Media Matters for America

On the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews reacted in apparent surprise to former presidential adviser David Gergen's reference to a widely reported incident from newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) past -- which MSNBC had reported earlier that day. When Gergen stated that Boehner "is the guy who ... was giving out tobacco checks at one point, in the 1990s, on the floor of the House of Representatives," Matthews responded: "Wow." He then added, "I like the way Gergen operates. He puts that shiv in really good. I like that. Everybody else ... forgives and forgets, but not Gergen."

As The Hill reported on July 25, 2003, Boehner drew criticism in 1995 for "distribut[ing] checks from a tobacco political action committee on the House floor before a key vote on a tobacco issue."

But Gergen was not the only one to point out the tobacco checks incident, in the wake of Boehner's election to the majority leader position. Matthews's own cable channel had reported on it earlier on February 2. As Media Matters for America previously noted, during MSNBC's 3 p.m. ET hour coverage of Boehner's election, reporter Mike Viqueira stated:

VIQUEIRA: It's really a question of how much of a reform candidate Boehner really is. That's how he was portrayed in early days here in Congress. He was seen as a reformer. Then he did get into some problems, passing out checks from lobbyists on the House floor. He since apologized for that.

Additionally, a Media Matters search* of the Lexis-Nexis database revealed February 2 news articles describing the incident on MSNBC parent company NBC's Nightly News, on CBS' Evening News, and on NPR's All Things Considered. The same search, unrestricted by date, returned a total of 183 hits, beginning May 10, 1996.

Gergen made his comments in response to Matthews's assertion that Boehner "has no connection to the history of the [Republican] leadership." Gergen described Boehner as "a [former Speaker of the House] Newt Gingrich [R-GA] ally" who "really did well ... during the Newt Gingrich years." A February 3 Washington Post article by Dana Milbank described Boehner as "a fallen Newt Gingrich lieutenant" who "lost his position as chairman of the House Republican Conference as his patron, Gingrich, fell from the speakership" in 1998. The same article also reported: "Though long a Gingrich acolyte, Boehner was suspected of having a role in the failed 1997 GOP coup against him."

* boehner w/20 tobacco w/20 checks w/20 house and date(geq (2/2/06) and leq (2/2/06))

From the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which also featured Chuck Todd, editor-in-chief of The Hotline, National Journal's weblog:

MATTHEWS: David, what do you make of the decapitation, the coup d'état on Capitol Hill today, that Republicans having gotten rid of [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay [R-TX], now got rid of his guy, [former acting House Majority Leader] Roy Blunt [R-MO]? They've got a new man out there, John Boehner, who has no connection -- who has no connection to the history of the leadership?

GERGEN: Well, he does not, Chris, but I don't think it solves their reform image problem. They clearly -- they clearly dropped Blunt because they thought he was too close to DeLay, and they're looking ahead to the elections, and as Chuck will tell you, you know, this is going to be a big issue in the fall for the Democrats.

So, they wanted to get away from it, but they didn't go all the way to a reformer. In John Boehner, they got another Republican, a Newt Gingrich ally. You know, Boehner really did well with Newt Gingrich -- during the Newt Gingrich years, he fell from grace, and now, he's back.

He's well-liked on Capitol Hill. He's also has a reputation of being a little too close to the lobbyists, even though he was against earmarks, he is the guy who -- he's apologized for it now -- but he's the guy who was giving out tobacco checks at one point, in the 1990s, on the floor of the House of Representatives.

MATTHEWS: Wow.

TODD: Yes, no, he's - David's right. He's --

MATTHEWS: I like the way Gergen operates. He puts that shiv in really good. I like that. Everybody else forgets -- forgives and forgets, but not Gergen.

Commenting on a Massachusetts lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart over its refusal to stock emergency contraception pills, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners on February 2 that "the most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning-after pill," later repeating that "[t]he last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill." After reading portions of a February 2 Associated Press article detailing the lawsuit, Limbaugh said, "I think these babes ought to first prove that they've had sex with a man," explaining, "I mean, that's in Boston." He added: "For crying out loud, let's make them prove that they've first had sex with a man, and then we'll talk about stocking the morning-after pill at Wal-Mart."

From the February 2 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Wal-Mart has been sued for not selling something this time. For not selling something. You know, the most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning-after pill. I mean, you don't -- that's a more dangerous place to be than between [Sen.] Chuck Schumer [D-NY] and a television camera. You don't want, you -- when a liberal woman gets pregnant, you do not want to be anywhere near her morning-after pill.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Three Massachusetts women -- ha-ha-ha. Gotta be quick here, folks. Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion groups sued Wal-Mart yesterday, saying that the retail giant violated a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies. The suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court -- this is in Boston -- seeks a court order compelling the company to stock the so-called "morning-after pill" in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in -- would you people make up your minds? You either want to put these stores out of business and get rid of them, or you want them to sell what you want. I'm telling -- Snerdley, you probably know this. The last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill. You wouldn't know about that from experience? Well, I'm just -- I think these babes ought to first prove that they've had sex with a man. You know, that -- I mean, that's in Boston. For crying out loud, let's make them prove that they've first had sex with a man, and then we'll talk about stocking the morning-after pill at Wal-Mart. But I'm telling -- absolutely insane. They want to put this outfit out of business, and now they want to storm the place for their morning-after pills. Folks, don't get between a liberal and her morning-after pill. Just do not do it.

On the February 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again denied that he had endorsed an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco. As Media Matters for America has noted, however, O'Reilly did, in fact, invite Al Qaeda to "blow up" Coit Tower, a San Francisco landmark, in response to a successful San Francisco ballot measure that called on public colleges and high schools to ban military recruiting on campus. On the November 8, 2005, edition of his radio program, O'Reilly said:

O'REILLY: Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. ... And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

During his February 1 show, after reading aloud a viewer's letter that referred to O'Reilly's remarks, O'Reilly replied: "Wrong, sir. I gave Al Qaeda your address. That's just a jest." He then added: "But here's some serious advice: Stay away from the far-left web sites. They do not make you look smart."

On the November 14, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that his comments had been "satirical," although in playing an audio clip while defending them, he omitted his remarks that "if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it" and "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." On the December 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, he misrepresented his remarks and the controversy that followed them, claiming that "San Francisco pinheads wanted me to be fired because I criticized their anti-military vote" and omitting mention of his endorsement of a terrorist attack on the city.

In the "Talking Points Memo" segment of the February 1 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly again focused on San Francisco, when he decried the ballot measure on military recruiting, Mayor Gavin Newsom's 2004 decision to let the city issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and a petition calling for the impeachment of President Bush presented to the city Board of Supervisors at its January 31 meeting. O'Reilly said he "deplore[d] the actions of Congresswoman [Lynn] Woolsey [D-CA] and Congresswoman Barbara Lee [D-CA]" -- both of whom represent districts in the San Francisco Bay area -- for, he suggested, facilitating the attendance of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan at Bush's January 31 State of the Union address. Woolsey had invited Sheehan to the speech as her guest, but O'Reilly asserted that "both [Woolsey and Lee were] in on the Sheehan episode." Before the speech began, Sheehan was arrested and removed from the Capitol building for wearing a T-shirt that stated: "2,245 Dead. How many more?" O'Reilly asserted that "the San Francisco area ... is now actively undermining the war on terror and indeed, the law itself," and went on to add: "It's clear the City by the Bay has uncoupled itself from the rest of the USA and is bent on establishing a quasi-far-left nation within city limits." Concluding his statement about Woolsey and Lee, O'Reilly declared, "There is a good chance that California Congresswoman Woolsey and Lee intentionally tried to sabotage the State of the Union address in order to embarrass the country. Now, that kind of destructive action may be acceptable in San Francisco, but it shouldn't be in the rest of the country."

From the February 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Today, charges against Ms. Sheehan were dropped, but she says she's suing. Now, "Talking Points" deplores the actions of Congresswoman Woolsey and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who were both in on the Sheehan episode. These lawmakers should be investigated by the House and reprimanded if the evidence dictates. Cindy Sheehan is, of course, a militant bent on embarrassing the president. If she had not been confronted by police, anything could have happened during the speech. This is simply unacceptable. Miss Sheehan and the congresswomen are entitled to protest anything they want in the appropriate place, but this was a setup, pure and simple.

Both Lee and Woolsey represent the San Francisco area, which has become increasingly radicalized and is now actively undermining the war on terror and indeed, the law itself.

San Francisco voters by a 60-40 margin told the military it's not welcome to recruit in city schools. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, married scores of homosexuals in violation of state law. He only stopped when the California Supreme Court demanded it. And next week, the San Francisco board of supervisors will discuss a call for the impeachment of President Bush.

"Talking Points" could go on and on. It's clear the City by the Bay has uncoupled itself from the rest of the USA and is bent on establishing a quasi-far-left nation within city limits. Now, it's actually interesting to watch this process, but it's also disturbing in the middle of a terror war. There is a good chance that California Congresswoman Woolsey and Lee intentionally tried to sabotage the State of the Union address in order to embarrass the country. Now, that kind of destructive action may be acceptable in San Francisco, but it shouldn't be in the rest of the country. And that's the memo.

[...]

O'REILLY: And finally tonight, the mail. A virtual potpourri this evening.

[...]

Anthony Memisovski, Malmo, Sweden: "O'Reilly, why do you slander Cindy Sheehan for comparing the Iraqi insurgents to freedom fighters? You called for an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco."

O'REILLY: Wrong, sir. I gave Al Qaeda your address. That's just a jest. But here's some serious advice: Stay away from the far-left websites. They do not make you look smart.

During the February 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Christian Coalition founder and 700 Club host Pat Robertson reiterated his call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

When co-host Alan Colmes asked Robertson, "[I]f he [Chavez] were assassinated, the world would be a safer place?" Robertson answered, "I think South America would." When Colmes later pressed Robertson, asking, "Do you want him [Chavez] taken out?" Robertson retorted, "Not now, but one day, one day, one day." Earlier, Colmes had asked, "Should Chavez be assassinated?" Robertson explained that "one day," Chavez will "be aiming nuclear weapons; and what's coming across the Gulf [of Mexico] isn't going to be [Hurricane] Katrina, it's going to be his nukes." Co-host Sean Hannity agreed that "the world would be better off without him where he [Chavez] is, because he is a danger to the United States."

Earlier that day, on the February 2 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, Robertson addressed his original August 22, 2005, appeal, in which he had said: "We have the ability to take him [Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." During the interview, co-host Robin Roberts asked Robertson to explain his comments on Chavez, his condemnation of the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania -- who voted a school board out of office after it imposed an intelligent design curriculum -- and his statements regarding former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, in which he suggested that Sharon's stroke was the result of Sharon's policy, which he claimed was "dividing God's land." Robertson replied:

I'm very passionate about certain things, and unfortunately, my passion maybe runs ahead of me. And in the context of what I'm saying, it isn't quite as strong as it sounds, but I am passionate about certain things and it's not politically correct at all.

From the February 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: Should Chavez be assassinated?

ROBERTSON: Well, one day he's going to be aiming nuclear weapons; and what's coming across the Gulf isn't going to be Katrina, it's going to be his nukes.

COLMES: Would you feel better going back to the original comment that if he were assassinated, the world would be a safer place?

ROBERTSON: I think South America would. He is -- he is -- got hit squads. He's a very dangerous man.

COLMES: So, you're not taking back the comment. You believe assassination of Hugo Chavez would be in the best interests of the world.

ROBERTSON: Well, rather than going to war. One day, we're going to have to go to war, I'm afraid, if he continues his policy, you know. But, I don't know. I wrote him a letter. I apologized to him.

COLMES: But, wait a minute. If you say you apologized to him, what you just said seems to contravene that, because you just now said --

ROBERTSON: I know. I know.

COLMES: -- you think it'd be better if he be assassinated.

ROBERTSON: Alan, the whole thing we've got to deal with is that, one day, if he continues his course of trying to mobilize Marxist powers in South America, it's going to be a clear --

COLMES: He's very popular with his country.

ROBERTSON: Well, yes and no. But he does --

HANNITY: He's building up weapons against the United States, isn't he?

COLMES: He's extremely popular. Eighty-percent of his country --

ROBERTSON: He's also calling for the destruction of George Bush. He calls him a war criminal.

COLMES: Do you want him taken out?

ROBERTSON: Not now, but one day, one day, one day. My premise is, and I think as -- you know, until that comment came out, everybody thought Chavez [added link] was a fellow having to do with table grapes in California. Now --

HANNITY: I think one thing we could say is, the world would be better off without him where he is, because he is a danger to the United States.

ROBERTSON: Extreme danger.

On the January 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly decried tax increases on gasoline as "secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff" and declared that "we don't need any more taxes on anything" -- but he then endorsed a tax on the sale of gas-guzzling vehicles.

Apparently referring to The New York Times' editorial board's advocacy of a gasoline tax, O'Reilly stated that the Times wants to "raise tax on oil a buck" to force people to conserve and to get "more money flowing into the federal government, so the federal government can make -- you know, do this secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff that The New York Times is committed to." Then he declared that in order to conserve energy "we" need "to tell Detroit, 30 miles per gallon. Any vehicle that doesn't get it, then we're going to tax that vehicle through the roof -- 25 percent surcharge tax on any vehicle that doesn't get 30 miles to the gallon."

The federal government currently levies a "gas guzzler tax" of between $1,000 and $7,000 on cars whose combined (city and highway) fuel economy is less than 22.5 miles per gallon.

From the January 30 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: And, you know, The New York Times, their solution is, well, let's raise tax on oil a buck. So, therefore, overnight, your $2.50 a gallon [gasoline] becomes $3.50 a gallon. The New York Times thinks this is swell because that would drive down consumption. Then you'd be forced to conserve, forced not to buy as much. Well, fine, but every other product in the United States rises in price because everything else is dependent on oil. It takes oil to get the product into the store, to get the plane in the air. And that would lead to an enormous recession. New York Times has no clue, of course, because all they want is more money flowing into the federal government, so the federal government can make -- you know, do this secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff that The New York Times is committed to.

Anyway, we don't need any more taxes on anything. What we need to do is get alternative energy. The way to do that is to tell Detroit, 30 miles per gallon. Any vehicle that doesn't get it, then we're going to tax that vehicle through the roof -- 25 percent surcharge tax on any vehicle that doesn't get 30 miles to the gallon. Guess what? Most vehicles will be getting 30 miles to the gallon. That's what the government should do. One example.

In his first several reports on Rep. John A. Boehner's (R-OH) election as new House majority leader, CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry omitted any specific reference to Boehner's history of ethics concerns, even while emphasizing those of the man Boehner defeated, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO). Unlike MSNBC did in their coverage, for example, Henry did not mention that Boehner drew broad criticism for distributing checks from a tobacco industry group on the House floor moments before a key tobacco vote. Instead, during his reports on the February 2 edition of CNN's Live From ..., Henry suggested that Boehner could satisfy "a lot of Republican rank-and-file [who] want change because of the lobbying scandals." Later, CNN.com issued a headline announcing the result of the leadership vote, labeling Boehner the "reform candidate," although it was subsequently replaced with an alternative headline.

Before Boehner's victory was announced, Henry described Blunt as "the status quo candidate, because he was so close" to indicted former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Henry then purported to identify why Boehner might win: "As you know, there's a shakeup going on here, a lot of Republican rank-and-file want change because of the lobbying scandals, so they might just get that."

After announcing the results of the vote, Henry reiterated that Blunt was the "status quo" candidate at a time when there is "a lot of nervousness" among Republicans as the scandal involving disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff has "kept breaking and breaking." Abramoff pleaded guilty on January 3 to charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion. On January 4, he pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in a second, unrelated case. Later, noting that Boehner's "relationships with lobbyists" will be a "source of controversy," Henry nonetheless repeated Boehner's contention that "he has not been in the sort of ethical hot water that we have seen Tom DeLay and others get into."

Later that day, a headline on the front page of CNN.com -- later changed -- labeled Boehner the "reform candidate," linking to an article that similarly depicted Boehner as a clean break from the ethics concerns plaguing DeLay and Blunt:

He [Boehner] had offered himself as a reform candidate to succeed Tom DeLay, who faces money-laundering charges in his home state of Texas.

Boehner's ascension comes as other Republicans have raised concerns about an extensive influence-peddling probe involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges in January and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

DeLay announced January 7 that he would not try to reclaim the House majority leader post, although he said he will seek re-election in his Houston area district in November. DeLay also has ties to Abramoff.

The race for majority leader appeared to turn on the desire for members to present a fresh face to the public and distance themselves from Washington's K Street, or lobbyist, community.

Blunt was a part of DeLay's leadership team and has ties to K Street.

But like Blunt, Boehner has faced several significant ethics issues, among them:

• As The Hill reported on July 25, 2003, Boehner drew criticism in 1995 for "distribut[ing] checks from a tobacco political action committee on the House floor before a key vote on a tobacco issue." In contrast to CNN, reporter Mike Viqueira noted Boehner's efforts on behalf of the tobacco industry during MSNBC's coverage of the February 2 result:

VIQUEIRA: It's really a question of how much of a reform candidate Boehner really is. That's how he was portrayed in early days here in Congress. He was seen as a reformer. Then he did get into some problems, passing out checks from lobbyists on the House floor. He since apologized for that.

• The Washington Post reported on January 29 that Boehner has been "an outspoken advocate" for the two major industries that supported his bid for Majority Leader, and he "has used his chairmanship to push legislation that would boost profits by millions of dollars."

From the February 2 edition of CNN's Live From ... :

HENRY: The problem for Roy Blunt is he thought he had this in the bag. He clearly did not. He may be seen as the status quo candidate because he was so close to Tom DeLay. As you know, there's a shake-up going on here, a lot of Republican rank-and-file want change because of the lobbying scandals, so they might just get that.

[...]

HENRY: This is a clear sign that Republican rank-and-file members were very concerned, in this midterm election year, that Roy Blunt was going to be too close to Tom DeLay, too close to the status quo. He was the acting majority leader after DeLay stepped aside after being indicted twice down in Texas. This is a very interesting sign, John Boehner of Ohio, not Roy Blunt, the new majority leader.

[...]

HENRY: But then the Abramoff scandal kept breaking and breaking, and that one could be a more wide-ranging, widespread investigation, obviously, for Republicans than this narrow investigation [of DeLay] down in Texas. And so, you're right to point to that, Kyra [Phillips, Live From... host]. That really, as Jack Abramoff cut that plea deal, just became more and more apparent. Tom DeLay has not gotten a sign that he is in any legal jeopardy there, but there is a lot of political jeopardy for him in the wake of the Abramoff scandal. Some of his former staffers -- some of his former staffers have been implicated in that scandal, so it became clear DeLay had to step aside permanently. A lot of nervousness. We're hearing that the results are about 122-109, as I understand, John Boehner over Roy Blunt. And again, Roy Blunt just was seen as someone who was status quo. He was already a member of this leadership team.

A February 1 New York Daily News article by staff writer James Gordon Meek reported that in a recent letter to defense attorneys for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the CIA leak case, wrote that numerous White House emails from 2003 are missing from White House computer archives. A Media Matters for America survey of coverage following the publication of Meek's article found that major news outlets have -- with only a few exceptions -- ignored this story.

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 Fitzgerald refused the request, he 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.

Media Matters examined cable and network news coverage on February 1 (from 4 p.m. to midnight ET) and February 2 (from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.) and also looked at newspaper and wire coverage on February 1 and 2 for mentions of the letter, following the publication of Meek's article. This survey found that only CNN, the Associated Press, and The New York Sun have devoted any substantial coverage to Fitzgerald's revelation.

On the February 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena reported that "Fitzgerald admits that some of the e-mails from the president's and vice president's offices were destroyed." Immediately following her report, host Wolf Blitzer discussed the story with CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:

BLITZER: Potentially, Jeff, how significant or insignificant is this development? 

TOOBIN: Well, I think you have to say it raises questions. Why were these documents destroyed outside the normal course? Who knew about it? Who ordered it? What kind of documents were there? All these questions may have entirely innocent answers, but we don't know what any of the answers are at this point.

BLITZER: Because when I hear a story like this, it hearkens back -- I mean, I just remember, of course, some of those missing tapes during Watergate and the Nixon White House that evidence may have been destroyed, and this may be totally, totally overreaching. There may be a simple explanation. But the fact that the prosecutor writes this letter saying what happened to this -- these e-mails, that raises certain questions.

TOOBIN: And certainly the Iran-Contra affair was based almost entirely on electronic messages -- so-called prof notes -- sent between Oliver North and colleagues. They have been crucial evidence in all White House investigations. What happened to them? A lot of things get destroyed in the normal course of business. Why were the normal procedures not followed? As you point out, could be completely innocent. But, we just don't know.

BLITZER: How normal is it for e-mail to be destroyed in the normal course of business over at the White House? A question I don't have the answer to, but presumably, the special prosecutor is going to be looking into that question right now.

The "normal procedures" for preserving White House communications referred to by Blitzer and Toobin were detailed in an April 7, 2000, Christian Science Monitor article:

[W]henever a White House staffer clicks "send," a message reminds them that a copy of their missive is being sent to records management.

When it comes to saving e-mails, the White House is held to a higher standard than the private sector, and even Congress.

Companies that have a policy of saving e-mails usually do so only for three to six months, according to records-management consultants. Many companies consider them the same as phone calls, and don't archive them unless they are equal in weight to a written communication.

But the White House is different. It saves its records for posterity. After President Clinton vacates his office next January, at least 30 million stored e-mails will be deposited with the National Archives, an unfathomable mountain of data ranging from "how about lunch?" to speech drafts, to perhaps more juicy communications.

Late in the day on February 1, the AP published an article by staff writer Pete Yost headlined "Fitzgerald Hints White House Records Lost." In the article, Yost included the response of Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion."

A February 2 article (subscription required) by New York Sun staff writer Josh Gerstein also noted experts' concerns regarding Fitzgerald's letter:

"It seems pretty surprising that there would be a failure to preserve records when this issue was litigated in the 1980s and 90s," an attorney for a non-profit group that gathers declassified government records, the National Security Archive, Meredith Fuchs, told The New York Sun. "It's particularly surprising given that there are investigations going on about things that could have happened within the Office of the Vice President or the Office of the President."

The missing e-mails could be relevant to a series of ongoing inquiries, including the criminal probe into influence peddling by a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

"Entities are under an obligation to preserve their emails if there is an anticipation of litigation," Ms. Fuchs said.

In 2000, the Clinton White House became embroiled in debate over a failure to preserve some of its e-mails. The Justice Department investigated and a House committee held a hearing on the issue, as did a federal judge considering a lawsuit brought by a conservative legal group, Judicial Watch.

"If they didn't take the steps necessary to prevent that happening again, then somebody needs to be held accountable," the group's president, Thomas Fitton said yesterday. "Certainly, that's intriguing."

Further, on the February 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, anchor Lauren Green briefly mentioned the story in a news update:

GREEN: The special investigator in the CIA leak case says there may be a problem with White House emails. Patrick Fitzgerald says an archiving problem may have lost some records from 2003. That's the year someone exposed the identity of [former covert CIA operative] Valerie Plame. The vice president's former chief of staff Lewis Libby is already facing federal charges in the case.

The missing e-mails were also noted by WashingtonPost.com columnist Dan Froomkin in his February 2 "White House Briefing" column.

While most news outlets have entirely ignored Fitzgerald's letter, several did so despite devoting substantial coverage to related developments in the Libby case. For example, on the February 1 edition of MSNBC's The Abrams Report, host Dan Abrams discussed a recent court filing by Libby's defense team with two former government lawyers. But during the seven-minute segment, Abrams made no mention of Fitzgerald's letter, which was attached to that same filing.

Similarly, February 1 articles in both The New York Times and The Washington Post focused on the court filing, but ignored the letter entirely.

On the February 2 edition of CNN's Live From..., host Kyra Phillips characterized Cindy Sheehan as an "anti-war activist" while casting Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL), as a "staunch advocate for the troops." Both women were removed from the visitor's gallery of the House of Representatives prior to the start of President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with political messages. Sheehan's shirt listed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq at that point -- 2,245 -- along with the question "How many more?" Young's shirt read: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."

Philips did not say how Sheehan's status as an "anti-war activist" or how the message on her shirt differentiated her from a "staunch advocate for the troops" such as Young.

Media Matters for America previously noted other media outlets characterizing Sheehan's shirt as "the opposite" of Young's, and describing Young's message as "more patriotic" than Sheehan's.

From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the February 2 edition of CNN's Live From...:

PHILLIPS: Uh, never mind. The great Capitol Hill garment crisis turns out to be a tempest in a T-shirt. Here are the players, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and staunch advocate for the troops Beverly Young, wearing the shirts that got them both bounced from the State of the Union on Monday. Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer cops to the double blunder, saying his officers were operating under outdated guidance. Turns out political T-shirts aren't unlawful in chambers unless the wearer tries to call attention to the message. Now both women have gotten plenty of attention.

On February 1, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly criticized Democrats for failing to give President Bush a standing ovation following a segment of the State of the Union address in which Bush touted long-term declines in abortions and teen pregnancies. Despite the fact that Republicans also remained seated in response to that line, Limbaugh insisted that "the feminists are not going to put up with the Democrats standing up and cheering that number" and that "abortion is the sacrament to the religion of feminism." In addition, Limbaugh baselessly asserted that "Democrats can't bring themselves to applaud the fact that there are even fewer abortions taking place and that teen pregnancy's down." In fact, footage of the speech reviewed by Media Matters for America shows Democrats as well as Republicans applauding this line.

From Bush's January 31 State of the Union address:

BUSH: In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. [applause]

After playing an audio clip of this segment of Bush's speech, Limbaugh told listeners, "The Democrats sat on their rear ends." Limbaugh added: "But they couldn't even -- because abortion is the sacrament to the religion of feminism, and the feminists are not going to put up with the Democrats standing up and cheering that number." Later in the show, Limbaugh told a caller that the Democrats were "sitting down during a discussion of cultural improvements like fewer abortions [and] fewer teen pregnancies. They sit down on that."

Limbaugh did not inform viewers, however, that Republicans also remained seated in response to Bush's statement on the decline in abortions and teen pregnancy. The video feed used by the major networks clearly shows prominent Republicans -- including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) -- remaining seated while applauding. The camera then zoomed out, revealing a room full of seated Republicans. Democrats were not visible in the shot.

Limbaugh's assertion that "Democrats can't bring themselves to applaud the fact that there are even fewer abortions taking place and that teen pregnancy's down" also appears to be incorrect. Although the video feed used by the major networks does not show how Democrats responded to Bush's statement, C-SPAN used a different camera angle in which a number of applauding Democrats are clearly visible in the foreground. (However, most of the Democrats who attended the speech are not visible in this shot.)

From the February 1 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: America stands and cheers; Democrats sit down. This is another -- this just nailed them, folks. Democrats can't bring themselves to applaud the fact that there are even fewer abortions taking place and that teen pregnancy's down. I mean, if there was an objective media anywhere -- even a media concerned about the plight of the Democrats rather than focused on what they hope to convince people is wrong with Bush -- when the president of the United States, because even the, you know, certain members of the pro-abortion crowd love to say, "Well, we're not really pro-abortion. We're just for freedom, civil liberties, the rights of the mother, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah." And they go out of their way -- "We're not" -- even Hillary said, "Abortion: we don't want it to happen, but we can't stand in the way." So here's a chance. OK, abortions are going down in America. That's something to cheer. No, not to the Democrats.

BUSH [audio clip]: America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.

LIMBAUGH: The Democrats sat on their rear ends. They didn't -- I mean, folks, I mean, occasionally, well, [Sen.] Ben Nelson [D] would stand up now and then, from Nebraska. There'd be a couple of them like a jack-in-the-box, stand up real quick and then sit right back down. But they couldn't even -- because abortion is the sacrament to the religion of feminism, and the feminists are not going to put up with the Democrats standing up and cheering that number.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: They have become my parodies. They're, they're not going to realize they goofed up. They're, they're sitting around all day thinking they scored big home runs last night with these antics of theirs -- of sitting down during a discussion of victory -- of sitting down during a discussion of freedom -- of sitting down during a discussion of cultural improvements like fewer abortions, fewer teen pregnancies. They sit down on that.

On the February 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity quoted a CBS poll that showed "77 percent of the people watching [the State of the Union address] liked his [President Bush's] agenda." In doing so, Hannity touted poll results that CBS' own Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer warned his audience may not be reliable. Hannity ignored warnings by Schieffer and others that -- as Media Matters for America noted -- such after-speech polls offer a highly skewed indication of the public's view of the speech because those who listen or watch the speech, by and large, support the president already.

Hannity was quoting a question on the poll that actually read, "Did our [CBS'] viewers tonight approve of President Bush's proposals?" Seventy-seven percent of those polled responded that they did approve. But before reading the poll's results, Schieffer warned CBS viewers that the poll "does not necessarily reflect the feelings of the country because, traditionally, we found out, in recent years, more Republicans watch when a Republican makes the speech. More Democrats watch when a Democrat makes the speech."

Beyond the accuracy of such polls, other commentators suggest that whatever boost in overall ratings a president receives after delivering a State of the Union message, the uptick is usually short-lived. Previous snap polls show that a president experiences a temporary bump on even the most controversial issues. After the 2005 State of the Union address, a CBS News snap poll showed Bush enjoying a 12-percent boost in his Social Security proposal (from 44 percent to 56 percent), and a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll put approval of his Social Security plan as high as 66 percent. By the next week, the Gallup poll had approval for Bush's Social Security plan back in the mid-40s. On Iraq, the CBS snap poll saw a nearly 20-point jump in approval of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq (47 percent to 64 percent). Yet, by the end of February 2005, CBS News polls witnessed Bush falling back to 45 percent.

Snap polling can also show nearly extraordinary leaps in popularity. In January 2002, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 62 percent of Americans already felt the nation was headed in the right direction. Nonetheless, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (subscription required) conducted after Bush's January 29, 2002, State of the Union address found that 90 percent of the people who watched the speech said they thought Bush's policies would help move the United States in the right direction.

From the February 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: There seems to be just contempt for him [President Bush] -- you know -- waking up and getting out of bed and being the president. I think the president, very wisely, last night [during the State of the Union address] just stuck to his guns, and what he believes in, and made his case; and that CBS poll shows that 77 percent of people watching liked his agenda.

From CBS's January 31 coverage of Bush's State of the Union address:

SCHIEFFER: We want to give you some idea now how the president's speech went over with people watching at home. CBS News, with the help of a company called Knowledge Networks, chose, at random, 700 adults who told us they planned to watch the address tonight. We gave them WebTV so they could get on to the Internet and answer our questions about the speech.

Now, remember, this does not necessarily reflect the feelings of the country because, traditionally, we found out, in recent years, more Republicans watch when a Republican makes the speech. More Democrats watch when a Democrat makes the speech.

But, here, were the questions: Did our viewers tonight approve of President Bush's proposals? Seventy-seven percent approved; 23 percent did not. We asked them what affect the president's proposals would have on their lives: Fifty-nine percent said they would make their lives better; 9 percent said worse; 33 percent said the proposals would have no effect on them. On some issues, our survey shows the impact of the speech tonight. Fifty-two percent say the war in Iraq has been worth the cost. Just last week, just 45 percent of the same group thought so. And finally, here is a disappointment. When asked if President Bush will be able to accomplish his goals -- this will be a disappointment to the president, I should say -- 32 percent said yes, only -- and 68 percent -- 8 percent -- said no. They did not think he would be able to accomplish his goals.

On the February 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, congressional correspondent Brian Wilson falsely reported that legislation enacting nearly $40 billion in budget cuts, from programs including federal student loans and Medicaid, "passed along party lines." In fact, 13 Republicans joined all 200 Democrats and independent Rep. Bernie Sanders (VT) in voting against the measure. Wilson also uncritically reported that "Republicans hail it [the budget bill] as the first step to restoring fiscal discipline," without noting that Democrats -- and some Republicans -- believe the Republican-sponsored tax cuts will wipe out any impact the budget cuts would have had on the federal deficit.

Democratic critics of the budget cuts have noted that the projected loss in revenue from Republican legislation to permanently extend tax cuts on capital gains and dividends -- which passed the House on December 8 by a vote of 234-197 -- would outweigh the savings from the budget cuts. Several Republicans have issued similar statements. For example, a February 2 New York Times article noted that, although Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) voted in favor of the budget cuts after opposing the extension of the tax cuts, he said: "We can't keep cutting taxes and cutting revenues, while cutting programs to protect the most vulnerable in society." Reporting that the Senate began reconciling House and Senate versions of the tax cut legislation, The Washington Post reported on February 2 that Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-OH) also shares Democratic concerns about the budget cuts in light of the tax cuts:

"I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said yesterday, as the Senate took up a procedural motion that would allow tax-cut negotiations to begin. "We cannot afford these tax cuts."

From the February 1 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:

WILSON: Acting majority leader Roy Blunt of Missouri is thought to have the lead [in the race for House Majority Leader] but hasn't been able to seal the deal with the necessary 117 votes.

But Blunt did ram through final passage of a $39 billion package of budget cuts late this afternoon, a sign that he has the ability to hold House Republicans together. This legislation, passed along party lines, now goes to the president's desk. Republicans hail it as the first step to restoring fiscal discipline. This was supposed to have been passed late last year, but the Senate imposed last-minute changes just before the holiday break.

On February 1, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh called Friends of the Earth international climate campaigner Catherine Pearce a "B-I-itch" after watching her in a CNN appearance criticizing proposals President Bush made during his January 31 State of the Union address.

Appearing in a segment on the alternative energy proposals included in Bush's address on the February 1 edition of CNN's Your World Today, Pearce stated:

PEARCE: This kind of language that the president has been talking about really represents nothing new. He's been talking about the potential for technologies, talking about investment into research and development into these technologies for some considerable time now.

Responding to Pearce's criticisms, Limbaugh said: "[T]hey've got some B-I-itch from the -- let me just say it. I mean, just looking at her, she's a B-I-itch. She's from the Friends of the Earth." Referring to Bush's proposal to "fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switchgrass," Limbaugh added: "My gosh, he's just offered you switchgrass. You people ought to be having multiple orgasms."

From the February 1 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Last State of the Union, Bush talked about the hydrogen car. We're all scratching our heads. I think I figured it out, though. He's just putting this stuff in there to, you know, to ameliorate the -- everybody in the audience. Gotta give everybody something in a State of the Union address, even the environmentalist wackos. So last night, he starts talking about a new fuel to power our cars called switchgrass. It's a combination of grass and wood chips. Not long after that, by the way, if this ever comes to pass, grass will go on the endangered species list and will -- well, that's a good -- do we have more grass or do we have more oil? What are the odds we're going to run out of grass before we run out of oil?

Anyway, so I'm watching CNN International here during the break at the top of hour, and they've got some B-I-itch from the -- let me just say it. I mean, just looking at her, she's a B-I-itch. She's from the Friends of the Earth. "This is typical of George Bush. It has nothing -- has nothing new. We have nothing." My gosh, he's just offered you switchgrass. You people ought to be having multiple orgasms. It was a hydrogen car last year; switchgrass cars this year. "Bush did nothing new. Said nothing new. Didn't offer anything new."

On the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly accused CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour of harboring a "rooting interest" in the Iraq war being a disaster. Although Amanpour did say that she thought the Iraq war "has basically turned out to be a disaster" and was a "terrible situation," she said nothing to support O'Reilly's assertion that she desires the war to turn out badly.

Amanpour made her comment during the January 30 edition of CNN's Larry King Live while discussing how the injuries sustained by ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt in a January 29 bombing in Iraq impacted journalists' attempts to be objective while reporting on the Iraq war:

AMANPOUR: And I cannot tell you how awful I feel for Bob and Doug and for their families, their wives, their children who have to put up with them going away and waiting for them just like our families do when we come back. But, as [former CNN correspondent] Peter Arnett said and I think that the others have said, that, number one, it's our responsibility. Number two, if we don't do it, who does it? We have had so -- we have to have an independent eye on these conflicts. The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster and journalists have paid for it, paid for the privilege of witnessing and reporting that and so have many, many other people who have been there. And I think that's terribly, terribly difficult for us and unfortunately, for some reason which I can't fathom, the kind of awful thing that's going on there now on a daily basis has almost become humdrum. So, when something happens to people that we identify, like Bob and like Doug, we wake up again and realize that, no, this is not acceptable what's going on there and it's a terrible situation.

From a discussion with University of North Carolina associate professor Napoleon Byars on the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: No, I know that. But look, you have to look at it, professor -- and I'm sure you know this because you do this every day -- in the sense of how she's now perceived in her coverage on CNN. I mean, she's declared herself to say it's a disaster. So, you can draw by that that she has a rooting interest in it being thus.

Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley admitted in his February 2 Washington Times column that he had not viewed polls on public support for the impeachment of President Bush, but nonetheless suggested that "something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing the last two years of the Bush presidency consumed with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress trying to impeach the president during a time of war." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, two recent Zogby International polls have found that a majority of Americans think Congress should consider impeaching Bush either "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" (November 2005, 53 percent); or ""[i]f President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge" (January 16, 2006, 51.7 percent).

And while a more recent survey found less support than the Zogby polls indicated for impeachment, it nonetheless found that a percentage almost four times greater than the one cited by Blankley would consider evidence of lawbreaking by Bush in his domestic spying program to be "an impeachable offense." The January 22-25 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (page 18) found that "[i]f a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant," 39 percent of Americans would consider that "an impeachable offense," while 52 percent would not. According to the same poll, 57 percent of Americans (including 54 percent of independents) said that Congress should "hold hearings to investigate the legality of George W. Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant."

From Blankley's February 2 column:

But not satisfied to be a head-in-the-sand, reflexively negative opposition party, an increasing number of Democrats and their supporters in the leftish fever swamps have started calling for President Bush's impeachment.

While I haven't seen any polls yet on the subject, I would guess that something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing the last two years of the Bush presidency consumed with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress trying to impeach the president during a time of war.

Somehow the Democratic Party -- for 180 years the most electorally successful political party on the planet -- has now almost completely mutated into a party too loathsome to be seen in public, and too nihilistic to be trusted with control of even a single branch of government.

A February 1 Associated Press report described the message displayed on a T-shirt worn by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to President Bush's State of the Union speech as "just the opposite" of one worn by Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL), while a February 2 Baltimore Sun article described Young's message as "more patriotic" than Sheehan's. Young's shirt read: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom," while Sheehan's listed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq at that point -- 2,245 -- along with the question "How many more?" Neither AP nor the Sun explained how decrying the deaths of more than 2,000 American service members indicated a lack of support for the troops or lack of patriotism.

Separately, on the live "Up to the Minute" news report during the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, anchor Colette Cassidy described Sheehan as an "anti-war protester" without describing the message on her shirt, but specifically noted that Young had worn a sweater "in support of U.S. troops," with a clear emphasis on the word "support."

None of the stories noted that Sheehan's son, U.S. Army Spec. Casey Sheehan, was killed in action on April 4, 2004, while serving in Iraq. The AP subsequently revised its report, deleting the "just the opposite" description.

Both women were removed from the visitor's gallery of the House of Representatives prior to the start of Bush's speech. Capitol Police, who arrested Sheehan but not Young, apologized the next day for removing both women, according to the reports.

From the February 1 Associated Press report by Laurie Kellman:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

[...]

Sheehan's T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Capitol Police charged her with a misdemeanor for violating the District of Columbia's code against unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds, a law enforcement official said. She was released from custody and flew home Wednesday to Los Angeles.

Young's shirt had just the opposite message: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."

The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.

From the February 2 Baltimore Sun article:

Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young, ejected from the State of the Union address Tuesday night for wearing slogan-bearing T-shirts, are off the hook with Capitol police -- but not with the manners police.

[...]

Sheehan's T-shirt said: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Young's was emblazoned with a more patriotic statement: "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom."

From MSNBC's "Up to the Minute" news report during the February 1 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:

CASSIDY: And a Capitol police official tells MSNBC News, quote, "we screwed up" in arresting anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan over the T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address. The official also says the wife of Congressman Bill Young should not have been asked to leave either because she wore a sweater in support of U.S. troops. The official says neither woman violated any rules or laws.

On the February 1 broadcast of NBC's Today, co-host Katie Couric falsely claimed that during most of President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address, the "Democrats sat on their hands," and "[t]he only moment [they] really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security." But as video footage from the State of the Union address shows, Democrats "really applauded" at other times during the speech as well, giving 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.

From the February 1 broadcast of NBC's Today, which featured co-host Matt Lauer:

COURIC: And welcome to Today on this Wednesday morning, everyone. I'm Katie Couric.

LAUER: And I'm Matt Lauer. We're all a little bleary-eyed this morning --

COURIC: Yeah.

LAUER: -- because we stayed up for the speech and the analysis afterwards. The president faced a divided Congress during his State of the Union Address last night, and he took on a lot of issues that clearly had people butting heads.

COURIC: Well, you could see it, if you just watched the scene, Matt. I mean, the chamber erupted in applause 60 times, but during most of those times, Democrats sat on their hands. The only moment the Democrats really applauded was when the president talked about his failed plan to reform Social Security. We'll have a complete wrap-up of the speech, and as we mentioned, we'll talk with Senator John Kerry [D-MA], as well as NBC's Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert.

From President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address:

BUSH: Today, our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight, we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King.

[applause]

BUSH: Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome.

[applause]

[...]

BUSH: Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight, I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom.

[applause]

[...]

BUSH: So, tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.

[applause]

During CNN's January 31 special post-State of the Union coverage, CNN political analyst and former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) accused Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine of falsely claiming, during the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address, that Republicans in Congress are cutting funding for student loans and have tried to cut Medicaid funds. Discussing Kaine's remarks with Democratic strategist and CNN commentator Paul Begala, Watts said, "They ought to send Governor Kaine to bed with no dinner for saying they're cutting student loans and cutting Medicaid funds. You know, that is not the case." Watts repeated the claim in a later discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), adding, "Rahm, we need to send you to that bed as well." In fact, bills already passed by the House and the Senate include $12.7 billion in spending cuts to student loan programs and approximately $7 billion in spending cuts to Medicaid.

In the Democratic response, Kaine stated that "the Republican leadership in Washington is actually cutting billions of dollars from the student loan programs that serve working families" and "has made efforts to cut Medicaid funds for our most vulnerable citizens."

On December 21, 2005, in a 51-50 vote, the Senate approved nearly $40 billion in budget cuts, including cuts of $12.7 billion to federal student loans and nearly $7 billion in Medicaid funding as part of the Republican-sponsored Deficit Reduction Act (DRA). Five Republicans and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords (VT) joined all 45 Democrats in voting "no" on the measure, forcing Vice President Dick Cheney to cast the tie-breaking vote. Senate Democrats forced small changes to the bill by using a procedural tactic known as the "Byrd rule" and sent it back to the House for a new vote . The House approved the new bill 216-214.

On January 27, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report studying the effects of the proposed budget cuts and found, as a January 30 New York Times article noted, that the proposed Medicaid budget cuts would mean that "[m]illions of low-income people would have to pay more for health care under a bill worked out by Congress, and some of them would forgo care or drop out of Medicaid because of the higher co-payments and premiums." According to the CBO: "In response to the new premiums, some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment. CBO estimates that about 45,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 65,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums. About 60 percent of those losing coverage would be children."

The DRA would also cut funding for student loans by $12.7 billion, mainly by raising interest rates on college loans. According to a December 21, 2005, Boston Globe article, "[t]he bill would cut the amount of loan money guaranteed by the federal government, pushing up interest rates. It would also impose a[n] insurance fee on student loans." The Globe further noted: "Student borrowers would be forced to pay a fixed rate of 6.8 percent on loans, and parents would have an interest rate cap of 8.5 percent, up from 7.9 percent. Further, Pell Grants would remain capped at $4,050 per student per year, despite earlier promises by the Bush administration to raise the cap to $5,100." The National Education Association and several others have called the reductions the "largest cut [in student aid] in history."

From CNN's January 31 special post-State of the Union coverage featuring Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: Paul Begala and J.C. Watts are here with us as well. Paul, what do you think of these numbers?

BEGALA: Well, I think that, if I were working at the White House, I wouldn't be as happy. You know, you need -- he's got to move it higher than that. And you're right. The people who are watching are going to tend to be people who are more favorably disposed to the president. And I think one of the ways he failed is that he's fallen into Washington jargon, which is surprising, because he did have this wonderful -- I'm from Texas -- this wonderful way of talking like a real person, a Texan. He talked about competitiveness. What is that? You know, people sitting at home just want to find a way to pay for their kids' college costs. And I contrast that with Tim Kaine, who said right away, "Look, they're going to be cutting student loans. Kids need that to go to college." He didn't talk about competitiveness. The president talked about isolationism -- whatever that is -- protectionism. These are Washington buzzwords. So I think he was very distant and out of touch with the real lives of real people.

BLITZER: Congressman Watts, J.C. Watts, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, what do you think?

WATTS: Well, Wolf, I think they ought to send Governor Kaine to bed with no dinner for saying they're cutting student loans and cutting Medicaid funds. You know, that is not the case.

[...]

EMANUEL: Well, Wolf, first of all, as I just told you, the 9-11 Commission gave this president and Republican Congress a failing grade for what they've done. And as it relates to the security of the American people, we stand ready to work with this president to do that, but we're not going to just try to have an issue. What we want to do is, we want to make progress on that issue and work with the president and sit down. The question I have for them is, are they determined to have an issue or are they determined to work with having the security? And I'll tell you, on that speech tonight, I thought that speech was tired and I thought that speech said, "If you liked the last six, years we're going to give you two more years of that." And the Democrats are saying it's time for new priorities, to put the American people first and change the direction of this country. And the Congress -- and let me say this. Tomorrow morning, the first step, rather than embrace the future, this Congress, under the Republican leadership --

BLITZER: All right --

EMANUEL: -- is going to cut college assistance by $12.7 billion. That's not exactly what I would say would be investing in America's future.

BLITZER: J.C. Watts, what about that? Do the Democrats have a point?

WATTS: No, Wolf, they don't. You remember, I said we should send Governor Kaine to bed with no dinner for saying that we were cutting student loans. Rahm, we need to send you to that bed as well. That's just not the case.

In covering President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address, CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield chided "one opposition congressman" -- presumably Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) -- for releasing a rebuttal of President Bush's address, Greenfield said, before Wexler could actually have seen the speech.

But, as it has in past years, the White House made excerpts of the speech available well before it was actually delivered, presumably so broadcast media would preview it and journalists, pundits, and politicians could begin to formulate their reactions to the speech in advance. In fact, during pre-speech coverage on Greenfield's own cable channel, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash read a direct quote from the speech excerpts. A two-hour window between when the excerpts were first made available and when CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts -- during CBS' post-speech coverage -- said he first saw Wexler's statement presumably gave Wexler ample time to read the speech excerpts before issuing his response.

During the 9 p.m. hour of CNN's State of the Union coverage, Greenfield stated: "At least one opposition congressman has put out a scathing attack on the speech." Citing CNN political correspondent Candy Crowley's assertion that she received a copy of the document "about ... an hour ago," Greenfield stated: "In other words, there wasn't a chance in the world that this congressperson had seen the speech, but he condemned it as filled with empty rhetoric and failing to address our problems." Crowley's statement that the author of the document criticized President Bush for "fail[ing] to apologize for his, quote, 'cronyism,' 'corruption,' " makes it clear that she and Greenfield were referring to Wexler's rebuttal, which was headlined: "President Missed Opportunity to Apologize to the American Public for his Cronyism, Corruption and Incompetence."

The Washington Post posted the excerpts on its website at 5:15 p.m., leaving Wexler ample time to read them before issuing his rebuttal, which Roberts said he received "at quarter after seven [p.m.]" and Crowley -- at approximately 9:10 p.m. -- said she received "about ... an hour ago."

Roberts mentioned Wexler's press release during a segment in the 10 p.m. hour of CBS' State of the Union coverage, when Roberts purported to address the question, "Can the president get any bipartisanship this year?" As "early indications of that," he cited Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's rebuttal of Bush's speech, adding, "He's the Democratic flame-thrower-in-chief. You might expect that." Roberts then stated:

ROBERTS: But here's my favorite, Robert Wexler, a Democrat of Florida, issued a statement saying President Bush's speech tonight was filled with empty rhetoric. That crossed my desk at quarter after seven, Bob [Schieffer, CBS anchor], an hour and 45 minutes before the president started talking. So that might be an indication at how things are going to go for the rest of the year."

From the 9 p.m. hour of CNN's State of the Union coverage, hosted by Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn:

BLITZER: Paula, as we watch these people receive the president of the United States, it's one of those moments where, at least briefly, albeit for maybe only a few seconds, some of the bitterness that we've seen so available in Washington seems to go away.

ZAHN: And I think we were talking a little bit earlier where there aren't too many spontaneous moments here. Jeff was describing how perhaps some of the reps you see here with unassigned suits -- excuse me, seats, have been here for many, many hours trying to stake out a position on the aisles so they can actually get a handshake from the president or in some way have their picture taken on a wide shot with the president.

GREENFIELD: The other thing you should know -- Candy was the recipient of this. At least one opposition congressman has put out a scathing attack on the speech. When did you get it?

CROWLEY: I got it about, oh, an hour ago or so.

GREENFIELD: In other words, there wasn't a chance in the world that this congressperson had seen the speech, but he condemned it as filled with empty rhetoric and failing to address our problems.

CROWLEY: Right, the president, he said, failed to apologize for his, quote, "cronyism, corruption."

BLITZER: If they do that, the hometown newspaper is going to press, probably pretty soon.

CROWLEY: Exactly.

From the 8 p.m. hour of CNN's The Situation Room:

BASH: So, Mr. Bush will try to battle the bad news coming at them nearly every day -- the bad news about Iraq, about Katrina, about high gas prices, and what aides will call -- are calling an upbeat speech. Even the president himself said he intends to be upbeat tonight.

But he'll also try to remind Americans of the threat of terrorism and say that, big picture, he does think Americans should continue to take a leadership role around the world. He will say -- quote -- "In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders."

Now, last year, you remember, of course, his big initiative was Social Security. Don't expect anything like that -- of course, which failed. Expect some small initiatives on things that they think people really care about.

From the 10 p.m. hour of CBS' State of the Union coverage:

ROBERTS: I just want to reflect back on something you were asking me about earlier. Can the president get any bipartisanship this year? We're getting early indications of that. Howard Dean said tonight President Bush's failed policies and waning credibility were on display for all Americans to see. He's the Democratic flame-thrower-in-chief. You might expect that. But here's my favorite, Robert Wexler, a Democrat of Florida, issued a statement saying President Bush's speech tonight was filled with empty rhetoric. That crossed my desk at quarter after seven, Bob, an hour and 45 minutes before the president started talking. So that might be an indication at how things are going to go for the rest of the year.

After O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly blasted NBC Television Networks for taking "cheap shots" at his own Fox News network, MSNBC's Countdown host Keith Olbermann declared O'Reilly "Worst Person in the World," pointing to numerous instances in which he said Fox News engaged in the same kind of tactics O'Reilly decried.

During his January 30 broadcast, O'Reilly -- a frequent recipient of Olbermann's "Worst Person" awards -- accused his cable and broadcast news competitors at NBC Networks of violating "a code among most in TV news of respect and professional courtesy," but did not provide any specific examples. O'Reilly cited what he called NBC's "major problems" -- prime-time programming that he said is "dead last" among networks; the "ratings failures" of its cable shows -- and asserted, "That is no excuse for unprofessional behavior."

Breaking from his typical practice of singling out three people for his "Worst Person" awards, including two runners-up, Olbermann devoted the entire "Worst" segment to a detailed rebuttal of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" segment from the January 30 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor. "As a public service, I'm going to read portions of his remarks and then translate them into what he's actually saying," Olbermann said.

In response to O'Reilly's claim that Fox "has good relationships with ABC News, CBS News, and generally CNN," Olbermann pointed out, "That's probably why Fox bought those billboards across the street from CNN headquarters taunting them about ratings, or issued that anonymous statement comparing CNN to the Titanic, or the one about Ted Turner losing his mind."

Responding to O'Reilly's characterization of the competition between Fox News and CNN as playing out with "class, not bitterness," Olbermann said, "Which is why we at Fox News compared CNN's Paula Zahn to an outhouse and a dead muskrat."

Finally, to O'Reilly's accusation that NBC engaged in "unprofessional behavior," Olbermann responded that O'Reilly's own purported "unprofessional behavior is with one of your women producers on the phone."

From the January 31 broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: And now, a little out of traditional sequence, Countdown's nominee for today's "Worst Person in the World:" And Bill O'Reilly is at it again -- the second time in four shows -- whining about cheap shots from MSNBC and NBC. This time, he opened his program with it, ostensibly starting with a patronizing update on the health of ABC's Doug Vogt and Bob Woodruff, whom he identified as 'Woodriss.' There was a lot of guff about the code among most in TV news of respect and professional courtesy, but most of what Mr. O'Reilly was saying was his typical obtuse shorthand of bullying and another word starting with bull. As a public service, I'm going to read portions of his remarks and then translate them into what he's actually saying. The bottom line is, as the oldest cliché goes, he can dish it out, but clearly, he cannot take it.

"Fox News has good relationships with ABC News, CBS News and generally CNN ..."

That's probably why Fox bought those billboards across the street from CNN headquarters taunting them about ratings, or issued that anonymous statement comparing CNN to the Titanic, or the one about Ted Turner losing his mind.

"... but 'Talking Points' is troubled by the behavior of NBC, which cheap shots Fox News on a regular basis and has been doing so for some time."

You know, I've got to confess. It never occurred to me before, but when we quote your own words back to you about how the Catholic Church was out to get Christmas, or how we should let Al Qaeda attack San Francisco, they must seem like cheap shots.

"It is only a few people doing this, but NBC president Robert Wright allows it to happen. Wright knows exactly what's going on, because he's been made aware of it."

Maybe he hasn't, Bill. Mr. Wright is the chairman, not the president, of NBC, so your postcard of complaint may have gone to the wrong office. And, by the way, let us leave our bosses out of this, Bill, or I'll have to call yours, and you know how much Satan hates to be disturbed while American Idol is on. By the way -- I ain't callin' Rupert Murdoch the devil, by the way.

"Now we understand that NBC has major problems. Its prime-time programming is dead last. Its cable operations are ratings failures ..."

In the cable ratings for the year 2005, USA Network, owned by NBC, finished three full places ahead of Fox News. And as to MSNBC, since February of 2005, our respective ratings tell a very interesting story. In what was described today by News Corp. as quote "the money demo," Countdown's ratings are up 34 percent, but O'Reilly's have shriveled by 21 percent. Bill's obviously among our new viewers.

"... but that is no excuse for unprofessional behavior ..."

Unless, that is, the unprofessional behavior is with one of your women producers on the phone.

"There is no question that the amazing success of Fox News has affected all TV news operations ..."

Like bird flu.

"... but CNN, for example, usually competes with class, not bitterness."

Which is why, we, at Fox News, compared CNN's Paula Zahn to an outhouse and a dead muskrat.

"Likewise we respect ABC and CBS for their work ethic and competitive zeal."

Especially since David Letterman kicked the crap out of me on CBS earlier this month.

"But there's something very wrong with NBC, and if it continues, 'Talking Points' will go into greater detail about the problems besetting that network."

Is this that code among most in TV news of respect and professional courtesy you mentioned, Bill, or do we get to that part later?

"We hope Robert Wright will right the situation, and believe he has the power to do it. But, perhaps, we're wrong about Wright."

Bill made a funny. Hee-heee.

"Maybe, he's out of the loop. Or maybe, he just doesn't care. Well, he should care. We'll let you know what happens."

This is Ted Baxter, WJM, good night, and good news.

Shortly after President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address, NBC News Washington bureau chief and Meet the Press host Tim Russert suggested that the members of Congress who escorted the president into the House of Representatives chamber prior to the speech had all been briefed on his warrantless domestic surveillance program. But only three of the 20 lawmakers selected for the so-called "escort committee" received briefings on the controversial program prior to its public disclosure. What's more, members of Congress from both parties have challenged the adequacy of those briefings, with at least three saying that they were not informed of its full scope. Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), for example, has said that he was never told by the adminstration that the NSA program would involve surveillance of U.S. citizens.

In the speech, Bush addressed the controversy surrounding his authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept the international communications of U.S. residents without warrants and repeated the false assertion that select lawmakers were fully briefed on the NSA's activities. "Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed," he said.

In his recap of the address, Russert noted this section of the speech and paraphrased Bush as saying, "[B]y the way, members of Congress, sitting right there, who escorted me in, they all knew about this."

But they did not all know about the program. The classified briefings on the domestic eavesdropping program provided by the administration were only granted to the so-called "Gang of Eight," which includes -- at any given time -- the top two Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate and on the House and Senate intelligence committees. Of the 20 lawmakers selected to make up the "escort committee," however, only three were at some point part of the "Gang of Eight" and are known to have received such briefings: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

The following is a list* of the full escort committee, with asterisks beside those members who were apparently informed of the NSA program:

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH)
Rep. David Dreier (R-CA)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)*
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)
Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)*
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)*
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Not only did Russert overstate the president's claim and leave viewers with the false impression that all of the above lawmakers had been informed of the secret NSA program, he failed to note the strong objections to Bush's actual claim. Indeed, there is ample evidence that those members of Congress briefed on the program were not adequately informed.

As Media Matters for America has noted, of the seven Democratic lawmakers known to have been briefed on the program between its authorization in 2001 and its public disclosure in 2005, three said they objected at the time and three more have said they weren't given adequate information about the NSA's activities. Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) have said they expressed concern at the time of their briefing. Daschle has further 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."

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Reid have also said that they were not provided with a complete accounting of the program. And Graham, 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.

Further, Rockefeller, Graham, Reid, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) have all stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security Act of 1947.

Moreover, Russert could have noted that the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), in a January 18 report, determined that the Bush administration's limited notification of Congress about the domestic surveillance program "appear[s] to be inconsistent with the law."

From MSNBC's coverage of the State of the Union address:

RUSSERT: The president suggested he wanted to reach across the aisle and do some things. And then a few pages later in the speech he talked about the domestic eavesdropping program and said, by the way, members of Congress, sitting right there, who escorted me in, they all knew about this.

*The members of the escort committee listed above correspond with the full list announced by Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) prior to the address:

HASTERT: The chair appoints the committee on the part of the House to escort the president into the chamber: the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Pryce, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dreier, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, and the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn.

CHENEY: The president of the Senate, at the direction of that body, appoints the following senators as members of the committee on the part of the Senate to escort the President of the United States into the House chamber: the senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, the senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, the senator from Pennslyvania, Mr. Santorum, the senator from Texas, Ms. Hutchinson, the senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, the senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole, the senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, the senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, the senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, the senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, the senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, the senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, and the senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.