Media Matters for America

Latest Media Matters for America items

URL

XML feed
http://mediamatters.org/

Last update

1 week 21 hours ago

March 13, 2006

17:14

In his March 13 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto responded to a March 10 Media Matters for America item highlighting Taranto's false characterization of Media Matters' coverage of Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Taranto again falsely claimed that Media Matters is "desperate to distance" itself from Murtha.

Once again, Media Matters has neither endorsed nor condemned any of Murtha's positions. We have not articulated any position on Murtha's proposal for Iraq -- so there is no way in which we can be said to be "distanc[ing]" ourselves "from Murtha." We have focused on misinformation from those in the media, such as propagated by Taranto, who have falsely claimed -- again and again -- that Murtha called for the "immediate withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. Taranto has yet to acknowledge his errors, continues to repeat them, and insists on introducing new ones in the form of falsehoods about Media Matters.

From Taranto's March 13 "Best of the Web Today" column:

Murtha? Who's That?

From MediaMatters.org:

In his March 10 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely claimed that Media Matters for America "cheered" Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq but also "denied that he had done any such thing." Media Matters neither endorsed nor condemned Murtha's proposal, nor did we deny Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Boy, these guys are desperate to distance themselves from Murtha, aren't they?

Categories: News
17:14

During Hardball's March 11 live coverage of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, MSNBC host Chris Matthews misrepresented the position of 2002 Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Shannon O'Brien, asserting that her "idea of the age of consent was, like, three." In fact, O'Brien said during her campaign against now-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) that she advocated lowering the age at which a pregnant teenager could obtain an abortion without parental consent from 18 to 16, arguing that it should be the same as the state's age of consent for sexual relations. Matthews made his assertion during a discussion with MSNBC correspondent David Shuster about Romney's attributes as a potential 2008 presidential candidate compared with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).

From the March 11 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

SHUSTER: Frist is one of these guys who, in person, he does very well; he doesn't translate so well on television. But what was so interesting about Romney, when you look at his speech there in the room, you think, "Well, does it connect? Does it not connect?" When we were looking at the tapes, Chris, on television Romney is electrifying, far more so than he seems in person. He's one of these candidates who just comes right -- comes across very well on camera. And in a television battle, I think that's where Romney perhaps may have an edge, because he looks great, he sounds terrific.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he did well in Massachusetts when he ran for office up there? He ran against a weak opponent, Shannon O'Brien, whose idea of the age of consent was, like, three.

From the October 30, 2002, edition of The Boston Globe:

It was one last chance to make an impression on live local television -- and both gubernatorial candidates clearly came prepared.

In a relatively civil encounter, Democrat Shannon O'Brien and Republican Mitt Romney strived to offer a more substantive discussion.

There was still some of the he said-she said exchanges that have characterized past encounters, and they talked over each other several times. But during last night's final gubernatorial debate, O'Brien and Romney staked out their positions on several key issues. The following are excerpts from the hourlong contest.

[...]

On whether the age that a woman can get an abortion without parental consent should be lowered from 18 to 16:

O'Brien: "The age of consent for having sexual relations is lower than the age of 18, so I certainly think that if someone is able to engage in that activity that they should be adult enough to make the decision. ... Understand that this right on the national level is in jeopardy. We need to make sure a woman, every young woman, has the opportunity to control her own health care decisions. They should be adult enough to make that decision. And in cases of child abuse, frankly, sometimes a young woman doesn't feel comfortable going to her parents."

Ronmey: "Protecting a woman's right to choose, I've been very clear on that. I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and I'm very dedicated in honoring my word. I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts on pro-choice laws. And as far as considering the age of consent, it is currently 18 years old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that, one has to have a parent go along and go to a judge or justice."

Categories: News
17:14

The March 13 edition of ABCNews.com's The Note attacked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's column (subscription required) of the same day, claiming simply: "Paul Krugman writes with selective facts that [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] is not a maverick, a moderate, nor a straight talker." The Note offered no facts to rebut Krugman's "selective facts."

ABCNews.com describes The Note as "a morning news summary that will tell you what you need to know about politics at that critical moment in the news cycle."

In his March 13 Times column, Krugman wrote of McCain: "He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be." Here are some of the examples Krugman offered:

  • McCain's recent vote to extend President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on dividends and capital gains after years of opposing them
  • The "rogue state rollback" policy McCain offered during his 2000 presidential campaign, which Krugman argued "anticipat[ed] the 'Bush doctrine' of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later
  • McCain's hawkish stance on the Iraq war
  • McCain's spokesman's recent statement that McCain "would have signed" a South Dakota law banning all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened. The spokesman explained that McCain "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." As Krugman noted: "But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."

The Note labeled these examples "selective facts": McCain's changing position on the central facet of the Bush administration's economic policy; the foreign policy initiatives he espoused during his last presidential bid; his stance on the defining foreign policy issue of this administration; and his muddled stance on one of the most divisive social issues of the past 40 years. But The Note offered no counter-examples to rebut Krugman's argument that McCain "is not a maverick, a moderate, nor a straight talker."

Rather than "selective facts," some might consider Krugman's examples "salient" -- The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for one. No one's source for "liberal" commentary, the Journal noted on February 18: "And speaking of that election, the most intriguing vote on behalf of the tax cut this week was cast by Arizona's John McCain. He and two other Republicans opposed these same tax-rate cuts in 2003 on grounds that they added to the budget deficit. His opposition meant that Vice President Dick Cheney had to break a 50-50 tie to pass the lower rates. ... Our guess is that Mr. McCain may also be looking ahead to the 2008 GOP Presidential primaries, which won't be kind to candidates who've voted for tax increases."

While The Note complained about Krugman's use of "selective facts" to contest the notion that McCain is a straight-talking maverick, it has demonstrated no similar concern about the use of selective facts to promote that notion.

The Note did not criticize ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos when he asked McCain "[t]wo straight talk questions right at the top" of the February 6, 2005, edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Nor did The Note challenge Stephanopoulos when he introduced McCain as "the maverick Senator with his eye on the White House" on the May 15, 2005, edition of This Week. The Note itself had no problem quoting Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein on April 25, 2005, describing the hypothetical pairing of McCain and former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) as the "all-maverick independent ticket" for the 2008 presidential campaign. Nor did it take issue with Brownstein's statement on January 17, 2005: "Until recently, complaints about the Pentagon's personnel strategy came from Democrats and a few maverick Republicans such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona." It appears that The Note has a problem with "selective facts" only when it disagrees with the conclusion.

Categories: News
17:14

A March 12 Washington Post article on the "partisan infighting" on the Senate Intelligence Committee failed to report that, in response to calls from Democrats and some Republicans for an investigation into President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) threatened to restructure the committee "so that it is organized and operated like most Senate committees." As presently constituted, the Senate Intelligence Committee's rules grant the minority party more power than on other Senate committees; for example, the ranking minority member holds the position of "vice chairman," has the power to issue subpoenas, and assumes control of the committee in the chairman's absence. A restructuring such as Frist has threatened would likely eliminate those powers; as the Los Angeles Times noted, a restructuring would also grant the majority party an additional seat on the committee and "end any pretense of nonpartisan cooperation."

As Boston Globe Washington bureau chief Nina Easton explained on the March 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Frist "is concerned enough, or bothered enough" by a potential investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program that he is "threatening to remove that kind of power status for the minority" on the committee.

In his March 12 article, Post staff writer Charles Babington acknowledged the uniqueness of the Intelligence Committee's structure and rules, and noted that Frist previously interrupted committee business for partisan reasons:

Some in the intelligence community find the warring especially disappointing because the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was fashioned 30 years ago to be less partisan than the typical congressional panel. Reacting to domestic spying abuses uncovered by the so-called Church Commission, lawmakers designed the committee to have an 8-to-7 majority-minority makeup, no matter how many senators each party has. Most of its staffers have no clear connection to either party. The committee's top minority member serves as the vice chairman -- and takes the gavel in the chairman's absence -- in contrast with the typical committee's "ranking minority member" who has little real authority.

[...]

The Iraq war has accelerated the fracturing, with Democrats and some outside groups saying Republicans seemed more eager to control GOP political damage than to conduct independent oversight. In November 2003, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) abruptly canceled the committee's hearing into prewar intelligence on Iraq because of GOP anger over a leaked memo -- written by a Democratic aide -- that suggested a strategy for extending the probe more deeply into the executive branch.

A March 10 Los Angeles Times article also examined the increased infighting on the Senate Intelligence Committee; unlike the Post, it noted Frist's threat:

This month, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a letter that blamed Democrats for undermining the committee with "stifling partisanship," and threatened to restructure the panel, which would give Republicans another seat, let each side hire its own staff and end any pretense of nonpartisan cooperation.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) quickly responded with a letter of his own, complaining that Republicans had repeatedly blocked investigations that might embarrass the administration, and suggesting that the panel had "become an extension of the White House public relations operation."

Categories: News
17:14

In an interview with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on the March 9 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Gonzales's dubious claim that "if the need were not there for the United States of America to detain people that we catch on the battlefield, then we would not be having to operate" the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Blitzer could have noted recent news reports, such as those by the National Journal and The New York Times, pointing out that many -- if not a majority, as the National Journal asserts -- were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield but turned over to the U.S. by third parties.

Blitzer also allowed Gonzales to evade his question as to whether or not the treatment of one Guantánamo prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani -- as described in a February 27 New Yorker article -- constituted "torture." Rather than answer, Gonzales replied that there is "no way of knowing" the veracity of the report, even though the New Yorker's description of Qahtani's treatment is in line with the findings regarding his treatment contained in a June 2005 Army report by Lt. Gen. Mark Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow on detainee treatment at Guantánamo.

Blitzer asked Gonzales, "Should the Guantánamo base be shut down?" Gonzales replied: "[W]e operate Guantánamo because of necessity. And so, if the need were not there for the United States of America to detain people that we catch on the battlefield, then we would not be having to operate Guantánamo." Gonzales's rationale for the necessity of the Guantánamo prison echoes a similar assertion by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. On June 27, 2005, Rumsfeld said: "If you think of the people down there, these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9-11 hijacker."

But, as Media Matters previously noted, a February 3 National Journal report that documented the apparent lack of evidence against many of the detainees also reported, basing its account on military documents:

One thing about these detainees is very clear: Notwithstanding [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld's description, the majority of them were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield. They came into American custody from third parties, mostly from Pakistan, some after targeted raids there, most after a dragnet for Arabs after 9/11."

According to the National Journal report, "most of the men at Guantánamo, or at least the 132 with court records and the 314 with redacted transcripts, came into American custody by way of third parties who had their own motivations for turning people in, including paybacks and payoffs":

Some of the men at Guantanamo came from targeted, U.S.-guided raids in Pakistani cities, and the cases against those men tend to be fairly strong. But the largest single group at Guantanamo Bay today consists of men caught in indiscriminate sweeps for Arabs in Pakistan. Once arrested, these men passed through several captors before being given to the U.S. military. Some of the men say they were arrested after asking for help getting to their embassies; a few say the Pakistanis asked them for bribes to avoid being turned over to America.

Others assert that they were sold for bounties, a charge substantiated in 2004 when Sami Yousafzai, a Newsweek reporter then stringing for ABC's "20/20," visited the Pakistani village where five Kuwaiti detainees were captured. The locals remembered the men. They had arrived with a larger group of a hundred refugees a few weeks after Qaeda fighters had passed through. The villagers said they had offered the group shelter and food, but somebody in the village sold out the guests. Pretty soon, bright lights came swooping down from the skies. "Helicopters ... were announcing through loud speakers: 'Where is Arab? Where is Arab?' And, 'Please, you get $1,000 for one Arab,' "one resident told Yousafzai.

"The one thing we were never clear of was where they came from," [former CIA officer Michael] Scheuer said of the Guantanamo detainees. "DOD picked them up somewhere." When National Journal told Scheuer that the largest group came from Pakistani custody, he chuckled. "Then they were probably people the Pakistanis thought were dangerous to Pakistan," he said. "We absolutely got the wrong people."

In addition, as Media Matters has noted, a March 6 New York Times article reported that recently released Pentagon documents regarding the detainees "underscore[] the considerable difficulties that both the military and the detainees appear to have had in wrestling with the often thin or conflicting evidence involved." The article reported that, although there are those imprisoned at Guantánamo "who brashly assert their determination to wage war against what they see as the infidel empire led by the United States," there are "many more, it seems, who sound like Abdur Sayed Rahman, a self-described Pakistani villager":

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

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

Blitzer could have also challenged Gonzales's evasion of his question regarding torture at Guantánamo. Blitzer quoted from a February 27 New Yorker article by staff writer Jane Mayer that described the treatment of al-Qahtani. According to the article, Qahtani "had been subjected to a hundred and sixty days of isolation in a pen perpetually flooded with artificial light. He was interrogated on forty-eight of fifty-four days for eighteen to twenty hours at a stretch. He had been stripped naked, straddled by taunting female guards in an exercise called 'invasion of space by a female'; forced to wear women's underwear on his head and to put on a bra; threatened by guards, placed on a leash, and told that his mother was a whore. ... Qahtani's heart rate had dropped so precipitately [sic], to thirty-five beats a minute, that he required cardiac monitoring."

Blitzer then asked Gonzales if this constituted "torture," to which the attorney general responded: "Wolf, I have no way of knowing whether any of that information that you've just read is, in fact, true, or how much of it is true. It's easy to make allegations about mistreatment in places like Guantánamo." Blitzer failed to challenge Gonzales despite the fact that a June 2005 Army report by Lt. Gen. Mark Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow on detainee treatment at Guantánamo reported many of these events. While the Schmidt-Furlow report is itself classified, there is an unclassified executive summary. Below are some examples in which the report documented the treatment the New Yorker described for "the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan," who, a July 14, 2005, Washington Post article confirmed, is al-Qahtani:

Finding #15: From 23 Nov 02 to 16 Jan 03, the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was interrogated for 18-20 hours per day for 48 of the 54 days, with the opportunity for a minimum of four hours rest per day.

[...]

Finding #16a: That the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was separated from the general population from 8 Aug 02 to 15 Jan 03.

[...]

Discussion [for finding #16a]: The subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was never isolated from human contact. The subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was however placed in an "isolation facility" where he was separated from the general detainee population from 8 Aug 02 to 15 Jan 03. The subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan routinely had contact with interrogators and MPs while in the "isolation facility."

[...]

Finding #16b: On 06 Dec 02, the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of the interrogation.

Finding #16c: On 17 Dec 02, the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was told that his mother and sister were whores.

[...]

Finding #16e: On 20 Dec 02, an interrogator tied a leash to the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan's chains, led him around the room, and forced him to perform a series of dog tricks.

[...]

Finding #16g: On several occasions in Dec 02, the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was subject to strip searches. These searches, conducted by the prison guards during interrogation, were done as a control measure on direction of the interrogators.

Finding #16h: On one occasion in Dec 02, the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan was forced to stand naked for five minutes with females present. This incident occurred during the course of a strip search.

[...]

Discussion: ... Particularly troubling is the combined impact of the 160 days of segregation from other detainees, 48 of 54 consecutive days of 18 to 20-hour interrogations, and the creative application of authorized interrogation techniques. Requiring the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan to be led around by a leash tied to his chains, placing a thong on his head, wearing a bra, insulting his mother and sister, being forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator for five minutes, and using strip searches as an interrogation technique the AR 15-6 found to be abusive and degrading, particularly when done in the context of the 48 days of intense and long interrogations.

From the March 9 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Let's talk a little bit about torture. It's a sensitive subject, one that I know you've studied thoroughly. The allegations are significant. I want to read to you from an article that appeared in The New Yorker magazine, the February 27th issue, referring to one Mohammed al-Qahtani, a detainee at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, someone who is suspected of having been -- played a role in terrorism against the United States. "[Mohammed] al-Qahtani had been subjected to a hundred and sixty days of isolation in a pen perpetually flooded with artificial light. He was interrogated on forty-eight of fifty-four days for eighteen to twenty hours at a stretch. He had been stripped naked, straddled by taunting female guards in an exercise called 'invasion of space by a female'; forced to wear women's underwear on his head and to put on a bra; threatened by dogs, placed on a leash, and told that his mother was a whore." Eventually, he needed cardiac treatment because his health had deteriorated so significantly. Is that torture?

GONZALES: Wolf, I have no way of knowing whether any of that information that you've just read is, in fact, true, or how much of it is true. It's easy to make allegations about mistreatment in places like Guantánamo. What I can say is that we have worked very hard throughout the administration to ensure that everyone understands what the legal requirements are. And to the extent that people aren't meeting those requirements, there are investigations, and people are held accountable.

BLITZER: Should the Guantánamo base be shut down, as the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan says? He says, "I think sooner or later there will be a need to close Guantanamo, and I think it will be up to the government to decide, hopefully, to do it as soon as possible." What do you think?

GONZALES: Well, we operate Guantánamo because of necessity, and so, if the need were not there for the United States of America to detain people that we catch on the battlefield, then we would not be having to operate Guantánamo. We are continually reassessing all of our activities in the war on terror, including operational facilities like Guantánamo, to ensure that they remain effective as a tool in the war against terror, and that they remain lawful. So this is something we are constantly reevaluating in terms of -- what is the appropriate way ahead to ensure the national security interest of our country, and to ensure that we're fighting this war against a deadly enemy in a lawful manner.

BLITZER: You were the White House counsel, now you're the attorney general. You know all the laws that have been enacted, the guidelines. Are you comfortable in saying that you would hope that American detainees held by a foreign government would be treated as foreign detainees are being treated by the U.S. government?

Categories: News
17:14

In an appearance on the March 12 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) challenged host Tim Russert's previous suggestion -- which Media Matters for America noted at the time -- that Democratic lawmakers seized on the recent ports controversy in order to build their national security credentials. He noted that Russert "in effect" said that "Congress hadn't done much" on the issue of securing the nation's ports. Biden then countered: "Back in 2001, we introduced legislation for port security and rail security; 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It's been repeatedly spurned by the administration." Indeed, since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Republicans have repeatedly defeated Democratic proposals to bolster port security nationwide.

On February 22, amid the growing criticism of the Bush administration's approval of a deal to transfer terminal operations at six U.S. ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, Russert appeared on NBC's Today and suggested that Democrats were simply exploiting the issue for political gain. In doing so, he joined the chorus of media figures who, in their coverage of the ports controversy, framed national security as a right-wing value and depicted Democrats as new converts to the issue.

But such characterizations ignore congressional Democrats' substantial track record of promoting port security, as Biden made clear during the Meet the Press interview. In recent years, Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly put forward legislation to bolster port security, only to see these measures defeated by Republicans. The following are several examples:

  • In 2003, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) proposed an amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to provide $460 million for port security. The Senate rejected a motion -- which required a three-fifths majority to pass -- to allow a vote on the amendment, by a 43-50 vote. Forty-nine of the 50 members voting against the motion were Republicans.
  • In 2003, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) proposed an amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports. The Senate rejected a motion -- which required a three-fifths majority -- to allow a vote on the amendment, by a 45-51 vote. Fifty of the 51 senators voting against the motion were Republicans.
  • In 2003, Sen. Ernest Hollings proposed an amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to increase port security funding by $300 million. Senators voted down the measure by a 50-48 vote. Forty-nine of the 50 members who voted to table the amendment were Republicans.
  • In 2004, Schumer proposed an amendment to appropriate an additional $150,000 for port security research and development grants. The Senate rejected a motion -- which required a three-fifths majority to pass -- to allow a vote on the amendment, by a 50-46 vote. Forty-five of the 46 members voting against the motion were Republicans.

From the March 12 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Senator Biden, what has the port controversy done to the Bush presidency?

BIDEN: It's sort of stripped away the curtain that there was any competence on homeland security. I heard you on another show with [Today host] Katie Couric, Tim, saying something, in effect that the Congress hadn't done much either. Back in 2001, we introduced legislation for port security and rail security; 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It's been repeatedly spurned by the administration. Virtually nothing's been done. Their priorities are backwards, Tim. Tim, if, in fact, they spent as much money on homeland security as they do one year on Star Wars, we could fund another 13,000 police locally, another 1,000 FBI agents. We could have every container at every port inspected with gamma rays as well as with radiation. We could, in fact, secure our railroads. These guys have priorities that are backwards and they're dangerously, dangerously incompetent. And this is going to be the next place you're going to see that incompetence show.

Categories: News
17:14

The March 20 issues of Time and Newsweek magazines both granted anonymity to sources making statements in defense of President Bush. Specifically, the two weekly news magazines quoted White House officials claiming that Bush was well aware of the conflagration in Congress over the deal that would allow Dubai Ports World to assume control of operations at six major U.S. ports.

Mike Allen wrote in Time: "White House officials contend that Bush quickly realized the ports affair was a fiasco. 'I know a prairie fire when I see one,' the Texas rancher told an aide."

The article in Newsweek by senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe and White House correspondent Holly Bailey was explicit in noting that White House officials were repeating the "prairie fire" quote to refute suggestions that Bush was unaware of the likely demise of the deal:

Two days later, the deal was dead and the last trace of trust had vanished between the GOP-led Congress and the president on the ports deal. George W. Bush's allies marvel that the White House could have misread them for so long. And they still disagree about the basic facts, including what happened last week when GOP leaders trooped into the White House to tell Bush they couldn't (or wouldn't) stop their own members from blocking the takeover. "It's not going to work," House Speaker Dennis Hastert [R-IL] told Bush, according to one GOP aide. That's not the way the White House saw the meeting. "News flash: it wasn't like that at all," scoffed one senior Bush adviser (who, like the GOP aide, declined to be named while talking about a private session). "The president knows a prairie fire when he sees one."

As Media Matters for America previously noted when an article in the December 19, 2005, edition of Newsweek by Wolffe and Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas featured various anonymous quotes and statements from White House aides praising and defending the president, Newsweek's guidelines for anonymous sourcing stipulate that "the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader," and that Newsweek must "help the reader understand the nature of a confidential source's access to information and his or her reasons for demanding anonymity." Wolffe and Bailey merely repeated the Bush aide's reason for demanding anonymity. They failed to explain why the aide, in defending Bush, deserved anonymity or how that anonymity served the reader.

Time's Allen did not even give a reason for granting his source anonymity. His use of the words "Texas rancher" to describe Bush is presumably a reference to Bush's property in Crawford, Texas, where he vacations. The property was once a working cattle ranch, but there is debate over whether the property can now actually be called a "ranch." As the Los Angeles Times reported on August 29, 2005, "The Secret Service agents now outnumber the cows." The Times went on to note: "Bush prefers bicycles to horses and never claimed to be a cattleman. He has described himself as a 'windshield rancher' who likes to escort such visitors as Russian President Vladimir Putin around his property in a pickup."

Categories: News
17:14

During a March 12 interview with C-SPAN president and chief executive officer Brian Lamb, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann said: "There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE [General Electric Co., NBC's parent corporation], the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all. ... There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened." He added, "On the other hand, if they look at my ratings and my ratings are improved and there is criticism of the president of the United States, they're happy."

Olbermann also discussed his relationship to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and claimed: "O'Reilly's agent calls the head of NBC week after week saying, you have got to get Olbermann to stop" criticizing O'Reilly.

From Olbermann's interview with Lamb, aired on the March 12 edition of C-SPAN's Q&A:

LAMB: We have got some other quotes about Fox from you: "Fortunately for the free world, News Corp.," which owns FOX, "is very aggressive but ultimately not very bright."

OLBERMANN: Yes, they are somewhat self-destructive. And that's the best hope for mankind, relative to them. In other words, you know, Bill O'Reilly, who has an audience at 8 o'clock [p.m. ET] that even with recent programming gains on the part of my show, the total audience that he has is still, what, six, seven times what we are doing. Even -- as Fox and News Corp. put it, the "money demo," the 25- to 54-year-old news viewers who don't watch news, even there they are still about double what we are doing.

When I attack Bill O'Reilly or criticize him for something that he said on the air, some ludicrous suggestion like, you know, we should let Al Qaeda go in and blow up San Francisco because he doesn't like San Francisco, I mean, just lunatic things, if I punch upwards at Fox News, the clever response, the cynical and brilliant response is to just ignore. Like, well, why do we have to worry, they have one-seventh of our audience? They attack. Bill O'Reilly's agent calls the head of NBC week after week saying, you have got to get Olbermann to stop this, as if for some reason there are rules here. We have -- these are the people who have suspended the rules, and they want the referee to step in protect them against my little pinky.

LAMB: More quotes. This is about Rupert Murdoch: "His covey of flying monkeys do something journalistically atrocious every hour of the day."

OLBERMANN: Yeah. I think that's probably true. I think -- well, sometimes they miss. They are sometimes -- there are a few hours in a row where there might not be a flying monkey appearing, devastating society.

LAMB: Doesn't this work for both of you?

OLBERMANN: I don't think so. I haven't met a lot of flying monkeys at NBC. I have met people who -- and by the way, this is the great freedom and the great protection of American broadcasting, commercial broadcasting -- we made a mistake in the '20s. We let broadcasting in this country develop with commercial broadcasting taking the lead and all other kinds of information on radio or television secondary or tertiary. But the protection of money at the center of everything, including news to the degree that it is now, is that as long as you make the money, they don't care what it is you put on the air.

They don't care. There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all.

Anybody who knew anything about American history and stepped out at any point in American history and got an assessment of this presidential administration would say, "Yeah, I don't know how much they need to be criticized, but they need to be criticized to some degree."

There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened. On the other hand, if they look at my ratings and my ratings are improved and there is criticism of the president of the United States, they're happy.

If my ratings went up because there was no criticism of the president of the United States, they'd be happy.

Categories: News
17:14

A March 10 Cybercast News Service (CNS) article falsely reported that Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon, a retired Episcopal bishop of Washington, D.C., called the Mexico City Policy -- a Reagan-era rule, reinstated by President Bush, that prohibits U.S. funding of international groups that provide abortion services or "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning" -- a "disgrace." In fact, Dixon, who was speaking at an International Women's Day event coordinated by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, was referring to Bush's proposed cuts in financing for international family planning programs. Cybercast News Service is a division of the conservative Media Research Center, an organization that purports to "prove -- through sound scientific research -- that liberal bias in the media does exist," and to "neutralize its impact on the American political scene."

The Mexico City Policy, first established in 1984, was rescinded on January 22, 1993, by former President Clinton. Bush reinstated the policy on January 22, 2001.

According to the CNS article, by staff writer Monisha Bansal:

For more than 20 years, when a Republican has been in the White House, international family planning organizations that either discuss or perform abortions have been barred from receiving U.S. taxpayer dollars. Pro-abortion activists continue to be angry about what they call a "global gag rule."

The regulation, formally known as the Mexico City Policy, is a "disgrace" said Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon, a retired Episcopal bishop from Washington, D.C., and member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). She complained that under the Bush administration, "international family planning, maternal health and child survival programs have been cut to their lowest levels in years."

"This is a disgrace for a country that prides itself on its generosity to those in need and its commitment to the fundamental dignity and equality of every human being," Dixon stated.

Dixon was not, however, referring to the Mexico City Policy, but to Bush's proposed $79 million cut in financing for international family planning programs, as a March 8 Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice press release indicated:

Leaders of major American religions today decried the Bush Administration's proposed $79 million cut in U.S. assistance for international family planning and called on Congress to increase funding for these programs. They spoke at an International Women's Day event at the United Methodist Building in Washington coordinated by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Affirming their faith traditions' commitment to women's health as a core religious value, they urged Congress to support the Focus on Family Health Worldwide Act (HR 4188), a bipartisan approach to meeting the critical family planning needs of the world's poorest families sponsored by Representative Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), and co-sponsored by Representative Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) and others. McCollum and Ramstad spoke at the event.

The Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, retired Episcopal Bishop of Washington, said that "international family planning, maternal health, and child survival programs have been cut to their lowest levels in years. This is a disgrace for a country that prides itself on its generosity to those in need and its commitment to the fundamental dignity and equality of every human being..."

A February 15 New York Times article clearly differentiated the family planning cuts outlined in Bush's 2007 budget proposal from the Mexico City Policy:

President Bush, who acted on his first full day in office five years ago to deny federal aid to overseas groups that help women obtain abortions, is for the first time proposing sharp cuts in financing for international family planning programs that the White House had described as one of the best ways to prevent abortion.

Since 2001, the administration had adhered to Mr. Bush's commitment to maintain the financing of such programs at $425 million, the same level as in the last year of the Clinton administration.

But in the president's new budget proposal, financing would fall 18 percent, from $436 million this year to $357 million.

Categories: News
17:14

On the March 9 broadcast of Fox News's Hannity & Colmes, while discussing congressional Republicans' willingness to oppose the Bush administration's position on the Dubai Ports World (DPW) controversy, co-host Sean Hannity claimed that Republicans "are not Kool-Aid drinkers, like some of the Clinton supporters that defended the indefensible." But from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay to radio host and CNN analyst Bill Bennett's controversial abortion remarks and Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson's comparison of embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments, Hannity has gone to astonishing lengths in defense of what are, at best, highly questionable comments and actions, often with falsehoods of his own. For instance:

  • Hannity downplayed Abu Ghraib prison abuse

On the June 7, 2005, broadcast of ABC's daytime talk show The View, Hannity downplayed the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib by claiming that the extent of the abuse was limited to "underwear on the head of one of them." Numerous photos from news sources and an Army report documenting individual instances of abuse prove otherwise. On the September 10, 2004, edition of his ABC Radio Networks show, Hannity suggested that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) may have been behind the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos, stating: "Was that a DNC plot, too?"

  • Hannity minimized abuse at Gitmo

On the May 31, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity claimed that "we didn't hurt anybody" at Guantánamo, despite first-hand accounts by FBI agents and humanitarian workers for the International Committee of the Red Cross documenting prisoner abuse that included, but was not limited to, hooding and slapping prisoners, sleep deprivation, the use of dogs for intimidation, temperature extremes, persistent noise, and "some beatings." During the March 3 edition of Hannity & Colmes, despite several reports to the contrary, Hannity asserted: "There's nobody at Guantánamo Bay that's there for nothing."

  • Hannity defended Bennett's controversial race comment

On January 18, Hannity defended a controversial remark by Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan -- that "if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Hannity echoed Bennett's own false claim that the remark was not his "theory" and that Bennett was "quot[ing] from a book." As Media Matters for America noted, Bennett purported to explain the comment by falsely claiming that he was simply reiterating a theory presented in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But, neither Levitt, nor the book, discuss "the racial implications of abortion and crime," as Bennett did.

  • Hannity defended Dobson's Nazi comparison

During an interview with Dobson on the August 9, 2005, broadcast of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity defended Dobson's August 3, 2005, comments, in which he compared embryonic stem cell research with Nazi experiments conducted on live human patients prior to and during the Holocaust. Hannity told Dobson: "You said if any ethics or morality is removed, then you have Nazi Germany. You were very clear. You weren't making a comparison."

  • Hannity attacked caller for linking Rove to Plame leak

On the October 25, 2005, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Hannity responded to a caller's assertion that White House senior adviser Karl Rove was "involved" in the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity by labeling the caller a "nut case" and accusing him of "hatred, hatred, hatred for Bush and anyone associated with him." Rove did reportedly disclose Plame's identity to a reporter.

From the March 9 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, which featured co-host Alan Colmes and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA):

COLMES: It's pretty astounding to have one of the president's biggest supporters basically say -- you know, distancing himself there from what the White House is doing.

GINGRICH: Well, wait a second. I mean, [Rep.] Mark Foley [R-FL] was describing the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 1, is the Congress. Now, the job of the Congress is that nobody in Congress is on the president's team. They are independently elected members who work with the president. They are not people who work for the president.

COLMES: And he was making it very clear that he wanted to create some distance between House Republicans --

GINGRICH: Well, look --

COLMES: -- and the White -- and the West Wing.

GINGRICH: Look, on this particular issue -- and I know you love hearing this, Alan, so I -- I don't know. I don't know. Between now and your radio show later on tonight --

HANNITY: Hey, we got to -- we --

GINGRICH: -- how -- how many times you are going to want to go at this, but I concede this was a mistake. I -- you know, I feel very strongly this was a mistake. I'm glad it's now over.

HANNITY: Mr. Speaker, hang on one -- right there one second. And -- and, actually, we are not Kool-Aid drinkers, like some of the Clinton supporters that defended the indefensible, which is interesting.

Categories: News
17:14

At Media Matters for America, we monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Bill O'Reilly's steady stream of misinformation gives us plenty of material, and we thought it particularly noteworthy when he denied making personal attacks, given that he has such a long history of making them.

We encourage you to click here and tell your friends about this clip.

You can see more of O'Reilly's misinformation here.

Categories: News
17:14

During the "My Word" segment of the March 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson praised the announcement by Dubai Ports World (DPW) that it would divest itself of leases it holds for terminals at six U.S. ports. Gibson also praised President Bush, stating: "[H]ats off to President Bush for not getting too stubborn over this deal."

Although he was initially unaware that his administration had approved the deal, Bush had remained -- until March 9 -- steadfastly supportive of it from the time concerns about it were first raised in Congress last month; he even threatened to veto any legislation that would have prevented the deal from moving forward. On March 10, ABC News reported that the White House asked DPW to abandon its bid to manage the six U.S. ports, allowing Bush to avoid a showdown with Congress. From the ABC News article:

Bush had defended the deal, calling the United Arab Emirates a strong ally in the war on terror and pledging to cast the first veto of his presidency if Congress voted to interfere.

Senate Republicans initially tried to fend off a vote, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction. That strategy collapsed Wednesday with the 62-2 vote in the House Appropriations Committee to stop the sale.

From the March 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Now it's time for "My Word." When the story about the Dubai ports deal broke a couple of weeks ago, I said this deal will not stand. I also said secretaries [Michael] Chertoff [of the Homeland Security Department] and [John W.] Snow [of the Treasury Department] would have to resign for allowing such a politically boneheaded deal to go through. To paraphrase Meat Loaf, one out of three ain't bad.

So hats off to the Dubai emir Sheikh Maktoum for figuring out the obvious. This deal was a no-go out in the flyover states of America. Hats off to President Bush for not getting too stubborn over this deal. Hats off for the Republicans for standing their ground. Maybe they won't get their heinies stomped in the fall after all.

Categories: News
17:14

In an appearance on the March 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, New York Post columnist Ralph Peters repeated the claim -- previously advanced by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace -- that during the recent sectarian violence in Iraq, the "Iraqi army was able to put over 100,000 troops in the street, and they calmed the situation." But as Media Matters for America noted, news reports contradict Pace's and Peters's claims. The Associated Press reported that rather than actively working to "calm" the violence that followed the bombing of the al-Askariya shrine in Samarra, "Iraqi forces did not engage the rioters" and waited "until clerics had calmed the situation before taking to the streets."

Peters recently returned from Iraq; while there, he wrote columns downplaying reports of escalating violence and potential civil war. On Special Report, Peters sought to draw a distinction between the capabilities of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police, telling host Brit Hume that "there is a very big difference." Peters said of the police: "[T]hey are infiltrated. They are difficult to deal with. The people don't trust them."

Noting that while in Iraq he "got to see the Iraqi army in action," Peters asserted: "During the civil war that wasn't, the Iraqi army was able to put over 100,000 troops in the street, and they calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. It was a real success."

But a March 2 AP article offered a very different picture of Iraqi Security Forces' performance following the attack on the shrine. The AP reported that despite U.S. officials' portrayal of Iraqi security forces as a "silver lining" in the recent violence, "[f]or the most part ... Iraqi forces did not engage the rioters" and instead waited for influential clerics to restore calm. The AP described the performance of both the police force and the army as "mixed":

U.S. officials have hailed the performance of Iraqi security forces as the only silver lining in the spasm of violence after the shrine bombing. For the most part, however, Iraqi forces did not engage the rioters waiting until clerics had calmed the situation before taking to the streets.

[...]

But most of the credit goes not to Iraqi forces but to top Shiite clerics -- including anti-American firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr, who called back his militiamen, responsible for many if not most of the attacks on Sunni sites in Baghdad and Basra.

Attacks did persist after the clerics' appeal for calm -- but at much lower levels.

Rather than confront angry mobs, most Iraqi forces filled a security void after the worst of the violence had passed. Aided by daytime curfews and a vehicle ban, they manned checkpoints in Baghdad and patrolled the streets to prevent major violence from flaring again. Even so, some sporadic attacks continued.

In the first critical hours after the Feb. 22 shrine bombing in Samarra, the streets in much of Baghdad and Basra belonged to freelance gunmen and black-clad militiamen of al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army.

They roamed the capital in pickups and cars seemingly without fear of facing down either Iraqi or American forces. Few bothered to wear masks to hide their identity.

[...]

The performance of Iraq's soldiers and police was mixed.

There were no reports of units disintegrating, even though most of them are heavily Shiite. Sunnis and Shiites in mixed units did not turn against the comrades from the other sect. Nor was there any indication that significant numbers of soldiers refused orders or that large numbers of them stripped off their uniforms and joined in the violence.

Had the clerics not intervened, however, the challenge facing those newly trained army and police units would have been far greater -- and the outcome uncertain.

Similarly, in its March 6 issue, Newsweek reported that "witnesses said" Iraqi security forces "did little or nothing to stop the violence," adding that, in Baghdad, "there were no reports that government security forces ever confronted members of Sadr's Mahdi Army":

Iraq's brief reign of terror was further proof that the nation's 200,000-odd security forces -- which witnesses said did little or nothing to stop the violence -- are simply not ready to maintain stability.

[...]

And ordinary Iraqis seem to have less and less faith in the interim government of [interim Prime Minister Ibrahim] Jaafari, already reeling from accusations of running or permitting Shiite death squads. In Baghdad, there were no reports that government security forces ever confronted members of Sadr's Mahdi Army, which is beginning to resemble Hizbullah in fractured Lebanon. This inability or unwillingness to stop the militias (Iraq's security forces are dominated by Shiites) was one reason cited by the Sunni bloc for withdrawing from political negotiations.

And Time magazine noted in a March 6 article that "[t]he seeming inability of the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces to quell the violence was especially worrying to U.S. commanders." Time added, "Just as disturbing was the reappearance of Shi'ite militias on the streets, flaunting their weapons and often riding along with police and military patrols."

Peters has made similar, though less specific, claims about the Iraqi army's supposed effectiveness in his New York Post columns. On March 1, Peters wrote: "And the people here have been impressed that their government reacted effectively to last week's strife, that their soldiers and police brought order to the streets." On March 5, he added, "The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week."

From the March 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: What is your impression of the Iraqi troops and police forces that you've seen? We hear varying reports. [Defense] Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld and others say they are coming along doing a good job. Others say the police forces in particular are heavily infiltrated by serious troublemakers. What did you see?

PETERS: Well, it is complex. And I was out with some Iraqi police and got to see the Iraqi army in action. Now, there is a very big difference. During the civil war that wasn't, the Iraqi army was able to put over 100,000 troops in the street, and they calmed the situation without killing a single civilian.

It was a real success -- morale boost for the army; certainly, they felt like they had achieved something. But also what I found among the Iraqis was that they were very proud of their troops. Their troops were out keeping order. So the Iraqi army after a false start about a year and a half ago is doing quite well. And it has still got a long way to go. But that's very, very promising.

The police force is a different matter. And they also have public order battalions that are like a gents d'armerie -- closer to the police, but with a paramilitary aspect to them. And they are infiltrated. They are difficult to deal with. The people don't trust them. In fact, one neighborhood sheik in a Sunni area was asking this U.S. lieutenant I was with, "When our houses have to be inspected, couldn't Americans do it? We trust you." He didn't want the Iraqi police in his house.

So I think there are big problems with the Iraqi police. But hey, it's one block at a time. The army is moving out. They are working on the police. And I say the problems right now are really the police and the militias.

Categories: News
17:14

As noted by blogger Joshua Micah Marshall, on March 10, a headline on CNN.com read: "Dems Indicted; Clinton, Kerry Targeted." But the headline's suggestion notwithstanding, the article referred to a March 10 Associated Press report detailing criticisms by Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman of former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), not to criminal indictments. The AP's headline, which CNN rejected, read: "GOP Chairman to Single Out Kerry, Clinton."

Categories: News

March 10, 2006

16:07

On the March 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, during a discussion on illegal immigration with Daniel T. Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, Bill O'Reilly cited North Korea as an example of a nation that has successfully maintained border security. Dismissing the effectiveness of "guest worker" programs to control illegal immigration, O'Reilly said: "The criminals are still going to get in here in a furtive way." Arguing for "stringent" measures, O'Reilly continued, "[Y]ou can go to any country in the world and watch how they do it. It's doable. Nobody gets into North Korea, all right? They've sealed up that border." Responding to O'Reilly's observation that "[n]obody gets into North Korea," Griswold retorted: "Nobody wants to."

North Korea borders South Korea on its southern border with the heavily fortified, four-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone that was negotiated in 1953 with the cease-fire of the Korean War. North Korea also borders China and Russia.

O'Reilly has made other dubious comments about immigration, as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, and here).

From the March 8 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: I'm for controlling all the borders. But you guys at Cato have gotta wise up a little bit. You're not gonna solve the illegal immigrant hordes coming in here by having an effective guest worker program because the criminals aren't gonna sign up for that. The criminals are still gonna get in here in a furtive way. And unless you put stringent -- and you can go to any country in the world and watch how they do it. It's doable. Nobody gets into North Korea, all right?

GRISWOLD: Nobody wants to.

O'REILLY: They've sealed up that border.

Categories: News
16:07

On the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that a recently reported data-mining initiative led by Harold Ickes -- an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- is "just like we saw the NSA [National Security Agency] doing" in conjunction with President Bush's controversial warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. But while the data mining conducted by the NSA reportedly includes retrieving data from e-mail messages and transcripts of phone calls to and from Americans -- obtained without warrants, in apparent violation of the law -- the initiative run by Ickes, according to news reports, relies on the same commercially and publicly available information that Republicans have used for years in their data operations. Matthews made no mention of these Republican operations.

Matthews cited a Washington Post article as his source of information on the Ickes data initiative but failed to note its description of the Ickes effort -- a private venture called Data Warehouse -- as an effort to counter Republican voter database operations, which have helped the GOP achieve an advantage in get-out-the-vote efforts. The Post article did not assert any resemblance between the nascent Data Warehouse program and the data mining conducted in conjunction with Bush's NSA program.

Matthews also cited the Ickes venture as evidence that "the people around Hillary know she's not popular with the country" and said the program is "a recognition she [Clinton] won't win big" if she runs for president in 2008. Matthews offered no evidence to back his claim, and numerous public opinion polls show a consistent plurality -- and often a majority -- of Americans holding favorable opinions of Clinton.

During a roundtable discussion of the upcoming 2008 presidential race, Matthews stated:

MATTHEWS: According to The Washington Post, the Democratic insiders with Hillary Clinton -- aide Harold Ickes is at the helm.

[...]

They've put together the information they need to win this election, they're out there with data mining, just like we saw the NSA doing, digging up information, finding out who might like to vote Democrat, who is pro-choice or whatever on whatever issue, anti-war, and put together enough information to find voters and win the election against whoever the Republicans run.

The initiative the Post described is distinctly different from the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program. Ickes's Data Warehouse, apparently a conscious effort on the part of some Democrats to mimic Republican get-out-the-vote success, will reportedly use information from publicly and commercially available sources. By contrast, the Bush administration has engaged in the surveillance of U.S. persons, without warrants, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Data mining is a process in which computers are used to discover patterns and correlations in pre-existing data, to make sense of large quantities of information. In a political context, data mining can be used to identify potential financial donors or to identify individuals who might be receptive to a candidate's message. As The Washington Post reported March 8:

The pressure on Democrats to begin more aggressive "data mining" in the hunt for votes began after the 2002 midterm elections and intensified after the 2004 presidential contest, when the GOP harnessed data technology to powerful effect.

In 2002, for the first time in recent memory, Republicans ran better get-out-the-vote programs than Democrats. When well done, such drives typically raise a candidate's Election Day performance by two to four percentage points. Democrats have become increasingly fearful that the GOP is capitalizing on high-speed computers and the growing volume of data available from government files and consumer marketing firms -- as well as the party's own surveys -- to better target potential supporters.

The Republican database has allowed the party and its candidates to tailor messages to individual voters and households, using information about the kind of magazines they receive, whether they own guns, the churches they attend, their incomes, their charitable contributions and their voting histories.

This makes it possible to specifically address the issues of voters who, in the case of many GOP supporters, may oppose abortion, support gun rights or be angry about government use of eminent domain to take private property. A personalized pitch can be made during door-knocking, through direct mail and e-mail, and via phone banks.

In addition to the Post article Matthews spoke of, two guests on Matthews's Hardball panel also noted that the Democratic data program will emulate the Republican program. New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut stated that "the Republican Party, the RNC, has a machine like this [the Ickes effort] already in existence. It's why they won in 2004." Similarly, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson stated that Clinton, who is advised by Ickes, is "putting together a machine like the Republicans have."

Matthews also asserted:

MATTHEWS: I think the people around Hillary know she's not popular with the country. If she wins, she'll win with like 48 percent, in a squeaker, because the other guy blew it.

They know it's going to come down to a few hundred thousand votes. They're going to identify those key undecided voters. They're going to try to turn it on a very close election. This particular vote by voting [sic] attempt and data mining is a recognition she won't win big, they've got to squeak it.

But numerous polls show that a majority or at least a plurality of Americans view Clinton favorably. In a March 2-5 ABC News/Washington Post poll of adults nationwide, with a +/- 3 percent margin of error, 52 percent of respondents said they had a "favorable" impression of Clinton, compared with 46 percent who said they held an "unfavorable" impression of her. Similarly, in a February 16-19 Diageo/Hotline poll of registered voters, with a +/- 3.5 percent margin of error, 52 percent of respondents said they held a "favorable" opinion of Clinton, compared with 41 percent who said they held an "unfavorable" opinion of her.

From the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which featured radio host and columnist Michael Smerconish, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, Robinson, and Kornblut:

MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the Democrats. Hillary Clinton has raised her head here. According to The Washington Post, the Democratic insiders with Hillary Clinton aide Harold Ickes at the helm. They're out there, they don't apparently trust Howard Dean.

They've put together the information they need to win this election, they're out there with data mining, just like we saw the NSA doing, digging up information, finding out who might like to vote Democrat, who is pro-choice or whatever on whatever issue, anti-war, and put together enough information to find voters and win the election against whoever the Republicans run.

Michael, what's Hillary up to?

[...]

HITCHENS: I read the piece this morning and I thought, what's it reminding of? And it suddenly hit me, it's Dick Morris again. There was a time, if you remember, when the Democratic Party, congressionally and elsewhere, thought it was running the party and in fact, Mr. Clinton and his wife, with a small cabal in the White House, arranged by Dick Morris, were doing all the fundraising, all the polling, all the work. For part of the time, Dick Morris was the president during the impeachment.

KORNBLUT: I would say that's the fault of the RNC, though. I mean, the Republican Party, the RNC, has a machine like this, already in existence. It's why they won in 2004.

HITCHENS: Well the Democrats have penis envy for that and have had for a long time.

MATTHEWS: I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. Is Hillary Clinton grabbing the party control?

ROBINSON: Well I think she's trying to. I mean, you know, she's in a position to make the attempt, and I think, you know, she's putting together a machine like the Republicans have. You have to have the data, you have to analyze it and slice it and dice it and understand it.

In the final analysis, you have to make people want to vote for you, and I think the one vulnerability here is the idea that Hillary Clinton will kind of contort herself into any position that kind of maximizes her votes.

MATTHEWS: In other words, they want to find out where people stand so she can stand there.

ROBINSON: Exactly.

SMERCONISH: But everybody already stands on Hillary. In other words, there are no undecided voters relative to Hillary Clinton. You're either for or you're against her.

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: I think the people around Hillary know she's not popular with the country. If she wins, she'll win with like 48 percent, in a squeaker, because the other guy blew it.

They know it's going to come down to a few hundred thousand votes. They're going to identify those key undecided voters. They're going to try to turn it on a very close election. This particular vote by voting [sic] attempt and data mining is a recognition she won't win big, they've got to squeak it.

Categories: News
16:07

During the March 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, host Neil Cavuto interviewed Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) regarding the recent decision by Dubai Ports World, the company owned by the government of Dubai, to transfer management of U.S. ports to an American company. During the interview, Cavuto not only failed to ask DeLay any questions about his indictment by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering, he did not even mention the indictment.

In September 2005, DeLay was indicted on charges of conspiracy and money-laundering involving alleged illegal corporate contributions into Texas state elections. Because the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives bar members who are accused of criminal activity from assuming leadership positions, DeLay was forced to step down as House majority leader. The indictment centered on DeLay's involvement in raising money for Republican candidates for Texas legislature seats in 2002. Texas Republicans gained control of the state House that year for the first time in 130 years, paving the way for a redrawing of the congressional district map in Texas that altered district demographics in ways favorable to Republicans. Texas Republicans subsequently gained five U.S. House seats in the 2004 election. In December 2005, a judge dismissed the conspiracy charge but upheld more serious charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Soon after, DeLay announced he would not seek to regain his post as House majority leader.

From the March 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: Well, the Dubai port deal collapsing under the enormous weight of all this intense opposition -- even some of the president's closest allies were against the deal, including my next guest, Republican Congressman Tom DeLay, who joins us now. Congressman, you never liked this. How do you feel now?

DeLAY: Well, I feel very good. I think it's a win-win situation, Neil. I think the president will still be able to carry on his relationship with Dubai and UAE, because he stood up for what he thought was a good deal. And I think the American people win by answering this problem that I have always had, and that's foreign governments owning corporations and coming in and -- and competing with American corporations, what I think is unfairly. I don't mind foreign investment, as long as it participates in the market. But the whole notion of the deep pockets of a government owning a corporation, and, of course, the biggest issue being national security which we all had real questions about, I think it's all taken care of now. That's what good government is.

CAVUTO: Were there any -- any divisions, sir, with the president? I mean, did you, in either conversations with the president, get the feeling that he was being, I don't know, felt like Custer?

[laughter]

DeLAY: No, no. This president stays focused, I got to tell you. His leadership style and his management style is very good. Yeah, there was breakdown. These -- this decision probably should have -- not probably -- should have gone higher, with Cabinet secretaries making the final decision, rather than underlings. It was -- it was a botched mess. But the president understood it, got it right quickly, started working with people. And this solution looks like it's a very good solution.

CAVUTO: I -- I guess there's a different spin on it, Congressman, and that is that the president really never did get it. He was pushing for this deal, earlier threatened a veto. Then, of course, there was this 45-day stay, if you will, but that he was going to stick to his guns, even though he had only lately come to those guns.

DeLAY: Well, he --

CAVUTO: What do you make of that?

DeLAY: He thinks the deal is a good deal. He -- he thinks -- and he still stands by that. We disagreed with him. I -- I think he also understood that we probably need to look again, with an -- with an emphasis on national security, I mean, answer questions like, yes, now, this Dubai company, owned by the Dubai government, will have easier access to visas to come into the United States to so-called work for their -- for their company. How does that play out? How do the visas come? I mean, those kinds of questions are very important, as it relates to keeping -- holding security in our ports and keeping the American people safe. So -- I -- but I think all this now is being answered. And -- and it's the way a problem should be worked out and a solution found.

CAVUTO: Very quickly, sir: If you were majority leader at the time all of this broke, would this have gotten to be such a tempest?

[laughter]

DeLAY: Oh, I don't know about that. I mean, who knows. I don't -- I -- I think everybody understood the problem. And, thank goodness, they found a solution.

CAVUTO: All right, Tom DeLay, great having you again. Congratulations on your primary win. We will see what happens in November.

DeLAY: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Tom DeLay in Washington.

Categories: News
16:07

In his March 10 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely claimed that Media Matters for America "cheered" Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq but also "denied that he had done any such thing." Media Matters neither endorsed nor condemned Murtha's proposal, nor did we deny Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Instead, Media Matters corrected those in the media -- such as Taranto -- who falsely claimed that Murtha called for an "immediate withdrawal," or who falsely referred to Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) one-sentence resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces as the "Murtha amendment."

Hunter's proposal, which stated simply -- "Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately" -- was defeated in the House 403-3 and was described in news reports as a "political trap" that was "aimed at embarrassing war critics." Murtha's November 17, 2005, proposal -- House Joint Resolution 73 -- called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Murtha's resolution was never voted upon. As The Washington Post reported on November 19, 2005, "Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent."

From Taranto's March 10 "Best of the Web" column:

"Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who has denounced the war in Iraq, was named a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Thursday," the Associated Press reports. The award is given out by the JFK presidential library:

Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, was recognized "for the difficult and courageous decision of conscience he made in November 2005, when he reversed his support for the Iraq war and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict," the foundation said in a statement.

What's weird is that when Murtha proposed withdrawal, many of those who cheered him on denied that he had done any such thing. Here, for instance, is a MediaMatters.org item denouncing us:

Taranto also falsely referred to a previous proposal (House Resolution 571) for immediate withdrawal as Rep. John P. "Murtha's" (D-PA). The proposal that Taranto labeled as "Murtha's" was, in fact, a one-sentence Republican proposal sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) that news reports described as a "political trap" that was "aimed at embarrassing war critics." As Media Matters for America has documented, Taranto has also falsely attributed this position to Murtha in the past.

Granted, Murtha doesn't run MediaMatters, but if he's so courageous, why are his backers so eager to distance him from his own views?

Taranto linked to this Media Matters item, which was correcting him -- for the second time -- for referring to Hunter's proposal as "Murtha's." Taranto has yet to acknowledge these errors. Nothing in the portion of the item Taranto quoted indicates that Media Matters "denied" Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Categories: News
16:07

A March 10 news article (subscription required) by Wall Street Journal staff reporters Greg Hitt and Sarah Ellison suggested that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) paved the way for Senate Republicans to oppose President Bush's push for the completion of a deal that would have permitted Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates -- to take over port operations in six U.S. cities. However, while Frist initially expressed concern over the deal and stated that he would introduce legislation to delay it pending a "more thorough review" of its effects on national security, he later shifted his position and aligned himself with supporters of the deal, distancing himself from strong opponents of the deal in both parties.

Hitt and Ellison wrote that, following the outcry over the deal, Frist "jumped directly into the fray -- on the side of slowing down the deal." They noted that his pledge to introduce legislation "ensur[ing] that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," was "a signal to other Republicans that it not only was acceptable to oppose the port deal but also perhaps politically wise to do so."

However, Hitt and Ellison did not mention that Frist significantly shifted positions following that statement, after DPW agreed to an additional 45-day review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS).

On February 26, Frist issued a press release announcing his support for the additional review. He also called upon the Senate to "await the outcome of that work before deciding on any legislative steps related to the DP World deal." The next day, The New York Times reported that Frist said he was "satisfied that the issue was now being handled properly." On February 28, the Times wrote that Frist "is now leaning toward supporting" the deal, saying that meetings with the administration along with the company's agreement to submit to an additional review had "answered many of his concerns." The Times noted that Frist's shift in position aligned him more closely with Sen. John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a staunch defender of the deal, than with other Senate Republicans who remained critical of the deal.

From the March 10 edition of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

As it happened, Mr. Frist, the top Senate Republican, had embarked on a fact-finding tour to study port security and immigration issues. He was arriving at the big port in Long Beach, Calif., and knew he'd be asked about the Dubai deal.

Mr. Frist, an avid BlackBerry user, had been peppered with concerns by his staff, lawmakers and constituents for several days, and aides said he felt he needed to jump out in front of the issue if he had any hope of ultimately controlling it. So he jumped directly into the fray -- on the side of slowing down the deal.

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," Mr. Frist said. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

That declaration -- from a leading Republican, an ally of President Bush and a likely presidential contender in 2008 -- was a signal to other Republicans that it not only was acceptable to oppose the port deal but also perhaps politically wise to do so.

The political and media focus instantly grew more intense. House Speaker Dennis Hastert [R-IL] soon echoed Mr. Frist's complaints. Then Mr. Bush, on his way back from a speech in Colorado, met with reporters traveling on Air Force One and vowed to veto any legislation intended to reverse the deal. The president was digging in against top members of his own party. The hardening positions on both sides made it hard to find a face-saving compromise.

From the February 27 edition of The New York Times:

In a statement on Sunday evening, the Treasury Department, which oversees the review process, said it ''welcomed'' the company's decision. It cited the fact that the deal was ''restructured'' as a reason for looking at it a second time. But in fact, very little has changed in the structure of the deal, as the company's own executives acknowledged on Friday.

The announcement by the company created an opening for Republican leaders, who had sharply criticized the White House as paying insufficient attention to the deal. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, John W. Warner of Virginia, said they were satisfied that the issue was now being handled properly.

''We cannot mess this deal up,'' said Mr. Warner, who spent hours with executives from the company over the weekend. He emerged to praise them on the quality of their port operations and said on the NBC program ''Meet the Press,'' ''We as the United States are dependent on countries like the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, all of them there, to give us the support to fight this war on terrorism.''

In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Frist said he would recommend that the Senate await the outcome of the more extensive review before deciding on any legislative action.

From the February 28 edition of The New York Times:

The tough questioning at the Senate session illustrated that deep reservations remained among lawmakers despite the agreement to conduct the new review.

However, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader and an early critic of the deal, is now leaning toward supporting it. In comments over the past few days, Mr. Frist has said private briefings by the administration on its rationale for backing the ports deal, combined with the agreement for the review, have answered many of his concerns.

The change in position, criticized by some Democrats, left Mr. Frist more in line with senior Republican senators like John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who intensified his defense of Dubai on Monday and emphasized its strategic military value to the United States.

''It is the only port in the region that we can dock our major supercarriers,'' Mr. Warner said on the Senate floor. ''In addition, their airfields are supporting the ongoing operations that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq.''

Other administration officials and lawmakers also highlighted Dubai's participation in an aggressive American security screening program and its role in new efforts to halt the financing of global terrorism.

Categories: News
16:07

On the March 10 broadcast of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell -- in an apparent reference to a bill offered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) that would block the acquisition of control over six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- falsely said that the bill would "stop Arab ownership" of U.S. port facilities. In fact, Schumer has proposed legislation that would prevent any company owned or controlled by a "foreign government that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan" from controlling U.S. port facilities. The legislation does not target "Arab ownership" of U.S. shipping terminals, as O'Donnell said.

O'Donnell mentioned the legislation in the context of reporting a decision announced March 9 by DPW, a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), that it would divest itself of its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports. NBC aired video footage from a press conference at which Schumer and several other Senate Democrats pressed for a vote on Schumer's legislation. As the footage aired, O'Donnell stated that "[s]ome lawmakers say new legislation to stop Arab ownership may still be needed." O'Donnell's statement was followed by a video clip of Schumer speaking at the press conference, then by a video clip of Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, who stated that he was "very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab- and Muslim-bashing."

From the March 10 broadcast of NBC's Today:

O'DONNELL: The way out came in a three-sentence statement from the Arab-owned company and read on the Senate floor saying that to preserve its strong relationship with the U.S. it will find an American company to take over management of six U.S. ports. Some lawmakers say new legislation to stop Arab ownership may still be needed.

SCHUMER [video clip]: We need to make sure that all U.S. operations are totally removed from the United Arab Emirates and Dubai Ports World control.

O'DONNELL: Visiting Capitol Hill, the top military commander in Iraq defended the UAE as a vital partner.

ABIZAID [video clip]: I'm very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes [sic] down to Arab- and Muslim-bashing that was totally unnecessary.

But contrary to O'Donnell's report, Schumer's legislation does not specifically target "Arab ownership" of U.S. port facilities. The legislation states:

In the interest of national security, effective immediately, notwithstanding any other provision of law and any prior action or decision by or on behalf of the President, no company, wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during the Taliban's rule between 1996-2001, may own, lease, operate, or manage real property or facilities at a United States port.

As United Press International noted on October 20, 2003: "Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, along with the United Arab Emirates, were the only countries that recognized and aided Afghanistan's Taliban regime." Privately owned companies from these three countries would not be affected by Schumer's legislation, nor would companies run by governments from nations -- Arab or otherwise -- that did not recognize the Taliban.

Categories: News