with him and ask all the relevant questions, because he was ready to answer them and needed to answer them. That's why, you know, there's no problem about asking about the drinking, no problem about any of it. And that was why the interview, I think, came out as it did, because he was ready to talk, and knew he needed to, and to get it over with, and I think that, you know, except for the -- except for the shouting here that goes on in the little aftermath and the silly news weeklies -- this thing's over.

On the February 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, correspondent Major Garrett distorted a House of Representatives select committee report on the response to Hurricane Katrina, falsely claiming that it "verified original Fox News reporting that Louisiana officials prevented the Red Cross from delivering food, water, and medical kits to evacuees stranded at the Louisiana Superdome." In fact, the select committee report highlighted the congressional testimony of Joseph C. Becker, American Red Cross senior vice president for preparedness and response, who told the House Ways and Means Committee that "we were asked by state and federal officials not to enter New Orleans." [Emphasis added.] Becker also articulated the view expressed by other Red Cross officials, as Media Matters for America noted at the time, that, in Becker's words included in the House report, "[I]t was not deemed safe for Red Cross personnel to re-enter the city of New Orleans. The Red Cross does not place our client evacuees, staff, volunteers, or resources in harm's way."

As Garrett noted, this is not the first time he has made this claim. In September 2005 reports, Garrett and other Fox News employees cited misleading and contradictory Red Cross accounts that blamed state officials for the bungled response to the hurricane. These reports closely followed the Bush administration's reported strategy of blaming the faulty response to the hurricane on Democratic state and local officials.

From the February 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GARRETT: And the House Select Committee report on Katrina released yesterday verified original Fox News reporting that Louisiana officials prevented the Red Cross from delivering food, water, and medical kits to evacuees stranded at the Louisiana Superdome.

"After Katrina passed, the Red Cross did attempt to deliver provisions to the Superdome, but was denied access," the report said.

That select report also confirmed Fox reporting that Louisiana officials explained to the Red Cross the reason they did not want relief supplies brought to the Superdome would be that that would delay the evacuation of the Superdome. Now, House Democrats filed a separate report challenging many conclusions of this select committee report. Democrats, however, did not dispute this particular finding.

Rather than "verifying" Garrett's misleading September 2005 reports, the final report of the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina undermined them. Titled "A Failure of Initiative," the report contained one assertion of fact written by the committee about the Red Cross' absence from New Orleans after the storm: "After Katrina passed, the Red Cross did attempt to deliver provisions to the Superdome, but was denied access." In a footnote to that statement, the report cited two sources: An October 14, 2005, select committee interview with Becker and Becker's December 13, 2005, Ways and Means testimony.

In his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Becker clearly stated that "state and federal officials" asked that the Red Cross not enter New Orleans, that this was "consistent" with previous Red Cross practices, and that the Red Cross "does not place our client evacuees, staff, volunteers, or resources in harm's way."

From Becker's December 13, 2005, testimony, as it appeared in the select committee's report:

The Convention Center and the Superdome served as refuges of last resort. Under state plans, these facilities are to open when local authorities terminate an evacuation due to unsafe driving conditions. These facilities are not operated by the Red Cross. In practice, after the threat has passed, the Red Cross at times staffs shelters of last resort, providing services to people. We do not establish shelters in facilities that do not meet our criteria for safety during landfall.

Consistent with State and local plans, and our practice in previous disasters, we were asked by state and federal officials not to enter New Orleans. While we were in constant communication with local and state authorities, it was not deemed safe for Red Cross personnel to re-enter the city of New Orleans. The Red Cross does not place our client evacuees, staff, volunteers, or resources in harm's way. It is our practice to heed evacuation orders and assist those in need of shelter outside of high-risk areas.

Additionally, it was the goal of local and state officials to fully evacuate the city of New Orleans after the storm passed. We were instructed by authorities that, in addition to issues of safety, if the Red Cross provided services to survivors within New Orleans, it would discourage people from heeding evacuation orders. At the direction of public officials, we entered New Orleans in a coordinated fashion to provide services at the earliest possible time.

The report also quoted a third source -- a September 3, 2005, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article headlined, "Homeland Security won't let Red Cross deliver food." From the Post-Gazette article, as cited in the report:

"The Homeland Security Department has requested and continues to request that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans. Right now access is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities. ... We cannot get into New Orleans against their orders," Renita Hosler, a Red Cross spokesperson, told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Post-Gazette article's lead sentence -- not quoted in the report -- stated: "As the National Guard delivered food to the New Orleans convention center yesterday, American Red Cross officials said that federal emergency management authorities would not allow them to do the same."*

At the time, Hosler appears to have agreed with the decision, citing dangerous conditions and a need to evacuate the city. From the Post-Gazette article:

Though frustrated, Hosler understood the reasons. The goal is to move people out of an uninhabitable city, and relief operations might keep them there. Security is so bad that she fears feeding stations might get ransacked.

"It's not about fault and blame right now. The situation is like an hourglass, and we are in the smallest part right now. Everything is trying to get through it," she said. "They're trying to help people get out."

Hosler apparently provided a similar account for a September 13, 2005, report on the website Raw Story, saying that city, state, and federal officials made the decision with the Red Cross "at the table":

We "will not put [our] own workers in harm's way," Red Cross spokesperson Renita Hosler told RAW STORY.

Hosler explained that the Red Cross was "at the table" with "Emergency Management" numerous times while conditions deteriorated in New Orleans and that a decision was reached that if the group set up shop within the city, it might encourage others to come back, creating a secondary crisis.

Hosler confirmed that authorities turned down repeated offers by the Red Cross to enter New Orleans with supplies. New Orleans, she asserted, was considered too unsafe for the Red Cross to enter.

The Emergency Management Team, Hosler says, was comprised of city, state, and federal officials.

In addition, Garrett failed to note -- in both his February and his September 2005 reports -- that other Red Cross officials appeared to agree with the decision to keep the Red Cross out of New Orleans at the time, and immediately after, that decision was made. The officials cited both safety concerns and the need to evacuate the city in justifying the decision.

As Media Matters has noted, Marsha J. "Marty" Evans, then president and CEO of the American Red Cross, cited these concerns in September 2, 2005, interview with CNN host Larry King:

KING: The Red Cross is not in New Orleans. Why?

EVANS: Well, Larry, when the storm came, our goal was prior to landfall to support the evacuation. It was unsafe to be in the city. We were asked by the city not to be there, and the Superdome was made a shelter of last resorts and, quite frankly in retrospect, it was a good idea because otherwise those people would have had no shelter at all.

We have our shelters north of the city. We're prepared as soon as they can be evacuated, we're prepared to receive them in Texas, in other states, but it was not safe to be in the city, and it's not been safe to go back into the city. They were also concerned that if we located, relocated back into the city, people wouldn't leave, and they've got to leave.

[...]

EVANS: Well, Larry, we were asked, directed by the National Guard and the city and the state emergency management not to go into New Orleans because it was not safe. We are not a search and rescue organization. We provide shelter and basic support, and so we were depending, we are depending on the state and the agencies to get people to our shelters in safe places.

In a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section apparently posted on its website September 2, 2005 -- just days after the storm hit New Orleans -- the Red Cross emphasized that its "presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city," and noted that "[w]e are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access." The FAQ concluded by describing the Red Cross' "appropriate role" under the circumstances:

As the remaining people are evacuated from New Orleans, the most appropriate role for the Red Cross is to provide a safe place for people to stay and to see that their emergency needs are met. We are fully staffed and equipped to handle these individuals once they are evacuated.

During the 1 p.m. ET segment of Fox News Live on September 8, 2005, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Jason Golden, a local Red Cross spokesman in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, whether the organization was "on board with this mission, then, to not have the Red Cross in New Orleans." He responded, "Absolutely."

But as Media Matters noted, Evans shifted her characterization of the decision following her Larry King interview. For example, Garrett's September 8, 2005, report on Special Report featured footage of Evans asserting: "We were ready from literally the time the storm blew through. We were ready to go. We just were not given permission to go in." In that report -- as in his February 16 report -- Garrett placed the responsibility for this decision solely on state officials.

From the September 8, 2005, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GARRETT: The Louisiana department of homeland security kept the Red Cross and Salvation Army from delivering relief supplies to stranded evacuees at the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center.

[...]

GARRETT: State authorities told both relief organizations delivering food and water would impede evacuation efforts.

* A September 9, 2005, Media Matters item that cited Hosler's comments in the Post-Gazette stated: "The Gazette appears to have incorrectly reported that it was federal officials that had asked the Red Cross to stay out of New Orleans." The point of the item was that, contrary to media reports, including Garrett's, the Red Cross agreed with state and local officials that it was not safe for its staff and volunteers to go into New Orleans. The Post-Gazette article did not provide specific evidence of federal involvement in the decision that the Red Cross would stay out, and it was uncertain at the time whether Hosler was referring to the federal or Louisiana state Department of Homeland Security. Becker's testimony, as well as Hosler's subsequent Raw Story interview, confirms that federal officials were, in fact, involved in keeping the Red Cross out of New Orleans following Katrina.

In her February 19 ombudsman column, The Washington Post's Deborah Howell claimed that liberals have complained that Post columnist and reporter Dana Milbank has "skewered Democrats," and pointed specifically to a January 31 Milbank column. Despite exploring in detail the validity of conservatives' objections to a recent appearance on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, in which Milbank wore a bright orange hunting outfit to discuss Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion, Howell said next to nothing about complaints liberals have registered about Milbank's work. Instead, she simply wrote that liberals have objected to Milbank's columns "skewer[ing] Democrats" and made no effort to consider the actual flaws in his January 31 column. In fact, as Media Matters for America noted at the time, that column contained at least one outright falsehood and one distortion, the latter undermining the column's entire premise.

In a column that purported to discuss whether Milbank inappropriately injects his opinion into his work, Howell missed a key point. Regardless of whether Milbank has license as a news columnist to inject his views into his work -- and whether he has license to appear on television making light of a serious matter -- he certainly does not have license to inject falsehoods into his work. This is a key distinction that appears to have escaped Howell in her February 19 column -- the difference between opinion and fact, negative opinion and factual falsehood. Columnists may or may not be allowed to express opinions, although Howell quotes Post editor Liz Spayd suggesting that even that is off limits for a news columnist like Milbank; what they can't do -- whether they are news or opinion columnists -- and what Howell failed utterly in her column to call Milbank on, is base those views on false information.

Readers would never know it from Howell's column, but in his January 31 column, Milbank falsely reported that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "got only 25 of the 60 needed votes" to mount a filibuster against President Bush's nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. In fact, as Media Matters and numerous weblogs (see, for example, here) noted at the time, it was Alito's supporters who "needed" the 60 votes to invoke "cloture," or end debate on the nomination and proceed to a floor vote; filibuster supporters needed 41 votes. Recognizing the error, The Washington Post ran a correction, which, according to the Nexis database, appeared in the print version the next day.

As Media Matters also noted, in that same column, Milbank depicted advocates of impeachment as a fringe element of the Democratic Party -- which he said is in one of its "periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism" -- while ignoring polling that has shown that a majority of respondents believes Congress should consider impeaching Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance. Moreover, as Media Matters previously noted, a poll from November 2005 found that 53 percent of Americans thought that Congress should consider impeachment "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq." Given that, in Howell's words, the column was "about a liberal political event that featured former attorney general Ramsey Clark and antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan," Milbank's distortion was inextricable from the column's central premise.

From Media Matters' perspective at least, Milbank's "skewer[ing] Democrats" was not the problem per se with his column. The problem was that his assertions were based on misinformation. Howell ended her February 19 column by quoting a reader approvingly:

"If you are going to keep using his work, how about labeling it as opinion and not news?"

Exactly.

No, not exactly. Any newspaper should insist on factual accuracy from reporters and columnists. Howell, the readers' representative at The Washington Post, did not do that in her column.

From Howell's February 19 column:

Most of the critical mail I got last week came from conservatives, but I've also received complaints from liberals when they think Milbank has skewered Democrats, especially in a Jan. 31 column about a liberal political event that featured former attorney general Ramsey Clark and antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan.

In a February 17 article by reporters Eric Lichtblau and Sheryl Gay Stolberg about potential congressional hearings on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, The New York Times reported that "Democrats and a growing number of Republicans [who] say the eavesdropping violates" the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "have called for the law to be revamped." But the article did not cite any Democrats who have expressed this view, and the available evidence suggests otherwise.

As the Times article noted, Senate Democrats -- led by Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) -- have pushed for a "full-scale investigation" into the warrantless surveillance program, including whether the program complies with FISA. Rockefeller's approach stands in stark contrast to that of Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), who has said he opposes an investigation, and has instead suggested he favors exploring a legislative approach to resolving any legal conflicts between FISA and the administration's program.

Moreover, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has openly opposed amending the FISA law to accommodate the administration's warrantless surveillance, stating that the program "should fit under FISA as currently drafted." From the February 12 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

HARMAN: Let's -- let's understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans. Every one of us wants to catch Al Qaeda and its affiliates. All of us want the president to have the tools. I just voted again for the Patriot Act. I believe we need modern tools. And, oh, by the way, FISA was modernized eight times in the Patriot Act after 2001. It is not a quaint, little, old thing that doesn't work here. It can work here, and I think the entire program should fit under FISA as currently drafted. We don't even need to amend FISA.