Media Matters for America

Latest Media Matters for America items

URL

XML feed
http://mediamatters.org/

Last update

2 days 10 hours ago

February 7, 2006

12:02

Last week, Media Matters for America documented how most media outlets failed to report that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the CIA leak case, wrote -- in a letter to defense attorneys for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- that numerous White House emails from 2003 are missing from White House computer archives. A further review by Media Matters has found that most major media outlets have continued to ignore this story; specifically, no reports on the missing emails have been found on any of the three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS), The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, or the Reuters wire service.

On October 28, 2005, a grand jury indicted Libby on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI. Made public as part of a recent court filing, Fitzgerald's letter was sent in response to requests by Libby's legal team that the prosecutor turn over a large number of documents pertaining to the defendant. At the end of the letter, in which he refused the request, Fitzgerald wrote:

We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed. In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.

While the February 4 broadcast of the CBS Evening News did report on the unsealing of more documents in the case, the report did not mention the missing e-mails. Media Matters' February 2 review has previously noted the Associated Press' February 1 report by staff writer Pete Yost and Dan Froomkin's February 2 washingtonpost.com "White House Briefing" column. The Post's print edition has not published a story regarding the missing e-mails. The February 2 Los Angeles Times published Yost's report. While Yost's report also appeared on washingtonpost.com, it did not appear in either the February 2 or the February 3 print editions of the Post.

The Media Matters review consisted of searches in the Lexis-Nexis database and Factiva of the three broadcast networks, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and the Reuters wire service. These searches turned up no articles on any of these media outlets on the missing emails for February 1 through the morning of February 7. The Lexis-Nexis search was "(Plame or Fitzgerald) w/20 (e-mail or email or message or delete or missing or archive)" for 2/1/2006 through 2/7/2006, while the Factiva searches (The Wall Street Journal and Reuters) were "(Plame or Fitzgerald) /n20/ (e-mail or email or message or delete or missing or archive)" for 2/1/2006 to 2/7/2006; and "Plame /n20/ Fitzgerald" for 2/1/2006 to 2/7/2006.

Categories: News
12:02

During the February 6 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson said that "Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate." Robertson blamed the declining birth rate on the existential philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, which, according to Robertson, "has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe" and has left Europeans without "a faith in the future."

From the February 6 edition of CBN's The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future. You know, unless you believe in the future, you're not going to take the trouble of raising a child, educating a child, doing something. If there is no future, why do it? Well, unless you believe in God, there's really no future. And when you go back to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the whole idea of this desperate nightmare we are in -- you know, that we are in this prison, and it has no hope, no exit. That kind of philosophy has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe, and hopefully it doesn't come here. But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate. And they just can't get it together. Why? There's no hope.


Categories: News
12:02

On the February 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin claimed that "a recent poll ... shows that [President] Bush ... is held in much higher regard than congressional Democrats." Goodwin did not cite a specific poll as the basis for his claim, but the two major recent polls that pitted Bush against congressional Democrats in the same question show that more Americans think congressional Democrats will do a better job of handling most key issues and more Americans think the country "should go in the direction" congressional Democrats would take it. The comments came during a discussion in which Goodwin, whose columns have appeared on the conservative websites FrontPageMag.com and Jewish World Review, was joined by Republican strategist and former Reagan political director Ed Rollins and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund but no Democrats or progressives.

Neither Rollins nor Fund -- nor the show's guest host, CNN correspondent Kitty Pilgrim -- challenged Goodwin's assertion. Pilgrim began by asking Rollins for his thoughts about newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) "surprise victory over [House Majority Whip] Roy Blunt [R-MO]," who also ran for the majority leader position. Rollins called Boehner "a very effective leader," characterizing him as "articulate" and stating that "he'll basically make a good difference." Pilgrim then asked Fund, "[W]ill we be able to get distance on the [former lobbyist Jack] Abramoff scandal and the lobbying issue with him [Boehner], or is he still involved in this?" Fund responded that although "any congressional leader is going to have lobbyist friends," Boehner "has the support of the reformers, even if he's not a complete reformer." After Pilgrim noted that the first two panelists had given Boehner "two good, positive reviews," she asked Goodwin for his thoughts on the issue. Goodwin stated:

GOODWIN: Well, I think the good news for Republicans is that the Democrats are in disarray, too. I think that the Democrats don't really know what to do. They're against everything the president is for, but beyond that, I think it's not really working. There's a recent poll that shows that Bush is much more -- is held in much higher regard than congressional Democrats. So I think that the Republicans may have a little time to get their act together.

Although a January 12 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll and a January 4-8 Pew Research poll show higher approval ratings for President Bush than for congressional Democrats, the same polls also show higher disapproval ratings for Bush and a bigger negative gap between approval and disapproval for Bush than for congressional Democrats. And more recent polls that pit Bush and congressional Democrats head to head in the same question report that more Americans trust congressional Democrats to handle a majority of specific issues and most Americans want the country to head in the direction congressional Democrats would take it, as opposed to the direction President Bush would take it. A January 26 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked respondents who they thought would do a better job of handling four specific issues: taxes, the federal budget deficit, health care, and protecting the nation from terrorism. The authors of the poll noted:

The only issue that Bush defeats Democrats on is who would be best at protecting the nation against terrorism. When asked who could do a better job of handling taxes -- 43% thought the Democrats in Congress would be better, compared to 34% for the president; handling the federal budget deficit -- 47% said the Democrats and 30% sided with Bush; handling health care issues - 53% mentioned the Democrats and 25% supported Bush; better job of protecting the nation against terrorism -- 45% thought Bush would be better, while 32% thought that about the Democrats.

Additionally, a January 26 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked respondents: "Do you think the country should go in the direction (Bush wants to lead it), go in the direction (the Democrats in Congress want to lead it), or what?" A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- said the country should go in the direction congressional Democrats want to lead it, compared with 35 percent who said the country should go in the direction Bush wants to lead it.

From the February 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

PILGRIM: It's been a busy week in Washington. Now, the country has a new Supreme Court justice, and House Republicans chose their new majority leader.

Joining me to discuss those issues and a lot more are three of the nation's leading political minds. We have Ed Rollins, who served as President Reagan's political director; John Fund from The Wall Street Journal; and Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News.

So let's start with you, Ed. What are your thoughts about the Boehner issue, and the victory, surprise victory over Roy Blunt, who two weeks ago said he had it in the bag, basically.

ROLLINS: Well, I've watched many walk in thinking they have it and not have it. Boehner is a very effective leader. He was a leader in the early [former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich [R-GA] days, and I think he's a good face. I think he's articulate. I think he'll basically make a good difference. Good difference.

PILGRIM: John, will we be able to get distance on the Abramoff scandal and the lobbying issue with him, or is he still involved in this?

FUND: Well, any congressional leader is going to have lobbyist friends. That's -- a lot of the Democratic leaders have those connections, too. The conservative movement had become disgusted with the high-spending pork-barrel practices of Congress under [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay [R-TX].

They basically turned out en masse and said to Roy Blunt, "We don't like you. We think you're too tied to the past." I think that was a critical difference in making John Boehner majority leader. He has the support of the reformers, even if he's not a complete reformer.

PILGRIM: Yeah. And, so, two good, positive reviews. What about you, Michael?

GOODWIN: Well, I think the good news for Republicans is that the Democrats are in disarray, too. I think that the Democrats don't really know what to do. They're against everything the president is for, but beyond that, I think it's not really working. There's a recent poll that shows that Bush is much more -- is held in much higher regard than congressional Democrats. So I think that the Republicans may have a little time to get their act together.

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 6 edition of MSNBC Live, Hardball host Chris Matthews falsely claimed that President Bush's April 2004 statement that "[a]ny time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ... a court order" was "pre-9-11." Though it is not clear whether Matthews meant that Bush made this statement prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or that Bush was simply referring to "pre-9-11" policies, either claim would be false. In fact, Bush's statement came more than two years after the September 11 attacks and included Bush's assertion that "[n]othing has changed. ... When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

On February 6, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Bush's authorization of warrantless eavesdropping on the communications of U.S. residents -- an apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Referring at the hearing to Bush's 2004 statement, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told Gonzales: "Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false."

On MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer asked Matthews about Feinstein's use of Bush's 2004 statement. Matthews falsely responded: "Well, that's what he said in the past. Of course, that was pre-9-11."

In fact, on April 20, 2004 -- more than two years after authorizing the warrantless eavesdropping program -- Bush stated that "[n]othing has changed" and that "[w]hen we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Bush did not suggest that his comments applied only to pre-September 11 policies. From Bush's "conversation on the USA Patriot Act" in Buffalo, New York:

BUSH: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

From the February 6 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: Democrats really, though -- they're playing hardball, if you'll excuse the pun.

MATTHEWS: Sure.

BREWER: Sen. Dianne Feinstein played a little sound bite from President Bush from a speech back in 2004 where he's talking about wiretapping, and he's going to assure the press that are there and the people who are attending this event that they have to go to court to get a court order before they wiretap. How does that all play out?

MATTHEWS: Well, that's what he said in the past. Of course, that was pre-9-11. And he'll tell you, and he'll say that the Congress gave him authority under 9-11 -- the 9-11 September 14 [2001] authorization [for use of military force] -- to do what he had to do against the people attacking us on 9-11. He'll say, "Times have changed."

Categories: News
12:02

A February 6 New York Times article by reporter Scott Shane reprinted, without challenge, an excerpt of a letter written by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean in defense of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, which Dean recently compared to "the abuse of power" exemplified by the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens by the Nixon administration. In the portion of the letter published by the Times, Roberts characterized the current program as being "directed at enemies that had attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans" and dismissed all suggestions that surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) could ensnare Americans with no connection to terrorism. However, as The Washington Post reported a day earlier, sources in the intelligence community indicated that out of thousands of Americans whose communications have been monitored by the NSA without a court order, "fewer than 10" U.S. citizens or residents "aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well."

The Times reported in a December 24 article that "according to current and former government officials," the NSA "has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity." The officials said communications were "collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries." Further, both the original December 16 Times report on the program and subsequent reporting in the newspaper's January 17 edition indicated that despite the administration's characterization of the wiretapping as limited to individuals suspected of being terrorists, government sources tell a different story.

From the January 17 edition of The New York Times:

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.

From the February 6 edition of The New York Times:

Former Senator Gary W. Hart, a Colorado Democrat who served on the Church Committee, believes views such as Mr. Cheney's have set the clock back 30 years.

''What we're experiencing now, in my judgment, is a repeat of the Nixon years,'' Mr. Hart said. ''Then it was justified by civil unrest and the Vietnam war. Now it's terrorism and the Iraq war.''

But on Friday, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, strongly defended the eavesdropping program and dismissed any comparison to the Nixon era.

Writing to Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, who had compared the current controversy to ''the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon,'' Mr. Roberts declared, ''Any suggestion that a program designed to track the movement, locations, plans or intentions of our enemy particularly those that have infiltrated our borders is equivalent to abusive domestic surveillance of the past is ludicrous.''

He added: ''When President Richard Nixon used warrantless wiretaps, they were not directed at enemies that had attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans.''

From the February 5 edition of The Washington Post:

Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.

Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.

Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.

The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.

Categories: News
12:02

In a February 5 International Herald Tribune article -- also published on The New York Times' website -- reporter Brian Knowlton wrote that some Democrats who had been briefed on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program before it was publicly revealed "say" they "expressed concerns or objections" at the time -- suggesting that their claims are the only existing evidence that they did in fact express concern. The report failed to note a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, describing his "lingering concerns" about the program written more than two years before its public disclosure.

The New York Times Company publishes the International Herald Tribune.

Knowlton's article described an appearance by deputy director of national intelligence Gen. Michael V. Hayden on the February 5 edition of Fox News Sunday. From Knowlton's February 5 article, as it appeared on the Times' website:

But citing the secrecy of the program, the general was circumspect in answering other questions.

Asked whether any of the eight members of Congress who had regularly been briefed on the program had expressed concern or objections -- as some say they did -- he replied, "I certainly never left the room believing we had to do anything differently."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the fact that Rockefeller expressed concerns about the program shortly after being briefed on it is not in dispute. On July 17, 2003, Rockefeller was briefed on the program by Hayden, who was then serving as director of the National Security Agency (NSA). In a handwritten letter to Cheney dated the same day, Rockefeller repeatedly referenced his "concerns" about the program and the limited information provided in the briefing:

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet], DIRNSA [Hayden], and Chairman [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

Rockefeller added: "I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication."

In addition, Knowlton's reference to "the eight members of Congress who had regularly been briefed on the program" is misleading. Knowlton was apparently referring to the so-called "Gang of Eight," which is composed of the House speaker and minority leader, the Senate majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. But several Democrats have said that their briefings did not adequately describe the program.

For example, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a December 21, 2005, statement, "I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda." She added: "Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed."

Similarly, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said there were "omissions of consequence" in the briefings he received in 2002 and 2004, according to an article in the January 9 issue of Newsweek:

"The presentation was quite different from what is now being reported in the press. I would argue that there were omissions of consequence." At his briefing in the White House Situation Room, Daschle was forbidden to take notes, bring staff or speak with anyone about what he had been told. "You're so disadvantaged," Daschle says. "They know so much more than you do. You don't even know what questions to ask."

And former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time the program was created, has claimed that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens," as the Times reported on December 21.

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 3 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Tony Snow repeated the false claim that Valerie Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, said his wife "wasn't covert for six years" before she was exposed as a CIA operative by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in his July 14, 2003, column.

However, Media Matters for America has previously noted (here and here) that Wilson did not say that.

Snow's false claim appears to be in reference to a comment Wilson made in an interview on the July 14, 2005, edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. In the interview, Wilson stated: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

From the July 14, 2005, edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, which featured host Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: The -- but the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife [in the January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine], who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, again, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared.

Media Matters previously noted that following Wilson's initial July 2005 comment, some media outlets inaccurately reported that Wilson said his wife was not covert at the time of Novak's column. But Wilson simply noted that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it. In fact, when Blitzer specifically asked Wilson if his wife "hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before" Novak's column was published, Wilson responded that he could not comment on her past status as an undercover officer, but noted that "the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed." The implication of Wilson's statement is clear: Had Plame not been a clandestine officer at the time Novak published her identity, the CIA would not have believed a possible crime had been committed.

Soon after that CNN interview, Wilson clarified his remarks, and many media outlets, such as the Associated Press, corrected the error. For example, in a July 15, 2005, article, the AP revised its report on Wilson's comment:

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

Wilson also said "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

From the February 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

SNOW: Very quickly -- very quickly, you got this Valerie Plame case. Now, it turns out that [special counsel] Peter (sic: Patrick) Fitzgerald doesn't -- can't even identify any harm. She wasn't a covert agent. She wasn't compromised.

As a result, what you're doing is possibly sending a senior administration official off about a faulty memory over something that wasn't a crime.

Meanwhile, you got [CIA director] Porter Goss saying that there's serious damage here. Don't you think this deserves at least an opportunity to try to figure out what happened?

CROWLEY: Well, I'll take exception with you. The fact that we had a covert operative that was exposed, it's possible.

SNOW: She wasn't covert anymore. Even her husband says she wasn't covert for six years.

Categories: News
12:02

During the February 4 broadcast of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger claimed that Democrats were "very ungracious" during President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address for "refusing to applaud anything this president said," with the exception of one instance, adding that they "simply sat on their hands." In fact, the Democrats applauded more than a dozen times during the State of the Union address.

Henninger's claim echoed an assertion made by NBC's Katie Couric, who said that Democrats "really applauded" only when Bush mentioned his failed Social Security plan. But far from sitting "on their hands," the Democrats gave standing ovations when Bush began the address by eulogizing Coretta Scott King; when he recognized the family of Marine Staff Sgt. Dan Clay, who was killed in Iraq; when he called for bipartisan support for the "war on terror"; and when he asked Congress "to put aside partisan politics and work together" in resolving the financial challenges facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. In total, Democrats applauded Bush at least 15 times during the approximately 50-minute-long address.

From the February 4 broadcast of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, with host and Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot:

HENNINGER: I thought the more telling thing, though, was the Republicans -- the Democrats refusing to applaud anything this president said, other than that [Bush's mention of his failed attempt at Social Security overhaul], in the State of the Union. I thought it was very ungracious.

GIGOT: You mean the Democrats?

HENNINGER: The Democrats, yeah.

GIGOT: Yeah.

HENNINGER: They simply sat on their hands, and people noticed that.

Categories: News
12:02

In an interview with Gen. Michael V. Hayden on the February 5 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace failed to challenge a statement Hayden made that appeared to directly contradict something Hayden had previously said in defense of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program. In the interview, Hayden repeated the administration's defense that in order for the National Security Agency (NSA) to undertake domestic surveillance without a warrant, it must have evidence in the same "probable cause range" that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires to obtain a warrant. But as the first administration official to publicly defend the program, Hayden admitted on January 23 that what he called the program's "reasonable basis" standard 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 had adopted a "lower standard" than required under FISA.

Hayden's assertion on Fox News Sunday was uncritically reported in a February 5 article in the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The New York Times Company.

Asked by Wallace why Americans should not be concerned that the administration has adopted a "lower or looser standard" for conducting wiretaps in the United States, Hayden replied by outlining the administration's current defense that "the standard that we use ... is in that probable cause range":

WALLACE: General, one of the big questions I think that people are asking is: Why can't you use the FISA law that was passed by Congress back in 1978?

As I understand it, under FISA, you have to show a court that you have probable cause before you can intercept a phone call, but under the president's plan, all you need is a reason to believe.

Why shouldn't Americans be concerned that what you have done is taken a program or taken a standard, in which you had to go to a court that would be using a judge that would be using a higher standard, and instead, now, you're using an NSA officer who's able to apply a lower or looser standard?

HAYDEN: All right. Lots of questions contained in there, Chris. First of all, I think you'll hear from NSA lawyers, and you'll probably hear from the attorney general tomorrow, that the standard that we use in order to determine whether or not we want to cover a communication is in that probable cause range.

Hayden's February 5 description of the program is in line with the Justice Department's (DOJ) defense of the program, but it directly contradicts his previous account of the program's requirement for engaging in warrantless surveillance.

As The Washington Post reported on January 26, Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said that the operative standard for NSA surveillance is "reasonable basis," which she said was "essentially the same" standard as FISA's requirement for "probable cause." But as Media Matters for America documented at the time, the DOJ account directly contradicted a statement Hayden had made earlier that week. In a January 23 press conference, Hayden acknowledged that the domestic surveillance program's standard is "a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant" and confirmed a reporter's characterization that the program has a "lower standard" than that required by FISA:

HAYDEN: The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve Al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.

[...]

REPORTER: Just to clarify sort of what's been said, from what I've heard you say today and an earlier press conference, the change from going around the FISA law was to -- one of them was to lower the standard from what they call for, which is basically probable cause to a reasonable basis; and then to take it away from a federal court judge, the FISA court judge, and hand it over to a shift supervisor at NSA. Is that what we're talking about here -- just for clarification?

HAYDEN: You got most of it right. The people who make the judgment, and the one you just referred to, there are only a handful of people at NSA who can make that decision. They're all senior executives; they are all counterterrorism and Al Qaeda experts. So I -- even though I -- you're actually quoting me back, Jim, saying, "shift supervisor." To be more precise in what you just described, the person who makes that decision, a very small handful senior executive: so, in military terms, a senior colonel or general officer equivalent; and in professional terms, the people who know more about this than anyone else.

REPORTER: Well, no, that wasn't the real question. The question I was asking, though, was, since you lowered the standard, doesn't that decrease the protections of the U.S. citizens? And number two, if you could give us some idea of the genesis of this. Did you come up with the idea? Did somebody in the White House come up with the idea? Where did the idea originate from?

Thank you.

HAYDEN: Let me just take the first one, Jim. And I'm not going to talk about the process by which the president arrived at his decision.

I think you've accurately described the criteria under which this operates, and I think I, at least, tried to accurately describe a changed circumstance, threat to the nation, and why this approach -- limited, focused -- has been effective.

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 5 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert selectively cited the results of a January 30 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll on Americans' views on President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program as a preface to asking his panel whether "the president has turned the corner on that issue." Russert reported the results of one question that showed a slight majority approving of the program, but ignored the next two questions in the poll, which produced contradictory results. Russert had previously cited the results of one of those questions in earlier appearances on NBC and MSNBC to discuss the poll, but the question he left unreported in those appearances and on Meet the Press was the question that more directly contradicted the finding that a majority approved of the domestic surveillance program.

Russert cited the poll's finding (question 23) -- that 51 percent approved of the "domestic wiretap program sponsored by the president," while 46 percent disapproved, -- in order to ask Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein, "[H]as the president turned the corner on that [issue]?" That question actually asked about whether people approved of Bush's "approach" on the issue of "using wiretaps to listen to telephone calls between suspected terrorists in other countries and American citizens in the United States without getting a court order to do so."

In previous appearances on the January 30 editions of NBC's Nightly News and MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and on the January 31 edition of NBC's Today, Russert reported that same poll finding to assert that Americans, while divided, slightly approved of "Bush's approach" in ordering the warrantless wiretaps. In those reports, Russert also noted the poll's finding (question 25) that a slight majority of Americans are concerned about the possible invasion of privacy: 56 percent said they were either "extremely concerned" (31 percent) or "somewhat concerned" (25 percent) that "the Bush administration's use of these kinds of wiretaps could be misused to violate people's privacy." On the February 5 broadcast of Meet the Press, however, Russert did not note the poll's findings on this question.

Russert said that the first question indicated that a "slight majority" agreed with the "president's view" of the wiretapping issue. During his Nightly News report, Russert said that this question "is the president's view, in effect. Should there be wiretaps without a court order?" After reporting the results, he said, "That's the president's position in favor." On Hardball, Russert said that the question indicated that "a majority believe with the president that you can, in fact, wiretap without a warrant." And on Today, Russert said that "a slight majority do support the president's view" that the wiretapping program is a "terrorism issue" as opposed to a "civil liberities" issue.

However, in all four of these reports addressing the poll, Russert omitted any mention of another related question from the poll (question 24), which found that 53 percent of Americans agreed that the Bush administration "should be required to get a court order before wiretapping"; while 41 percent disagreed. The finding from question 24 appears to contradict the finding in question 23, which Russert reported in each appearance. Indeed, in contrast with Russert's suggestion, The Wall Street Journal -- which co-sponsored the poll with NBC -- reported in a January 31 news article that the poll's results showed that Americans' opinion on the warrantless domestic spying is "mixed":

On the controversy over warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency, opinion is mixed. A narrow 51% majority says it approves of the Bush administration's approach to wiretapping international calls by suspected terrorists abroad and inside the U.S. But when asked whether the administration should obtain court orders for those wiretaps, the result is reversed, with 53% saying court orders should be required. Some 79% of Democrats, 58% of independents, and 27% of Republicans describe themselves as "extremely" or "quite" concerned that warrantless wiretaps "could be misused to violate people's privacy."

From February 5 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Gentlemen, let me show you the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on domestic wiretap program [sic] sponsored by the president. Fifty-one approve, 46 disapprove. Ron Brownstein, has the president turned the corner on that?

BROWNSTEIN: I think, as the issue is now defined, the polls have been very consistent from the beginning. That's one of about five or six polls that have shown a narrow plurality or majority supporting it. And I don't think the Judiciary Committee hearing, at least as it's structured, is likely to change that. If the debate is over whether the president has this authority or not, I think that the evidence is, from the polling, slightly more Americans say yes then no. What might change it is evidence about how the program was actually implemented and used and whether it caught more Americans in its net than the administration has suggested, as suggested in a story by The Washington Post today. Those are the kind of questions that might move public opinion, I think, more than what the Judiciary Committee is likely to debate.

From January 30 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And, Tim, two issues have been hot domestically: domestic eavesdropping of late and the lobbying scandal in Washington. Where are they playing politically?

RUSSERT: Here's lobbying, Brian. Which party is more influenced by special interests? Twenty-two percent of Americans say the Democrats; 36 percent say, no, it's the Republicans; and 33 percent, a third of Americans, say both parties equally. Then --

WILLIAMS: Tim --

RUSSERT: Yeah, we're talking about eavesdropping, Brian. It's very important. This is the president's position, in effect. Should there be wiretaps without court order? Fifty-one percent approve; 46 percent disapprove. That's the president's position in favor. But what about concerns? Fifty-six percent say they have concerns about wiretaps without warrants, 43 percent say they're not concerned. Brian, it's quite striking. Both those issues, lobbying and wiretapping, big in Washington debates, but on a list of priorities for America, on the bottom. And when asked whether they think that lobbying reform, if enacted by Congress, would change things, 65 percent of the American people say "wouldn't change things very much."

WILLIAMS: Tim, thanks, as always. A fresh polling numbers out tonight. Tim Russert in our NBC News Washington bureau.

From the January 30 (7 p.m. ET) edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): Who's winning this big fight here in Washington over domestic spying?

RUSSERT: Well, it's pretty interesting. We have asked people about spying issues, and a majority believe with the president that you can, in fact, wiretap without a warrant. However, when you ask the second question -- are you concerned by that policy? -- 56 percent say they are concerned by it. So the president has a slight majority supporting his policy. But there's a lot of tentativeness underneath the surface that if, in fact, something goes wrong or they learn more information, those numbers could swing.

From the January 31 broadcast of NBC's Today:

KATIE COURIC (co-host): Let's talk about the poll and, specifically, his approval rating, Tim. Thirty-nine percent approve of the job the president is doing; 54 percent disapprove. Put that in context for us, and is it true that the White House believes he has something like a 52 approval rate ceiling?

RUSSERT: Yeah, it's quite interesting. They realize that the two presidential races he was in he didn't pass that mark, and so it's impossible in their minds for any president to achieve the kind of levels that presidents in history did, of 60, 70 percent, or this president did after September 11th. But Katie, the administration and the White House believed they had made some progress. They were hoping that by now they'd be in the 40s or mid-40s with approval rating. Thirty-nine's a low number, and 54 disapproval is a very high number. They realize there's a long way to go in order to recapture the favorable rating and popularity the president once had.

COURIC: Why do you think the numbers haven't budged, Tim? As we know, last week the administration went on an all-out sort of counteroffensive to talk about domestic spying or terrorist surveillance, depending [on] who you're asking in terms of the name for that policy. I know that when asked about wiretaps without court orders, 51 percent approve, 46 percent disapproved. As I recall, it was pretty evenly split before this campaign embarked by the White House. So is -- should we conclude that wasn't particularly successful?

RUSSERT: Well, the president thinks that they gained a few points on that by making it a terrorism issue rather than a civil liberties issue. And a slight majority do support the president's view on that. But, Katie, the very next question -- are you concerned there could be abuses? -- 56 percent say that. And so, I think we're going to come down to on this issue is the courts. If the courts rule in favor of the president, he'll probably be OK on this issue politically. If they rule against him, if there is a suggestion that he broke the law, that could become a very lethal issue for the Democrats.

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host Jim Angle falsely claimed that Democrats initially objected to the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program because they opposed eavesdropping on people believed to be tied to terrorist activity, but made a "shift in strategy" to question the program's legality after recognizing that such surveillance "is a good thing to do." Charles Krauthammer went further, falsely suggesting that Democrats' criticism of the program over "a narrow issue of the legality" constituted a "wholesale retreat" that occurred after Democrats recognized that "opposing the idea of listening in on an Al Qaeda call into the U.S. is not a political winner." In fact, no leading Democrat has called for the administration to stop monitoring Al Qaeda communications. Rather, Democrats, as well as some Republicans and prominent conservatives, have been consistent in their criticism of the Bush administration for bypassing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which provides a mechanism by which the administration can obtain court orders to engage in surveillance of U.S. residents.

The characterizations put forth by Angle and Krauthammer of the Democrats' initial response to the spy program echo a distortion of the Democratic position by White House senior adviser Karl Rove. As Media Matters for America documented, Rove falsely claimed that "some important Democrats clearly disagree" with the proposition that "if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why."

From the February 3 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: All right, one quick last question -- quick question for you, Charles. The -- the fact is, Democrats -- some of whom initially protested this -- are now saying this is a great idea. This is a good thing to do. But, they question the legal authority to do it without warrants. That seems to be a little bit of a shift in strategy.

KRAUTHAMMER: It's more than a shift. It was a wholesale retreat. It was a rout on that issue. Democrats understood, within a week, that opposing the idea of listening in on an Al Qaeda call into the U.S. is not a political winner. So, as a result, it's a narrow issue of the legality, and, I think, on the politics, the Democrats are going to lose.

Categories: News
12:02

News articles in the February 3 editions of the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that revised 10-year cost estimates of President Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan were less than earlier projected -- $678 billion, as opposed to $737 billion estimated in August 2005. The new estimates were announced by Medicare administrator Mark McClellan during his February 2 testimony before the Senate Committee on Aging. In fact, while the new cost estimates were less than the August 2005 projections, they were far greater than the figures the administration put forward when it was trying to persuade Congress and the public to approve the bill: In advance of the November 2003 vote to approve the plan, Medicare provided Congress with an estimate of $400 billion; subsequently, the agency's chief actuary disclosed in March 2004 that the Medicare administrator ordered him to withhold his actual budget projections of between $500 and $600 billion from Congress.

As staff writer Robert Pear of The New York Times reported on March 25, 2004, Medicare actuary Richard S. Foster testified before Congress that the agency's then-administrator, Thomas A. Scully, threatened to fire him if he divulged Medicare's own estimate of the program's cost to Congress.

On June 6, 2003, Scully had testified before the Senate Finance Committee about the proposed drug plan using the $400 billion estimate. In addition, Tommy Thompson, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provided the same estimate to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 12, 2003.

Moreover, while the estimates represent a drop from the administration's most recent cost estimates -- which HHS credited to competition among the plan's providers, as Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, author of the Political Animal weblog, observed -- the revised HHS estimate McClellan released on February 2 in a report entitled "The Secretary's One Month Progress Report on the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit" was issued just one month after the prescription drug plan went into effect. Drum also noted that the revised estimate reflecting the 10-percent "savings" is still significantly higher than both the estimate initially provided to Congress and the actual projections Foster developed before the plan's approval. He continued: "So take this news with a great big shaker of salt."

From the February 3 edition of the Los Angeles Times:

The White House has promoted the drug benefit as a historic accomplishment and the most significant improvement to Medicare since its establishment in 1965. Spokesman Trent Duffy said Thursday that President Bush remained committed to the program, even though Bush didn't mention it in his State of the Union message this week.

Separately, the Medicare agency released estimates indicating that the drug benefit would cost less than expected: $678 billion over the next 10 years instead of the $737 billion projected last year. The average monthly premium for seniors this year is expected to be about $25, or 22% less than the $32 estimated in August.

McClellan said the main reason for the lower estimates was "robust competition" among the private insurers offering coverage. Other data released by the government suggested another factor might be at work: The previously rapid rate of increase in drug costs has slowed dramatically in the last two years because of a shift to generic medicines and other reasons.

From the February 3 edition of The Wall Street Journal:

Medicare officials say the program's new drug benefit will cost less than expected this year, as beneficiaries gravitate to plans with lower premiums.

The average premium for beneficiaries this year is about $25 a month, down from about $32 as estimated in August. The government also will see savings, said Mark McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The reason for the reduction: Health insurers are offering lower premiums than expected, and beneficiaries, Dr. McClellan said, "are choosing the plans that offer them the best deal."

Last year, Medicare actuaries projected that the drug benefit would cost taxpayers $737 billion over 10 years. That figure, updated after beneficiaries began enrolling in drug plans, now is $678 billion. Under the new estimates, the 2006 cost of the benefit dropped to $30.5 billion from $38.1 billion.

From the March 25, 2004, edition of The New York Times:

The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, told Congress on Wednesday that last June he provided the White House with data indicating that prescription drug legislation would cost 25 percent to 50 percent more than the Bush administration's public estimates. That information did not make its way to Congress for six more months.

Mr. Foster said he had shared his cost estimates with Doug Badger, the president's special assistant for health policy, and with James C. Capretta, associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. But he said that Thomas A. Scully, who was then administrator of the Medicare program, directed him to withhold the information from Congress, citing orders from the White House in one instance.

In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Foster said he had struggled to preserve the independence and integrity of his office. It was his first public appearance since a furor erupted over his assertions that Mr. Scully threatened to fire him if he disclosed his cost estimates to Congress during debate on the Medicare bill. The law, signed by President Bush in December, adds drug benefits to Medicare and significantly increases federal payments to private health insurers.

Mr. Foster said he had been told to withhold information from lawmakers of both parties. Moreover, he said, Mr. Scully stated that he was "acting under direct White House orders" in telling the actuary not to respond to a request from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California. Mr. Thomas was a principal architect of the Medicare bill.

[...]

Federal law says the chief actuary shall follow "professional standards of actuarial independence" and can be removed from his job "only for cause." But Mr. Foster testified that a lawyer at the department had told him that Mr. Scully had the legal right to prohibit the actuary from sharing information with Congress.

[...]

President Bush was urging Congress to create a drug benefit under Medicare, but said the legislation could not cost more than $400 billion over 10 years, and Congress accepted that ceiling.

The shape of the legislation was continually changing, but Mr. Foster said, "The range of our estimates was $500 billion to $600 billion all the way through the process," from June to November.

In their public statements, administration officials cited lower figures. "We are spending $400 billion," Mr. Scully said in a letter to The New York Times published on Nov. 20.

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 5 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews responded to syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker's assessment that prospective Republican presidential candidate and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani "has a big following in the South" and is "very strong in South Carolina" by saying, "Music to my ears. Because I think that too." Parker was responding to a question from Matthews, who declared that Parker "judge[s] a person by their genuineness. Are they really what they say?" and asked, "Can Rudy sell in this religious environment in the South?"

From the February 5 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:

MATTHEWS: Kathleen, it's incredible. You -- I've said on this show many a time -- that you judge a person by their genuineness. Are they really what they say? Can Rudy sell in this religious environment in the South?

PARKER: I think he can. Rudy has a big following in the South. He's very strong in South Carolina, for instance. And I've got --

MATTHEWS: Music to my ears. Because I think that too.

PARKER: And I've got something to tell you that's news to me too. I just learned this -- that abortion, the pro-life position, is no longer the litmus test, in South Carolina at least --

MATTHEWS: What is?

PARKER: -- it used to get the crowds -- it's national security.

MATTHEWS: And he's got that.

PARKER: Yes, and he's got it in spades.

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle repeated the discredited claim that the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless domestic surveillance program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, led to the arrest of Al Qaeda accomplice Iyman Faris. A naturalized U.S. citizen, Faris pleaded guilty in 2003 to plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. But contrary to Angle's suggestion, a January 17 New York Times report indicated that information gleaned from the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program did not play "a significant role" in Faris's capture.

Angle echoed administration officials, Los Angeles Times columnist Max Boot, and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who all cited the Faris case as evidence that the warrantless surveillance program had saved lives. From Boot's January 18 column:

And although the government has occasionally blundered, it has also used its enhanced post-9-11 powers to keep us safe. The National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps, which have generated so much controversy, helped catch, among others, a naturalized American citizen named Iyman Faris who pleaded guilty to being part of an Al Qaeda plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge.

But as Media Matters for America has noted, Angle's assertion that the NSA program led to Faris's arrest is contradicted by several press reports, including a January 17 New York Times article. That article cited "officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case" who disputed that "N.S.A. information played a significant role":

By the administration's account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

Newsweek investigative correspondent Mark Hosenball also questioned the administration's use of the Faris example in a January 4 Web-only article:

Did the National Security Agency's controversial eavesdropping program really help to detect terrorists or avert their plots? Administration officials have suggested to media outlets like The New York Times -- which broke the story -- that the spying played a role in at least two well-publicized investigations, one in the United Kingdom and one involving a plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

But before the NSA's warrantless spying program became public, government spokesmen had previously cited other intelligence and legal tactics as having led to major progress in the same investigations. In the Brooklyn Bridge case, officials indicated that the questioning of a captured Al Qaeda leader had led to investigative breakthroughs in Ohio.

Further, a CNN.com article on Faris's guilty plea reported that in early 2003, Faris called off his plot to use gas cutters to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge because it was "unlikely to succeed."

Angle claimed that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) "noted the NSA program prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge, prompting a moment of agreement with Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) about saving lives." But while Angle provided a clip only of Roberts's reference to the Brooklyn Bridge and Levin's response, a review of the transcript just before that exchange indicates that Levin may have been agreeing to a different assertion. In fact, it is unclear from the fuller transcript what Leven was agreeing to -- whether he agreed that it is difficult to estimate the number of lives that may have been saved by the program or whether he was agreeing that the NSA program substantially affected the Brooklyn Bridge plot.

From the February 2 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, which included testimony by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence and former director of the NSA:

LEVIN: You gave us the estimate that -- the vice president estimated that thousands of lives have been saved by this program. General, I just want to know: Can you estimate the number of lives that have been saved by this program?

HAYDEN: I cannot personally estimate the number of lives. Again, senator, as I said, this is about proving a negative. I think I mentioned in another form that if somebody had kicked in -- on Muhammad Atta's door in Maryland in July of 2001, it would still be very difficult to estimate.

LEVIN: I agree with you, but yet the vice president did that in public, and apparently there's no way to support that estimate that I know of or you know of, and my time is up.

ROBERTS: I think that Senator [Christopher S.] Bond [R-MO] is next. I think as to the number of lives have been saved it might have been -- how many were on the Brooklyn Bridge if it had blown up, or for that matter other threats that --

LEVIN: I agree with you.

From the February 2 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, suggested there is no evidence to back up comments by the vice president that the NSA program has prevented attacks and saved lives. General Hayden said you can't know in advance how many people might be saved by stopping an attack. Chairman Roberts noted the NSA program prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge, prompting a moment of agreement with Senator Levin about saving lives.

[begin video clip]

ROBERTS: How many people were on the Brooklyn Bridge if it had blown up, or, for that matter, other threats that --

LEVIN: I agree with you.

[end video clip]

Categories: News
12:02

Following Fox News' lead, a February 2 Washington Times editorial on President Bush's State of the Union address adopted the White House's terminology for its warrantless domestic surveillance program, dubbing it the "terrorist surveillance program." Bush first used the term publicly in a January 23 speech at Kansas State University in which he defended his authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept communications of U.S. residents without court warrants.

As Media Matters for America has noted, the term "terrorist surveillance program" appears to have originated with the right-wing news website NewsMax.com on December 22; operators of right-wing weblogs began to pick up the term on January 20, according to a timeline by the weblog Think Progress. On January 22, the White House press office released a backgrounder on the NSA program, in which the term appeared 10 times in reference to the domestic eavesdropping.

In his January 23 speech, Bush said of the NSA's activities, "It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program." He and other administration officials have since used the term in numerous speeches and interviews. While most news outlets noting the moniker have placed it in quotes or disclosed it is a term the Bush administration has promoted, Fox News began to use it on January 25, without qualification, in its news reports and commentary. In a February 2 editorial headlined "The president's address," The Washington Times editorial page furthered this trend:

Mr. Bush was at his best in making the case for renewal of the Patriot Act and in rebutting the critics of his terrorist surveillance program to intercept the communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives to and from the United States: "If there are people inside our country who are talking about al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

While the Times has written six other editorials on the domestic eavesdropping since the public disclosure of the NSA program on December 16, this represents the first in which the term "terrorist surveillance program" has appeared. Previously, the editorial page has referred to it as the "NSA surveillance program," the "wiretap program," "President Bush's warrantless domestic wiretaps," and "President Bush's National Security Agency wiretaps."

Categories: News
12:02

On the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann again awarded Fox News host Bill O'Reilly third-place honors during his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment, this time in recognition of O'Reilly's January 31 assertion -- documented by Media Matters for America here -- that CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour has a "rooting interest" in the Iraq war being a disaster.

Reading O'Reilly's quotes in an imitation of Ted Baxter, a pompous and knuckleheaded newscaster played by actor Ted Knight on The Mary Tyler Moore Show (MTM Productions, 1970-77), Olbermann stated:

OLBERMANN: Number three: it's Ted Baxter again, this time because CNN's Christiane Amanpour said: "Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster." O'Reilly says of Ms. Amanpour: "You can draw by that that she has a rooting interest in it being a disaster." Well -- well, no, you can't, not if you use human logic. Besides which, he wouldn't really take a swipe at CNN after saying, quote, "CNN, for example, usually competes with class, not bitterness."

As Media Matters noted, Olbermann previously criticized O'Reilly for claiming NBC took "cheap shots" at Fox News Network. Olbermann mocked O'Reilly's contention that the competition between Fox News and CNN plays out with "class, not bitterness," noting that "Fox News compared CNN's Paula Zahn to an outhouse and a dead muskrat."

Categories: News
12:02

In reports on Republican efforts to present new House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) as a clean break from GOP corruption scandals that threaten to impact the midterm elections, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and ABC's World News Tonight ignored criticism Boehner received for passing out checks from a tobacco industry group on the House floor moments before a key tobacco vote, as well as other ethical questions raised by Boehner's record. The Times article omitted reference to the incident, despite the paper's having described it as a "memorable moment" in a January 18 article. The AP had also flagged the incident in articles on January 11 and January 14. Both outlets mentioned the incident in secondary articles on February 3, but not in the main articles about the House leadership election, which purported to document GOP efforts to put the ethics scandals behind them.

In a February 3 article, Associated Press staff writer Jesse J. Holland omitted any reference to the tobacco political action committee checks, a highly publicized incident over which Boehner ultimately apologized. Similarly, a February 3 New York Times front-page article by reporter Carl Hulse ignored the tobacco controversy while reporting that Boehner's ascension occurred "as Republicans, worried about a corruption scandal and their own tarnished image, tried to distance themselves from the tenure of Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX)." A second Times article by reporter Adam Nagourney also ignored the tobacco checks incident, even while noting Republican strategist Rich Galen's assertion that Boehner's main opponent for majority leader, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), was hurt by being "married to a tobacco lobbyist." In a February 2 report on World News Tonight, anchor Elizabeth Vargas ignored Boehner's advocacy for the tobacco industry while reporting that Boehner "campaigned as a reformer amid congressional nervousness over a lobbying scandal."

The omissions by the AP and the Times come despite prior reports by both outlets on Boehner's majority leader bid that noted the tobacco industry checks, with a January 18 Times article even noting that the incident was "a memorable moment in 1996 that Mr. Boehner now says he regrets." A January 11 AP report noted that Boehner "admitted he distributed a tobacco political action committee's campaign checks on the House floor, but said at the time he would never do it again," while a January 14 AP article similarly reported that "Boehner was forced to apologize in the mid-1990s for distributing checks from tobacco companies to his colleagues as they worked on the House floor."

Moreover, similar reports about Boehner's February 2 ascension by The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NBC, and CBS -- as well as secondary reports by the AP and The New York Times -- noted Boehner's tobacco PAC controversy, while a report by The Wall Street Journal provided additional details of ethics concerns involving Boehner:

According to Public Citizen, a liberal public-interest group, Mr. Boehner has accepted $150,000 in free trips from the private sector since 2000, more than all but six other members of Congress. At the same time, two dozen of his former staffers have spun through Washington's revolving door to become lobbyists.

[...]

Mr. Boehner, like Reps. Blunt and DeLay, also brings his own baggage from the Washington lobbying community. The single biggest contributor to his political action committee is student-loan provider Sallie Mae, a company with a huge stake in issues before Mr. Boehner's Education Committee. Sallie Mae, the largest of the private student-loan providers, wants to retain the generous federal subsidies it receives for its loans and make competing loans from the government more expensive by preserving various fees. Sallie Mae has contributed $122,500 to Mr. Boehner's PAC, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

[...]

Of his own ties to Washington's K Street lobbying row, Mr. Boehner said lobbyists "appreciate dealing with someone who they know who they are. There's nothing improper or unethical about my relationship with those who lobby."

Among those closest to him is Bruce Gates, a tax lobbyist with Washington Council Ernst & Young and head of Mr. Boehner's Freedom Project PAC. Mr. Gates, whose wife once worked for Mr. Boehner, is a lobbyist for several clients, including Delta Airlines, that have business before the education and workforce committee.

In the 2004 presidential-election cycle, Mr. Boehner contributed $770,000 to the re-election campaigns of his colleagues, up from $540,000 in the 2000 presidential cycle. Those campaign donations were key to Mr. Boehner's victory yesterday. Four of five of his early supporters in his campaign for majority leader received donations from him. In December, Mr. Boehner's PAC distributed $180,000 to House Republicans.

Two of Mr. Boehner's lobbyist friends throw a late-night party for him every four years at the Republican National Convention. The parties, known as Mr. Boehner's "Best Little Warehouse" parties, cost more than $100,000 and are paid for by U.S. corporations. The events are organized by Mr. Gates and lobbyist Henry Gandy.

Although he campaigned as a reformer, Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner) is no stranger to Washington. In the early 1990s, he was one of the zealous "Gang of Seven" that pushed to expose a check-kiting scandal in the House bank. But once in the leadership, he avidly cultivated ties to the K Street lobbying community. He made headlines for handing out checks from tobacco interests to colleagues on the House floor.

Boehner has had his share of taint. He handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor in 1995 while lawmakers were weighing tobacco subsidies. In 2004, he allowed Sallie Mae to throw him a fundraiser while the student lending outfit was lobbying his committee. And he is a frequent flier on trips paid for by special interests.

Rep. John A. Boehner, with his ever-present cigarette, seems like a throwback to the days of Capitol Hill's smoke-filled rooms.

He is hip-deep in political contributions from an industry he oversees. He was once scolded for passing out campaign checks from tobacco interests on the House floor. He was booted from a leadership post eight years ago.

But with his election Thursday as the new House majority leader, the Ohio Republican has emerged -- phoenix-like -- as his party's agent of change in the post-Tom DeLay era.

Boehner received $32,500 from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Boehner says the contributions were legal and has declined to give them up, as about 100 of his colleagues have done with Abramoff-related donations. He also raised eyebrows in 1995 for distributing campaign checks from tobacco interests on the House floor -- something that has since been banned by Republican leaders.

  • A report by NBC News correspondent Chip Reid on the February 2 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:

REID: John Boehner, after all, is a longtime Washington insider with deep ties to some powerful lobbying interests. He once had to apologize for handing out checks from tobacco companies to his colleagues on the House floor. In the 1990s, he was a top deputy to Speaker Newt Gingrich.

  • A report by CBS News contributor Gloria Borger on the February 2 edition of the CBS Evening News:

BORGER: He may call himself a reformer but he is no stranger to K Street lobbyists. His political fund-raising committee has received over $30,000 from Jack Abramoff's tribal clients. And back in 1995 Boehner apologized for distributing campaign checks from the tobacco lobby on the House floor. [Rep.] Rahm Emanuel [D-IL], who runs the Democratic House Campaign Committee says Boehner's election today is just more of the same. Quote, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Once, in an episode he now says he regrets, Mr. Boehner was seen on the House floor passing out checks from the tobacco industry to his colleagues. More recently, he has been cool to efforts to tighten restrictions on lobbyists, but he did back a rules change that passed on Wednesday, barring former members who are lobbyists from using the House gym.

Elected in 1990, when Democrats had a stranglehold on the House, Boehner rose to fame assailing the excesses of the majority party as reports surfaced of bounced checks at the House bank. He was a member of the "Gang of Seven," the group of upstart Republicans who challenged the status quo.

But once in power after the 1994 elections, similar GOP foibles were on display. Boehner was forced to apologize in the mid-1990s for distributing checks from tobacco companies to his colleagues on the House floor.

In 1995, the Republican rank-and-file voted him chairman of the House Republican Conference, the No. 4 position in the leadership. Boehner used that position to craft the GOP message and improve GOP ties to businesses and lobbyists. He often held weekly meetings with lobbyists at the Capitol.

Categories: News

February 3, 2006

13:17

The February 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room featured excerpts of an interview with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, conducted by CNN Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena, about the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. At no point in any of the excerpts shown, however, did Arena ask Gonzales about comments he made during his 2005 confirmation hearings, in which Gonzales, under oath, responded to a question from Sen. Russ Feingold (D WI) about whether the president could authorize warrantless domestic wiretaps by suggesting that Feingold had described a "hypothetical situation," despite the fact that the warrantless surveillance program had been in place since 2001 and that President Bush had reauthorized it numerous times. Arena apparently failed to question Gonzales on those responses, even though two days earlier she reported on a January 30 letter Feingold sent to Justice accusing Gonzales of misleading Congress.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the warrantless domestic surveillance program are scheduled to begin on February 6.

At Gonzales's confirmation hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales if the president has the authority to "to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country." Gonzales responded by saying Feingold phrased his question "as sort of a hypothetical situation." In his January 30 letter to Gonzales, Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote: "I am particularly interested in asking about your misleading testimony at your confirmation hearing on January 6, 2005, when I specifically asked you if the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of statutory prohibitions. As the attached transcript shows, you initially tried to dismiss my question as 'hypothetical.' "

Arena reported on Gonzales's 2005 statements and Feingold's accusation on the January 31 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, hosted by Wolf Blitzer:

ARENA: Wolf, if the pre-show is any indication, next week's Senate Judiciary hearings on the NSA [National Security Agency] program could get very ugly. Senator Russ Feingold is accusing the attorney general of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings last year, when he was asked about warrantless wiretaps.

[...]

ARENA: Justice Department officials say that there was nothing misleading about Gonzales's statement and that the president is on firm legal ground. Gonzales is scheduled to testify all day Monday, Wolf.

Nonetheless, at no point during any of the interview clips aired by CNN did Arena ask Gonzales about the comments he made at his 2005 hearing testimony.

From the February 2 edition of the Situation Room:

ARENA: Wolf, Senate Democrats are pushing the attorney general to turn over classified legal opinions on the president's domestic surveillance program in advance of his testimony before a Senate committee on Monday. If he continues to refuse, Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] says the documents should be subpoenaed. In an interview earlier today, the attorney general defended the administration's stance.

[begin video clip]

ARENA: Some members of Congress have said, well, look, there was initially some concern over this program, some inside debate within the Justice Department over this program. That could help them understand what the thinking was at the time, what limitations, if any, were set on this program. Wouldn't that be helpful?

GONZALES: I think, of course, people have a natural curiosity about the operations of the program and on our thinking and the deliberations that went into our analysis. But part of -- part of what we're trying to protect is the ability of lawyers within the department to have a very open and candid discussion, debate about some of these complicated legal issues that I've already outlined. We want to encourage that. People may -- lawyers -- I mean, this is our job, is to discuss difficult issues. And to disagree.

ARENA: We've heard two things from you: that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is still relevant in the war on terror. But I've also heard you say that it doesn't allow you to move quickly enough. Why not just change FISA?

GONZALES: It is clear that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act still remains very, very relevant. And these -- this is a very important tool on the war on terror. But the question whether or not FISA is effective or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant to the question of whether or not the president is acting lawfully. If the president is acting without any kind of legal authority, the fact that FISA is effective or not, quite frankly, doesn't make -- shouldn't make a difference. And if, in fact -- if we all assume or believe that the president is acting lawfully, then the president should -- as commander in chief, should choose which tool is the most effective, the tools under the terrorist surveillance program, the tools under FISA. The president should choose which tool is the most effective in protecting America.

ARENA: Can you tell us any more about how narrow the program is? You said that you would hope to be able to talk in more specific terms. Can you?

GONZALES: The physics are such that we have a great degree of confidence -- I don't know if certainty is the right word, but, certainly, a great degree of confidence that every call that's being surveilled, one end is outside the United States. And we also -- and the president has authorized surveillance with respect to only those calls where we have a reasonable basis, which is very similar to probable cause, a reasonable basis to believe that one person on the call is member of Al Qaeda or a member of a group affiliated with Al Qaeda. That determination is not made by local -- a local appointee.

ARENA: Either -- so, they have to belong to a terrorist group? It's not somebody who is linked to a terrorist group?

GONZALES: It can't be just any terrorist group. It can't be a member of Hezbollah, for example. We are talking about someone who is a member of Al Qaeda or someone how has worked -- a member of a group that is working in concert or assisting or helping al Qaeda, assisting in part of the Al Qaeda effort to destroy the United States.

[end video clip]

ARENA: Now, the attorney general wouldn't get any more specific about the NSA program, arguing that the people who most want to know the operational details are terrorists.

Categories: News
13:17

During the "Grapevine" segment of the February 2 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume selectively cited a February 2 Chicago Sun-Times column by Lynn Sweet to attack Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) on his relationship to his former campaign treasurer, William Singer. Drawing on Sweet's Sun-Times piece, Hume reported that Emanuel "has made ethics a central issue in 2006," but "quietly switched campaign treasurers last month, dropping a longtime friend [Singer] who was also a federally registered lobbyist." Hume then noted that Singer had been Emanuel's treasurer since 2002, continuing, "[T]he Chicago Sun-Times reports that he's [Singer] officially lobbied Emanuel on at least one occasion since then. A spokesman for the congressman says with ethics issues heating up in the House, Singer was replaced for, quote, obvious reasons." What Hume left out is that in the only example cited in Sweet's column of Singer lobbying Emanuel while serving as Emanuel's treasurer, Sweet also noted that "Emanuel voted against Singer's position."

Media Matters for America has documented other examples of Hume's distortions during the "Grapevine" (here, here, here, and, most recently, here).

From Sweet's February 2 Chicago Sun-Times column:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the boss of the House Democratic political operation who is making ethics a centerpiece issue in the November elections, last month quietly switched campaign treasurers -- from a federal lobbyist who has for a long time served in that role to someone else.

Emanuel's move comes as GOP leaders who control Congress are seriously considering a crackdown on ethics rules in the wake of an unfolding GOP scandal triggered by the conviction of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Kathleen Connery, Emanuel's government spokesman, said the treasurer, William Singer, a lawyer and a lobbyist, has been replaced. Asked why, Connery replied, "It's obvious.''

The obvious, I surmise, is this: Emanuel saw the need to get his own ethics house in order. Singer is a former Chicago alderman whose friendship with Emanuel predates his election to Congress. Singer is also a fund-raiser for Senate Democrats.

With the ethics issue heating up, Singer told me he stepped down because "I respect him and want to help him and the best way to do that is not to serve in a meaningless job as treasurer.'' Singer said he will continue to raise money for Emanuel, one of the most prolific fund-raisers in Washington.

I wrote about Singer's connection to Emanuel's campaign Jan. 3, 2002, when Emanuel was first running for his seat.

In Washington, Singer represents United Airlines, mainly on pension issues and Verizon on telecommunication legislation.

Emanuel sits on the Ways and Means Committee, which handles many pension matters. Singer lobbied him on one issue and Emanuel voted against Singer's position.

From the February 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: And now the most engaging two minutes in television, the latest from the political "Grapevine."

[...]

HUME: Illinois Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who has made ethics a central issue in 2006, quietly switched campaign treasurers last month, dropping a longtime friend who was also a federally registered lobbyist. William Singer, a former Chicago alderman and one of Washington's most prolific Democratic fund-raisers, has been Emanuel's treasurer since his first campaign in 2002. And the Chicago Sun-Times reports that he's officially lobbied Emanuel on at least one occasion since then. A spokesman for the congressman says with ethics issues heating up in the House, Singer was replaced for, quote, obvious reasons.

Categories: News
13:17

In a report on the Senate Intelligence Committee's February 2 hearing on national security threats, CNN national security correspondent David Ensor aired a clip of Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the committee, criticizing the Bush administration's apparent failure to fully inform Congress about its warrantless domestic surveillance program. Ensor then said, "[I]n fact, Rockefeller was one of the few who were briefed," suggesting that Rockefeller's criticism at the hearing was disingenuous. Notably absent from Ensor's report was any indication that after learning of the surveillance program in July 2003, Rockefeller wrote a letter -- by hand, to prevent the potential disclosure of classified information to his staff -- to Vice President Dick Cheney that expressed strong reservations over "the activities we discussed" and concern over Congress' ability to exercise oversight and his own ability to evaluate the program.

From the February 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

ENSOR: The spy chiefs faced a barrage of pointed questions from Intelligence Committee Democrats angered by the president's National Security Agency domestic [NSA] surveillance program and the fact that most of them were never briefed about it.

ROCKEFELLER [video clip]: This rationale for withholding information from Congress is flat-out unacceptable and nothing more than political smoke.

ENSOR: But, in fact, Rockefeller was one of the few who were briefed. Director of Nation Intelligence John Negroponte stressed that the NSA carefully reviews and minimizes any information collected on Americans.

Ensor's suggestion that Rockefeller was hiding the fact that he was one of the few lawmakers who were briefed ignores what actually happened. Ensor made no mention of a letter dated July 17, 2003 -- the day of his classified briefing -- in which Rockefeller expressed concerns not only about President Bush's authorization of the NSA to eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. residents, but also about the amount of information disclosed in the briefing. In a handwritten letter to Cheney, Rockefeller wrote:

Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician, nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

[...]

Without more information and the ability to draw on independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

Rockefeller is not the only senator briefed on the program who has criticized the Bush administration's repeated claim that Congress had adequate information about the NSA program. For example, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said there were "omissions of consequence" in the briefings he received in 2002 and 2004, according to an article in the January 9 issue of Newsweek:

"The presentation was quite different from what is now being reported in the press. I would argue that there were omissions of consequence." At his briefing in the White House Situation Room, Daschle was forbidden to take notes, bring staff or speak with anyone about what he had been told. "You're so disadvantaged," Daschle says. "They know so much more than you do. You don't even know what questions to ask."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have also said that they did not receive a complete accounting of the program. And former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time the program was created, has claimed that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens," as The New York Times reported on December 21.

Categories: News