On the April 25 edition of the Public Broadcasting Service's Bill Moyers Journal, host Bill Moyers presented a 90-minute-long documentary special, Buying the War," that examined how the media "largely surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with our government in marching to war" in Iraq. The film extensively reported on the role New York Times reporters and columnists played in contributing to the "drumbeat" of war. However, the documentary has not been either reviewed or mentioned in the Times itself, aside from a two-sentence blurb that appeared in the print newspaper's television listings.

By contrast, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post all ran reviews of the Moyers documentary. The Post -- whose editorials in favor of the invasion and front-page coverage of Bush administration prewar claims were extensively highlighted by Moyers -- published two articles on the special: a preview of the documentary and a review of it. On April 25, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales reviewed the film, calling it "one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year ... as disheartening as it is compelling." Shales further observed: "The show asks: Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers -- a contingent that Washington Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus calls 'the marketing group' -- or did the outrage of 9/11 made the press more vulnerable to being duped?"

While the documentary cast a critical eye on most of the mainstream press, Moyers especially noted The New York Times' role in credulously reporting administration claims about Iraq's WMD program, particularly focusing on former Times reporter Judith Miller. Moyers noted that, before the invasion, "Miller would write six prominent stories based on" the "testimony" of Iraqi defectors, whose stories were later found to be exaggerated or fictional. Miller relied heavily on Ahmed Chalabi -- then an Iraqi exile and head of the Iraqi National Congress -- who put her in touch with other defectors who, according to Moyers, "told Miller the Iraqis had hidden chemical and biological weapons ... [r]ight under [Saddam Hussein's] 'presidential sites.' " Moyers reported that the "story spread far and wide," opening floodgates for other Iraqi defectors to peddle misinformation to the U.S. media.

Moyers highlighted another front-page Times article, to which Miller contributed, that helped the Bush administration make the case that Saddam "had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed [aluminum] tubes," a claim that later turned out to be false. Moyers used this story to demonstrate how administration officials would manipulate the media by "plant[ing] a dramatic story," then appearing on news talk shows and "point[ing]" to the story they had leaked to confirm their argument, thus creating a "circular, self-confirming leak":

MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that [Vice President Dick] Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?

TIM RUSSERT (NBC News Washington bureau chief and host of NBC's Meet the Press): I don't know. The New York Times is a better judge of that than I am.

MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

RUSSERT: No, no. I mean --

MOYERS: The -- the Cheney office didn't make any -- didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't -- I don't have the -- this is, you know, on Meet the Press, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum-tube story until I read it in The New York Times.

MOYERS: Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in The New York Times and then the vice president comes on your show and points to The New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and [New York Times reporter] Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of The New York Times. When Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

Buying the War also highlighted The Washington Post's prominent coverage of the Bush administration's prewar claims, while simultaneously burying stories that cast doubt on the administration's assertions. Moyers also noted that "in the six months leading up to the invasion The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times." But while two Post staffers -- media critic Howard Kurtz and staff writer Walter Pincus -- agreed to be interviewed for Moyers' program, three Times staffers Moyers sought to interview -- Miller and columnists Thomas Friedman and William Safire, both of whom advocated for the war -- all declined to be interviewed. In fact, aside from file footage, no one from the Times appeared on air.

Media Matters for America found that, in the past two months, the only coverage The New York Times devoted to the special was a two-line mention in the April 25 edition of the paper's Arts & Entertainment section, Page 9, which noted: "The season premiere of 'Bill Moyers Journal' examines the proposition that the news media were complicit in pushing the United States into the war in Iraq. Dan Rather, Tim Russert and Bob Simon appear in interviews."

On the April 25 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh again claimed that the "Media Matters people fell for it, and the drive-by media fell for it, and this is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about on that day," referring to his recent statement that Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman, "had to be a liberal." Media Matters documented both Limbaugh's April 19 statement that Cho "had to be a liberal" and his subsequent observation that "[n]ow the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them" (Limbaugh regularly refers to mainstream media outlets as "the drive-by media"). On April 23, Limbaugh similarly claimed that "Media Matters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They had it up all over the place," adding: "I was making a joke. ... Although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing."

During the April 25 broadcast, Limbaugh directly addressed "you people at Media Matters," and advised: "[Y]ou're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you, because you end up illustrating and proving exactly what I'm saying." Limbaugh later made reference to "these little nerdlings out there that are monitoring their radios in the post-Imus era. And they're looking for any -- any shred of evidence that could make me the next to get his butt kicked off of major American airwaves." Referring to his April 16 comments, Limbaugh declared "the people that are raising all this hell don't listen. They get it second- and third-hand, out of context, and they're out there as an army trying to create this stink," before adding, "It's just funny to chronicle it all. Particularly the supposed controversy over my calling the guy at Virginia Tech a liberal. What controversy? Everybody that listens to this show agrees with me, so how can you possibly have controversy there?" Limbaugh has repeatedly accused Media Matters of taking him out of context. In fact, when highlighting Limbaugh's on-air statements, Media Matters provides transcript and audio of his statements.

Further, in reaction to news that ABC's The View co-host Rosie O'Donnell was leaving the show after contract disagreements with the network, Limbaugh stated: "I'm telling you, the deal was about the dog biscuits that they gave her on the floor in the dressing room were just the wrong flavor. They couldn't come to an agreement on the flavor of the Ken-L Ration that she eats," before presumably attempting to predict the content of a Media Matters post on the subject: "Rush Limbaugh today inspired controversy by referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a woman who eats dog food. Why would that be?"

In addition, Limbaugh repeated false claims about Media Matters, stating "these watchdog websites that are bought and paid for by the Democrat [sic] Party and the Clinton machine, in the case of Media Matters." Media Matters is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign.

From the April 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: They did not get to the actual demonstration that was foisted upon me unwittingly. Now, do you remember back Thursday, April the 19th? We're talking about the massacre at Virginia Tech. And -- well, here's what I said. We'll go back to the audio sound bites. We'll just play this, because I want to tell you, it worked. The Media Matters people fell for it, and the drive-by media fell for it, and this is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about on that day. And what this illustration was about -- the critics of this program do not listen to it. They go to these watchdog websites that are bought and paid for by the Democrat [sic] Party and the Clinton machine, in the case of Media Matters. And that's where they get what I said. And then they take it and they run with it as though some giant controversy has arisen when there is no controversy. There was no controversy when I said what I said. Here is the first part of this illustration.

[begin audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act.

Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation. I'm just pointing it out. They try to -- whenever -- I can tell you from the history of this program starting way back in the early '90s, when there was any kind of an incident -- crime or what-have-you -- that attracted national attention, in the early days of this program, the drive-by media went out and they tried to connect the perpetrator to this program. They did everything they could -- in fact, it went so far as Bill Clinton blaming me for influencing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Bureau Building [sic: Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City]. These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred.

There's just double standards all over the place, folks. I'm telling you, I'm fed up with listening to who it is that's supposedly coarsening the culture when I watch it on television every day, and I read it on obscure websites every day. These are the people that write books about how to assassinate George W. Bush.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: Sure enough! Sure enough, folks, the drive-by media -- national and local -- across the fruited plain, running with the story "Limbaugh calls Cho a liberal."

[begin audio clip]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Political pundit Rush Limbaugh's under fire for this remark, claiming Cho's envy of wealthy students means he was a liberal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rush Limbaugh stirring up controversy about the Virginia Tech massacre. Limbaugh said it had to be a liberal who committed such an act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rush Limbaugh appeared to blame liberals for the shooting, claiming that the assailant just must have been one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is controversy this morning over comments talk show host Rush Limbaugh made about the Virginia Tech shootings.

LIMBAUGH: [interjecting] No, there wasn't!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Limbaugh was pondering what the shooter's ideology must have been and said that he, quote, "had to be a liberal."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After Don Imus, I think -- what radio commentator should want to do that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not this one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rush Limbaugh now created a lot of controversy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rush Limbaugh just said that this guy who killed all those kids at Virginia Tech was a liberal!

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: Is this not the greatest thing?! They fell for it, hook, line and sinker! This illustrates exactly what I was talking about last Thursday about the way all this stuff happens. The point is, there was no controversy. There was no controversy on this program. There was no eruption on this program Thursday or Friday -- not until yesterday when the drive-bys heard about it, three or four days after the fact, and then they dreamed -- the only controversy is with them, because they think I called them out. I mean -- you people at Media Matters, you're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you, because you end up illustrating and proving exactly what I'm saying.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: But what it all means, folks, is that there are these little nerdlings out there that are monitoring their radios in the post-Imus era. And they're looking for any -- any shred of evidence that could make me the next to get his butt kicked off of major American airwaves. But it isn't going to happen, because everything here has a political point. It bounces off something -- somebody else, especially our parodies and so forth. But it's -- it's illustrative of what I mentioned to you when we first started talking about this. And that is that the people that are raising all this hell don't listen. They get it second- and third-hand, out of context, and they're out there as an army trying to create this stink. But it won't work. It's just funny to chronicle it all, particularly the supposed controversy over my calling the guy at Virginia Tech a liberal. What controversy? Everybody that listens to this show agrees with me, so how can you possibly have controversy there?

[...]

LIMBAUGH: You know, the problem for ABC was that the ratings on that program had improved, and so that became the question. That became their dilemma. But no, this -- the contract issue is -- and you'll be hearing that. That Rosie -- we couldn't come to a deal. I'm telling you, the deal was about the dog biscuits that they gave her on the floor in the dressing room were just the wrong flavor. They couldn't come to an agreement on the flavor of the Ken-L Ration that she eats. So -- Rush, you're just tempting them, aren't you? You're just -- "Rush Limbaugh today inspired controversy by referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a woman who eats dog food. Why would that be?"

While moderating the April 26 Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams falsely suggested that the so-called Feingold-Reid Bill would mandate that all U.S. troops be removed from Iraq by "about a year from now." In fact, the bill introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and eight other senators would allow the continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq for three "limited purposes." In addition, questions posed later in the debate contained falsehoods about public opinion on immigration and national security.

Discussing Iraq policy, Williams asked Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): "Senator Dodd, as I understand it, you've co-sponsored something called Feingold-Reid, which would, in effect, cut off the funding spigot by about a year from now and draw the troops out. Is that possible -- the notion of no more troops in Iraq?"

Contrary to Williams' suggestion, the bill states, "No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008," except for the following "limited purposes":

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

The bill further mandates that a phased redeployment from Iraq "begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act."

Later, co-moderator David Stanton, political anchor of WIS-TV in Columbia, South Carolina, read an emailer's question to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), which asked: "Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens and offer a form of amnesty for illegal aliens?" In fact, recent polling suggests that a majority of Americans support a path-to-citizenship proposal that critics frequently label "amnesty." An April 10-12 CNN poll found that 77 percent were in favor of "creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes." A March 2-4 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 59 percent of respondents would support allowing "illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time."

In addition, after quoting former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) recent claim that "America will be safer with a Republican president," Williams went on to ask Clinton, "How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?" In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, several polls in the past year have found that Democrats had an advantage on the issues of national security and foreign policy.

From the April 26 South Carolina Democratic Party debate, broadcast by MSNBC:

WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd, as I understand it, you've co-sponsored something called Feingold-Reid, which would, in effect, cut off the funding spigot by about a year from now and draw the troops out. Is that possible -- the notion of no more troops in Iraq?

DODD: I believe it is, Brian. I don't think the stakes have ever been higher for us as a country. We're more vulnerable today. We're far less secure. We're more isolated in the world as a result of this policy.

This is a failed policy. Our troops have been heroic, and certainly we'd all make sure whatever they needed, they would get.

But we need to understand that we've got to move beyond this policy. We need bolder, experienced leadership that will take us in a direction than where we're clearly, clearly headed. I'm proud to support the Feingold-Reid legislation, which does exactly as you've described it. It would provide an end date -- begin immediately and end date at the end of next March.

It's very important that the Iraqi people -- we're sending $2 billion a week, $8 billion a month, over $400 billion over more than four years -- they now have to assume the responsibility of their own future. We've given them that opportunity. Three hundred thousand troops are in uniform in Iraq today. They need to take on the responsibility of deciding whether or not they want to come together as a people.

I then believe also that we need to engage in the robust diplomacy that we haven't been engaged in. This administration treats diplomacy as it were a gift to our opponents -- a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength.

[...]

STANTON: Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens and offer a form of amnesty for illegal aliens?

CLINTON: Well, I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tightening our border security, sanctioning employers who employ undocumented immigrants, helping our communities deal with the costs that come from illegal immigration, getting the 12 million or so immigrants out of the shadows. That's very important to me after 9-11. We've to know who's in this country. And then giving them a chance to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and stand in line to be eligible for a legal status in this country.

STANTON: Time's up. Thank you, ma'am.

[...]

WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, Rudolph Giuliani, a friend of yours from back home, said this past week, quote, "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us." Another quote, "America will be safer with a Republican president." How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?

On the April 26 edition of NBC's Today, during a segment highlighting Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) recent "surge" in the polls, chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell said: "Experts say so far Obama has been long on charisma but short on substance." Mitchell then showed clips from two recent appearances by Obama, including an April 23 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in which he declared, "I still believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth." Following the clips of Obama's statements, a clip of NBC News political director Chuck Todd aired in which Todd asserted: "The public's going to be expecting him to start filling in the blanks, start being for specifics. So far, he's been for an idea of a candidate, but he hasn't been for specific things." However, Mitchell selectively quoted from that April 23 speech to make the claim that Obama's words were "vague" when, in fact, his remarks included many specifics regarding his proposals.

In an article on MSNBC's website offering a list of "dos & don'ts" for candidates taking part in an April 26 Democratic presidential primary debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina, Todd and NBC News deputy political director Mark Murray wrote that Obama should not "[o]ffer up inane details just to sound like you know what you're talking about."

Mitchell claimed that Obama was "vague" in his April 23 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and cited this as her second example of Obama's apparent lack of "substance." She played only a brief clip of Obama stating: "I still believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth," but failed to note the specifics of his speech. From Obama's April 23 speech:

I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more.

[...]

In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shiite factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement and a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But my plan also makes clear that continued U.S. commitment to Iraq depends on the Iraqi government meeting a series of well-defined benchmarks necessary to reach a political settlement. Thus far, the Iraqi government has made very little progress in meeting any of the benchmarks, in part because the President has refused time and again to tell the Iraqi government that we will not be there forever. The President's escalation of U.S. forces may bring a temporary reduction in the violence in Baghdad, at the price of increased U.S. casualties though the experience so far is not encouraging. But it cannot change the political dynamic in Iraq. A phased withdrawal can.

[...]

As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity. As we have seen recently with large increases in funding for our AIDS programs, we have the capacity to make sure this funding makes a real difference.

Part of this new funding will also establish a two billion dollar Global Education Fund that calls on the world to join together in eliminating the global education deficit, similar to what the 9/11 commission proposed. Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.

As Media Matters for America has noted, the press often baselessly accuses Obama of lacking substance. On the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Peter Alexander claimed that "the conventional wisdom on Barack Obama is that he's a great speaker, a terrific orator, but hasn't really been all that specific about policy." However, an April 24 New York Times article also reported on Obama's April 23 speech in Chicago, citing specifically his policies regarding foreign policy and the war in Iraq:

If elected, he said, he would double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, which would be the final year of his first term.

"I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today," Mr. Obama said. "A relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly both in lives and treasure to the United States down the road."

The United States also must build a 21st-century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to "showing wisdom in how we deploy it." He called for expanding ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. Less than 1 percent of the military can speak foreign languages like Arabic, Mandarin or Korean, he said, calling for additional training and recruitment to address the problem.

Mr. Obama said he would lead an effort to secure nuclear stockpiles and materials across the world within four years.

To prevent countries from building weapons programs, Mr. Obama endorsed the concept of an international nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Mr. Obama said he would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join.

From the April 26 edition of NBC's Today:

MITCHELL: Clinton has seen Obama surge from behind. But now in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, he has cut her lead in half. Among Democrats, she is first at 36 percent, but he is closing in with 31 percent. John Edwards a strong third at 20 percent.

STEVE McMAHON (Democratic strategist): There's no question that Barack Obama has gone from the person that everybody was watching to the person now that everybody is looking at as a front-runner. And with the front-runner label comes a target on your back. And it will be interesting to see how he handles that.

MITCHELL: Experts say so far, Obama has been long on charisma but short on substance, stumbling at last month's Las Vegas health care forum.

OBAMA [video clip]: We have a plan that we are in the process of unveiling.

MITCHELL: And vague at this week's foreign policy speech.

OBAMA [video clip]: I still believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth.

TODD: The public's going to be expecting him to start filling in the blanks, start being for specifics. So far, he's been for an idea of a candidate, but he hasn't been for specific things.

MITCHELL: While tonight's focus will likely be on Obama and Clinton as well as Edwards, the focus will also give other Democrats -- like [Sen. Christopher] Dodd [D-CT], [Sen. Joseph R.] Biden [D-DE], and [New Mexico Gov. Bill] Richardson -- a chance to emerge from the pack before it's too late.

On the April 26 edition of MSNBC Live, when Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said that Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has a "very sort of stately demeanor," anchor Norah O'Donnell interrupted: "Did you say 'stately' or did you say 'stiff?' " Simmons replied: "You said 'stiff,' I said 'stately.' " Republican strategist Phil Musser agreed, saying: "I'd say 'stiff.' "

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the April 26 edition of MSBNC Live:

O'DONNELL: Well, you know, debates, as both of you know as political operatives, are always about moments and the very famous moment, of course, [former president] Ronald Reagan and the microphone -- the sound bites that we will play over and over again tomorrow as we handicap what happened in the debate. There was a moment earlier this week when [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] was appearing before Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network, and let's just play a clip from that.

OBAMA [video clip]: There's something humming down here. Oh, that's somebody's BlackBerry. That's Sharpton's BlackBerry. Is that Hillary calling?

O'DONNELL: Jamal, that's the kind of light touch -- of poking, but also suggesting a little bit of rivalry there that may be a moment in the campaign that could really help someone like Barack Obama or one of the lower-tier candidates that you talked about.

SIMMONS: That's right. And one thing, the person who really will benefit from a moment like that will be Hillary Clinton. She's got this very sort of stately demeanor, and everyone's looking to get a window in --

O'DONNELL: Did you say "stately" or did you say "stiff"?

SIMMONS: You said "stiff," I said "stately."

MUSSER: I'd say "stiff."

SIMMONS: Everyone's trying to get a peek into her, you know, her inner soul -- who she is -- and I think this -- if she has one of those moments, it could be hers that really sets that tone.

On the April 26 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion with host Chris Jansing and South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Joe Erwin, South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson asked: "Which one of the Democrat [sic] contenders are going to take [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] to task about giving aid and comfort to the enemies by claiming the global war on terror is lost?" Jansing did not challenge Erwin's assertion, which amounted to an accusation that Reid has committed treason. Dawson also asserted during the segment that "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of the Democrat [sic] Party on Capitol Hill" are "gloating" over "this defeatist legislation that just passed" -- referring to the Iraq war supplemental funding bill that passed the Senate on April 26, which would require American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by October 1.

In asserting that Reid had claimed that "the global war on terror" is lost, Dawson was referring to Reid's April 19 press conference discussing Congress' stand-off with President Bush over emergency funding for the war in Iraq. In fact, Reid was referring specifically to the war in Iraq when he asserted that "this war is lost." Furthermore, during the same press conference, Reid's added that "the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically."

As Media Matters for America has noted, on the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman said that Reid "is absolutely, 100 percent wrong" in suggesting that the Iraq war "is lost" and added that "[h]is statements give aid and comfort to our enemy and demoralize our troops." Media Matters also noted a similar assertion Blakeman made regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) recent meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. On the April 6 edition of MSNBC Live, Blakeman said that Pelosi "abandoned her post up on Capitol Hill" and went to Syria "to give aid and comfort to him [Assad] instead of funding our troops."

According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Furthermore, as Media Matters has documented, numerous print and television media outlets have reported Reid's statement that the Iraq war "is lost" without noting his subsequent statements that "the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the April 26 edition of MSNBC Live:

JANSING: For those who don't know, your state is one of the reddest of the reds. It really ranks right up there. Most of the major offices held by Republicans, as we said, it hasn't gone Democratic since before 1976. But could this be the year, given the war in Iraq and the dissatisfaction with what's going on in the White House right now?

DAWSON: Chris, I don't think so. I think the Democrat strategy of running on us losing a war is going to be a fatal political strategy. I mean, today I think is a defining moment for this defeatist legislation that's just passed -- Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of the Democrat Party on Capitol Hill gloating. And the question I'd like to pose tonight is which one of the Democrat contenders are going to take Harry Reid to task about giving aid and comfort to the enemies by claiming the global war on terror is lost?

You know, I understand there's nothing pleasant about war. And we understand it's not very popular. But -- because I don't know of a war, ever, that's been popular. So I do differ with Joe in the fact that their strategy is who's going to go to the far left right now? Who's going to talk about raising taxes? And who's going to give an answer and a solution that I know South Carolinians won't buy, but I suspect the rest of the nation won't, in my opinion.

In an April 26 New York Post column, contributor Amir Taheri claimed that the "new position" by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- who said at an April 19 press conference that "this war is lost" -- "means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq." But Taheri's claim is contradicted by Reid's further assertion during the same press conference that the war "can only be won diplomatically, politically, economically." In addition, during the same press conference, in which he argued that a new "direction in Iraq" is needed, including a redeployment of troops to focus on "counterterrorism, force protection and training," Reid said: "It's time for us to change direction in Iraq. ... Redeploy the troops. Does that mean pull them out? No, it doesn't. But it does mean the troops that are there should focus on counterterrorism, force protection, and training the Iraqis." As Media Matters for America noted, Reid added during the question and answer session of the press conference: "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically."

In his April 26 editorial, Taheri wrote:

WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.

Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.

By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it.

At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war.

Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost.

In fact, during the April 19 press conference, Reid stated:

REID: Now, I believe myself that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

Now, I said this is how I feel. But in addition to my feelings, a majority of the United States Senate, a majority of the United States House of Representatives has said the surge should not go forward. Twenty-nine state legislatures and hundreds of state legislators acknowledge that the war should come to an end. The American people believe that. The Iraq Study Group clearly defined that.

It's time for us to change direction in Iraq, redeploy our troops, as indicated in the supplemental appropriation bill in the House and the Senate that we're soon going to send to the president in the form of a conference report. Redeploy the droops. Does that mean pull them out? No, it doesn't. But it does mean the troops that are there should focus on counterterrorism, force protection and training the Iraqis.

Contrary to Taheri's assertion that Reid's "new position ... means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq" and that, "[f]or him, Iraq is irretrievably lost," during the press conference's question and answer session, Reid elaborated on the ways in which he thinks the war can "be won":

QUESTION: Senator Reid, Senator [Olympia] Snowe [R-ME] has introduced a bill today that would establish a plan for -- require General [David] Petraeus [top U.S. military commander in Iraq] to begin planning for a withdrawal if the Iraqi government, if it doesn't meet certain benchmarks.

Do you think that kind of an approach might have a better chance of attracting broader support in the Senate?

REID: Well, I think -- I'm glad Senator Snowe has done that. She's -- I'm glad she's being proactive. I wish she would look at what we have done and what we will do with our conference report.

General Petraeus needs not look any place for legislation. He only needs to do what he has said, and that is, the war cannot be won militarily. He said 20 percent of the war will be won militarily; 80 percent will have to be won diplomatically, economically, and politically. So General Petraeus should do what he thinks is going to work, and I don't think he needs legislation for that.

Somebody should -- here's how I feel about all this. I know that I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House, but I at least told him what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. And more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically. And the president needs to come to that realization, and he needs more than just Harry Reid telling him that.

Moreover, Media Matters noted that, during a subsequent floor speech on April 19, Reid again said that the "war is lost" but reiterated his belief that there is a political solution to a stable and secure Iraq:

REID: Mr. President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change of course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution Iraq is wrong. They say redeploying troops out of a civil war is wrong.

They have said that even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue on the Senate floor.

[...]

REID: Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day, and now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began.

As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course -- and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise, more importantly, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.

Taheri is represented by public relations firm Benador Associates, whose list of "experts" includes former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and columnist Charles Krauthammer. On May 24, 2006, Douglas Kelly, editor of Canada's National Post, wrote an article apologizing to readers for publishing a column in the National Post on May 19, 2006, by Taheri in which he claimed that a newly passed Iranian law would force religious minorities "to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public." Kelly wrote, "It is now clear the story is not true." On May 25, 2006, The Christian Science Monitor reported that, according to the Canadian Press, "the Iranian government summoned the Canadian ambassador to Tehran Wednesday to deal with the fallout of remarks made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he had based on the National Post story. Mr. Harper had said that such a dress code would remind people of Nazi Germany."

On the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume selectively cited the U.S. Constitution to suggest that, in an April 24 CNN interview, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) incorrectly stated that Congress has a role in determining the future of U.S. Iraq policy.

Hume observed that "a paragraph of the United States Constitution that makes no mention of Congress" -- Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 -- states that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Hume then reported Murtha's CNN comment that overseeing Iraq policy is Congress' "job." But Hume ignored another section of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, which requires congressional approval before the federal government may spend money on military operations or anything else. During his CNN interview, Murtha was discussing President Bush's criticism of the Iraq war supplemental funding bill, which will require that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq begin no later than October 1, 2007, if, by July 1, the president certifies that benchmarks established in the bill are being met.

Another section of the Constitution also makes clear that the president and Congress share authority over the U.S. armed forces. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress authority to "raise and support Armies," "make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," and "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

From the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: In a paragraph of the United States Constitution that makes no mention of Congress, the Founding Fathers decreed that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." In a CNN interview today, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman and leading war critic John Murtha was asked about complaints from President Bush that Congress was trying to micromanage the war in Iraq. Murtha's response, quote: "That's our job."

The Republican take from Florida Congressman Adam Putnam, quote: "We strongly disagree. It is never appropriate for politicians in the gilded committee rooms of Washington to be dictating targets and tactics on the ground," end quote.

From the April 24 edition of CNN's American Morning:

JOHN ROBERTS (co-anchor): The war of words over the war in Iraq is growing louder this week. Congress could begin voting tomorrow on the $124 billion war spending bill, which orders a phased pullout of U.S. troops. All of it sets up a bitter showdown with President Bush.

BUSH [video clip]: I will strongly reject a artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.

[...]

ROBERTS: You heard what President Bush said, that Congress shouldn't be micromanaging the war. What do you say?

MURTHA: That's our job, John. We have accountability. For six years, they had no accountability in the White House. Matter of fact, there's 126,000 contractors in Iraq. We've appropriated $1.2 trillion over a one-year period. It's time that this White House start to listen to people. People [have] been way ahead. People of Iraq want us out. People in the United States want us out. It's time for him to get a redeployment plan. If he doesn't do that, we're going to have the disaster he predicts just like we did when we went into Iraq.

On the April 25 edition of MSNBC Live, hosts Norah O'Donnell and Chris Jansing discussed an April 24 speech by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) in which he asserted that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, "[W]e are going on defense" in combating terrorism. Giuliani further stated, "If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." But in discussing the strategy behind Giuliani's argument, neither O'Donnell and Jansing nor their respective guests -- McClatchy Washington Bureau chief political correspondent Steven Thomma and U.S. News & World Report chief White House correspondent Kenneth Walsh -- noted questions surrounding Giuliani's record on the issues of terrorism and national security, which Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Indeed, in a speech televised on MSNBC less than an hour before O'Donnell's segment, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared to make reference to Giuliani's questionable record on those issues.

In the speech, in which McCain officially announced his presidential bid, he appeared to attack Giuliani's record on emergency preparedness, as blogger Atrios (Media Matters Senior Fellow Duncan Black) noted. New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper wrote: "McCain sought to undercut what had been the former mayor's biggest political claim to fame -- his stewardship of New York City after the attacks of Sept. 11 -- by noting the problems with firefighters' radios on the day of the attack that made it impossible for city authorities to order rescue workers out of the Twin Towers." An April 26 Los Angeles Times article further reported that McCain "alluded to accusations by Giuliani critics," but also reported that "McCain ...denied later that he was specifically referring to Giuliani." From McCain's speech:

McCAIN: We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to another terrorist attack or natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency. They won't accept the government's failure to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies or rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. They won't accept substandard care and indifference for our wounded veterans.

That's not good enough for America. And when I'm President, it won't be good enough for me.

In the book Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 (HarperCollins, 2006), Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett and CBSNews.com senior producer Dan Collins cited what they said were Giuliani's terrorism-related failures before, during, and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For instance, Barrett and Collins wrote that "[e]veryone agrees that a critical problem that day was that the police and fire departments could not communicate; that's one of the reasons the lack of interoperable radios became such a focus of fury" (Page 343). Indeed, on 9-11, the New York fire department was using outdated VHF radios that were incompatible with the police department's UHF radios. After 9-11, Giuliani baselessly suggested that the fire department continued using radios that were incompatible with the police department's radios because "[t]hose [compatible] radios do not exist today" (Page 218). However, Barrett and Collins noted that at the time of Giuliani's statement, most other cities had interoperable radios: "The U.S. Conference of Mayors had just completed a study of 192 cities that found that 77 percent had radios that were interoperable across police and fire departments" (Page 218). Moreover, Giuliani's administration spent millions of dollars and several years procuring UHF radios for the fire department. However, after issuing those radios on March 14, 2001, the fire department took them out of service less than two weeks later after problems with them arose.

As a result, Barrett and Collins wrote, on the day of the attacks, the fire department was using "the same radios ... as it had in 1993. In fact, it essentially had been using the same radios since the 1960s, though they were more suitable for a burning three-story walk-up than for a steel inferno" (Page 49). Because the old radios were not powerful enough, "as many as eight Fire Department companies in the North Tower did not receive the evacuation order 'via radio or directly from other first responders,' " according to the 9-11 Commission (Page 50). And because the radios were not interoperable, fire department rescuers never heard the police helicopter "pilot warning that the South Tower was about to fall" or "the pilots repeatedly warn[ing] of the North Tower collapse, as early as 25 minutes before it happened" (Page 51).

As Media Matters noted, a March 15 Cox News Service article reported: "As revered as he is by many for his efforts after the attacks, Giuliani is reviled by some firefighters who believe he mishandled the development of a radio system that could have saved lives on 9/11 and turned his back on first responders' remains in the rubble." A March 30 Associated Press article further noted criticisms by the International Association of Fire Fighters and by Sally Regenhard, chairwoman of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign and mother of a firefighter killed on 9-11. The AP noted that the Giuliani "administration's failure to provide the World Trade Center's first responders with adequate radios [is] a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center."

Additionally, as Media Matters has documented, Barrett and Collins wrote that when Giuliani heard about the disaster on 9-11, his "original destination" was the "much-ballyhooed command center he had built in the shadow of the Twin Towers," in the 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building (Page 6). However, when Giuliani arrived, then-New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik "decided it was too dangerous to bring the mayor up to the command center he had so carefully and expensively built" (Page 340). In settling on the downtown location, Giuliani "overruled" warnings from Howard Safir, a previous police commissioner, and Lou Anemone, chief operating officer of the New York police department, not to put the command center at 7 WTC and rejected "an already secure, technologically advanced city facility across the Brooklyn Bridge" (Page 41). Later on 9-11, the 7 WTC building collapsed.

Barrett and Collins also wrote that "Giuliani's preference for the comfort of a huge entourage had disconnected the city's management and its fighting force at a crucial moment" during the response on 9-11, and they pointed to Kerik as "a prime example of this managerial dysfunction." They reported that in the 102 minutes between the first impact of a plane into the World Trade Center and the collapse of the North Tower, "Kerik became Giuliani's bodyguard, just as he had been in the 1993 mayoral campaign," rather than leading the police's efforts (Page 350).

During their appearances on MSNBC, Thomma and Walsh suggested that Giuliani was going to campaign on terrorism but did not note questions about his record on the issue. Thomma told O'Donnell: "[F]or Mayor Giuliani or, basically, any Republican to say they think they would keep the country safer than the Democrats seems to me the perfectly legitimate and probably vital part of the coming campaign." Walsh told Jansing: "I think he is trying to appeal to this Republican security core, the people who are most concerned about keeping America safe from terrorism, which is Giuliani's core supporters, too, in the Republican primaries."

On-screen graphics during the two segments were titled "Giuliani: GOP Makes U.S. Safer" and at various points read: "Rudy Giuliani Argues Democrats Want to Put the U.S. on 'Defense' "; "GOP Frontrunner: Dems Want to Return to Pre-9/11 Mindset"; "Rudy Giuliani: GOP Will Shorten Terror War, Save American Lives"; and "Bush Administration Has Argued the Dems Have Wrong Approach to War."

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the April 25 edition of MSNBC Live:

O'DONNELL: And according to Rudy Giuliani, Democrats don't understand our enemies and will surrender in Iraq if they win the White House in 2008. Speaking about the opposition party last night, Giuliani said, quote, "If one of them gets elected, it sounds like to me we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag on Iraq. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality." Steve Thomma is chief political correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Steve, thanks so much for joining us. Let me ask you --

THOMMA: Hi, Norah.

O'DONNELL: -- what do you make of Rudy Giuliani sort of laying this on the table when it comes to his Democratic opponents?

THOMMA: Well, it's kind of two things at work here, Norah. In the first, for Mayor Giuliani or, basically, any Republican to say they think they would keep the country safer than the Democrats seems to me the perfectly legitimate and probably vital part of the coming campaign. Why else would you run if you didn't think you could do a better job? It's when you start talking about -- and I think he also said that if the Democrats win, we'll have more casualties, in effect saying more Americans will die if the Democrats win, then it gets into the kind of politically inflammatory rhetoric that I think we've seen in the past couple of months Americans don't like. George Bush tried that at the midterm elections when he said, "If the Democrats win, America loses, and the terrorists win." They voted the Republicans out.

O'DONNELL: Well, we've already seen the Democrats respond pretty harshly this morning. Let me read you a statement from Democratic Senator Barack Obama [IL], who said, quote, "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low, and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America's Mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. The threat we face is real and deserve better than to be the punch line of another political attack." Could it that be that Rudy Giuliani's words -- essentially, once again saying Democrats will bring us back to pre-9-11 mentality -- that that could back fire on him?

THOMMA: Oh, sure. I think it could. As I said, in the '06 midterm elections just a few months ago, the American people voted the Republicans out and voted the Democrats in despite very similar warnings. And we see from the polls since then, a majority of Americans now trust the Democrats more than the Republicans on national defense. That's a historic change. Not for 40 years that Americans trusted the Democrats on national defense, and I think a big part of it is -- and this goes back to the Bush strategy when he linked the Iraq war to terrorism -- that once the Iraq war started going bad, people started trusting Republicans less to defend against terrorism.

O'DONNELL: Steve Thomma, thanks so much.

From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the April 25 edition of MSNBC Live:

JANSING: Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is throwing down the gauntlet on national security, not going after his primary challengers, but Democrats who he says want to wave the white flag on the war on terror. Speaking at an event in New Hampshire, Giuliani warned that if a Republican doesn't win the White House, the result will be the loss of more American lives. Ken Walsh, the U.S. News & World Report chief White House correspondent, joins me now. Hi there, Ken.

WALSH: Hi. Nice to be back.

JANSING: Let me tell you exactly what Giuliani said. I'm quoting here, "I listened to the Democrats and if one of them is elected, we are going on the defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense." What's Giuliani's strategy here?

WALSH: Well, obviously, I think he is trying to appeal to this Republican security core, the people who are most concerned about keeping America safe from terrorism, which is Giuliani's core supporters, too, in the Republican primaries. But I think there's a real risk in that it arises -- causes to arise a lot of the concerns about Giuliani that people have. Polarizing -- he was a very polarizing figure as mayor. A lot of people feel that he will go back to that again. And if he alienates too many Democrats and independents by seeming to be too polarizing -- and he's already gotten a lot of negative response from Democrats about this.

An April 26 Roll Call article (subscription only) on the Iraq war debate uncritically quoted Vice President Dick Cheney's false claim, made on the April 15 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "has said he's adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, Reid voted for the emergency supplemental funding bill that the Senate passed on March 29 and voted for the conference report on the bill, which the Senate passed during the afternoon of April 26. The conference report -- a reconciliation of House and Senate bills -- provides $124 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and requires that the Pentagon begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by October 2007, with the goal of having most U.S. forces redeployed six months later.

On April 2, Reid co-sponsored a bill offered by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) that would end funding for the Iraq war in March 2008 and announced his intention to bring the bill before the Senate if President Bush vetoes the supplemental funding bill, which Bush has vowed to do as long as it contains a timetable for withdrawal. In a statement, Reid explained: "If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period." Since announcing his proposal, Reid has stated that "Democrats are determined to make sure the troops have the funds they need" and noted that "[i]f the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops."

From the April 26 Roll Call article:

Indeed, Republicans have been using [Sen. Carl] Levin's [D-MI] statements over the past month as evidence, they say, that Democrats are not only split on what to do about the war but also engaged in pointless political theater that is delaying funding for troops in the field.

"Harry Reid has said he's adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops," said Vice President Cheney on CBS' "Face the Nation" on April 16. [sic] "On the other hand, Carl Levin ... has indicated that they definitely do want to pass funding for the troops, even if they don't have the votes to override the president's veto."

One Senate GOP leadership aide said Levin has made it easy for Republicans to "exploit" his remarks "because it's so obvious" that he disagrees with Reid. But the aide added that Levin tends to strike a tone that probably helps soften the Democrats' rhetoric on the war.

"I think you've got Reid speaking to the far left and Levin speaking to the rest of America," the GOP aide said.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) agreed.

"Notwithstanding that I disagree with him on some of the tactics [regarding the supplemental], he's shown a lot of responsibility in his temperate language, unlike the Majority Leader," he said.

In his April 26 nationally syndicated Washington Post column, titled "The Democrats' Gonzales," David Broder equated Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' handling of the controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) recent statement "that the war in Iraq 'is lost' " to opine that Reid, like Gonzales, is "a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance." Yet, in making this comparison, Broder glossed over much of the controversy surrounding Gonzales' role in the U.S. attorney scandal, boiling it down to Gonzales' "serial obfuscation," having "at various times ... taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal." In fact, beyond "obfuscation," Gonzales has made statements in congressional testimony and elsewhere that conflict with other claims he has made as well as with statements by his staffers.

Also, Broder attacked Reid for his comments that the Iraq war "is lost," and claimed that Sen. Charles Schumer's (D-NY) subsequent "clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff remarks" further "confused things," when in fact Reid's and Schumer's comments drew similar distinctions between intervening in the civil war and performing counterterrorism missions. Broder also claimed that "a long list of senators of both parties" is "ready" for Reid's "ineptitude to end" but provided no evidence of any Democrat who holds that position.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Gonzales has repeatedly claimed that the prosecutor firings were due to job performance issues. For instance, during an exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on January 18, after Feinstein pressed Gonzales to quantify "[h]ow many United States attorneys have been asked to resign in the past year," Gonzales stated that he didn't "deny" that, in Feinstein's words, his "office has asked United States attorneys to resign in the past year," and he added: "What we do is we make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, then-deputy attorney general Paul McNulty later contradicted Gonzales' testimony when he stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6 that at least one of the dismissals -- that of H.E. "Bud" Cummins III, who resigned his post in December 2006 -- was not performance-related. Indeed, McNulty testified that Cummins' resignation was forced "to provide a fresh start with a new person in that position." This "new person" was J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove who replaced Cummins as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Also, The Washington Post further reported on other contradictory statements Gonzales had made regarding Cummins' dismissal, and noted that in his April 19 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Gonzales gave "testimony [that] conflicted with his earlier explanations" about Cummins':

His most marked deviation yesterday from an earlier explanation involved an eighth U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins of eastern Arkansas, who was told by Justice officials last June that he would have to resign. He was to be replaced by J. Timothy Griffin, an aide to Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.

For the past two months, Justice officials have seesawed publicly about why Cummins was removed. In early February, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, testifying before the same committee at which Gonzales appeared yesterday, said the Arkansas prosecutor had done a satisfactory job and was removed only to make room for Griffin.

A month later, documents and a Justice spokesman offered a contradictory explanation. Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for Gonzales, said McNulty's testimony had "upset" the attorney general, who "believed Bud Cummins's removal involved performance considerations."

Yesterday, Gonzales went back to the original explanation, saying that Cummins "was asked to resign because there was another well-qualified individual that the White House wanted to put in place there, that we supported." Asked whether it was accurate that Cummins had no job-performance problems, Gonzales replied: "I would say that's a fair statement."

Indeed, during Gonzales' April 19 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) asserted that he believed that "most of" Gonzales' explanations of the dismissals were "a stretch," and added: "It's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or at the White House and, you know, we made up reasons to fire them."

Further, Broder accused Reid of engaging in "inept discussion[s] of the alternatives in Iraq;" and asserted that Reid "is not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth." He went on to write that Reid is prone to verbal "gaffes ... bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer." As evidence, Broder pointed to Reid's recent comments that the Iraq war "is lost," and mocked Schumer's explanation that the Democrats believe the United States can not win "a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis," so the military should "change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism." Replying to Schumer's remarks, Broder wrote:

Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Yet, during the April 19 press conference in which he stated that "this war is lost," Reid drew the same distinction as Schumer between U.S. involvement in an Iraqi civil war, which both claimed the United States could not win, and counterterrorism operations:

Now, I believe myself that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

Now, I said this is how I feel. But in addition to my feelings, a majority of the United States Senate, a majority of the United States House of Representatives has said the surge should not go forward. Twenty-nine state legislatures and hundreds of state legislators acknowledge that the war should come to an end. The American people believe that. The Iraq Study Group clearly defined that.

It's time for us to change direction in Iraq, redeploy our troops, as indicated in the supplemental appropriation bill in the House and the Senate that we're soon going to send to the president in the form of a conference report. Redeploy the droops. Does that mean pull them out? No, it doesn't. But it does mean the troops that are there should focus on counterterrorism, force protection and training the Iraqis.

Indeed, as the weblog Think Progress noted, Defense Secretary Robert Gates drew a similar distinction in early February, when he stated: "I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq: one is Shia-on-Shia, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al-Qaeda."

Additionally, while attacking Reid for his comments, Broder never noted that recent public opinion polls indicate that a majority of the American people believe the war is unwinnable. For instance, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted April 20-23 found that 55 percent of respondents indicated that they did not "think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible," compared to just 36 percent who did. A CBS News poll, conducted April 9-10, yielded similar results: 54 percent of those surveyed responded that it was "not likely" that "the U.S. can succeed in Iraq"; 44 percent felt it was "likely."

Broder also asserted that there is a "long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end." But Broder provided no examples of a Democratic senator criticizing Reid; in fact, the only Democrat Broder cited in his column was Schumer, who was defending Reid. Further, as Think Progress noted, The Washington Post reported April 24 on what appeared to be Reid's strong support among Democrats: "In a closed-door meeting, Reid acknowledged that he had a [White House] target on his back, and Democratic senators responded with a standing ovation." By contrast, several Republican senators have expressed dissatisfaction with Gonzales, such as Sens. Tom Coburn (OK), Arlen Specter (PA), John Sununu (NH), and Graham.

On the April 25 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "didn't even meet with" Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during his April 25 visit to Capitol Hill. In response, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), whom Beck was interviewing, said that Pelosi is "too busy over there talking to the Syrians and wanting to have her own personal State Department." Huckabee added: "So I guess she was just too busy to go and meet with the very person that she has been so willing to criticize in public." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported in an April 24 ABCNews.com article that Pelosi would "not attend" Petraeus' April 25 briefing for lawmakers, but noted that a "Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out," and that Pelosi and Petraeus had instead spoken on the phone for 30 minutes.

From the April 25 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: You know, Nancy Pelosi didn't even meet with Petraeus today, it's my understanding. He came to Capitol Hill to talk --

HUCKABEE: Oh, she's too busy over there talking to the Syrians and wanting to have her own personal State Department. So I guess she was just too busy to go and meet with the very person that she has been so willing to criticize in public. It's amazing to me.

On April 26, The Washington Post published a baseless attack on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) by columnist David Broder --- with the headline "The Democrats' Gonzales" -- in which Broder characterized Reid as an "embarrassment" for recently stating that the war in Iraq "is lost." The column inspired Media Matters for America to review Broder's recent columns and offer examples of Broder's unfounded attacks on Democrats, glaring misstatements of fact, unwarranted praise of President Bush and congressional Republicans, off-the-mark political predictions, and in at least one case, what was, by his own admission, a cringe-worthy embarrassment:

• Bush "comeback." In his February 16 column, Broder argued that President Bush could be "poised for a political comeback" and falsely claimed that Bush, during a February 14 press conference, "endors[ed] the good motives of" the critics of his Iraq troop increase by "rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy." In fact, when asked at the press conference if he "believe[d] that a vote of disapproval of your [Iraq] policy emboldens the enemy," Bush specifically refused to "reject[] the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy," as Broder put it. At the press conference, Bush said: "As to whether or not this particular resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that." Also, despite Broder's prognostications, Bush's job approval ratings since February 16 have been stalled in the mid- to low 30s, and even went as low as 29 percent in a February 23-27 CBS News/New York Times poll, and 28 percent in an April 20-23 Harris poll. As the weblog Think Progress noted, Broder claimed in a March 30 online discussion on washingtonpost.com that he would "revisit and revise" his prediction, but has yet to do so.
• Democrats and the military. In his February 6 column, Broder wrote that retired Gen. Wesley Clark was "[o]ne of the losers" among the potential Democratic presidential candidates who spoke before the Democratic National Committee on February 2 because he forgot "that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." Broder offered no support for this claim, which reflected the assumption -- expressed frequently among the media and documented by Media Matters for America -- that Iraq war supporters are "pro-military," and conversely that those opposed to the Iraq war must be anti-military.
• Detainee legislation. In his September 21, 2006, column, Broder heaped praise on Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC), and John Warner (R-VA) for their "revolt ... against President Bush's insistence on a free hand in treating terrorist detainees." According to Broder: "These are not ordinary men. McCain, from Arizona, is probably the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. Graham, from South Carolina, is the star among the younger Republican senators. Warner, from Virginia, embodies the essence of traditional Reagan conservatism: patriotism, support for the military, civility." That same day, however, these senators and the White House reached a "compromise" on terror-detainee legislation characterized by Border's Post colleague Dan Froomkin as a situation in which "[t]he Republican senators essentially agreed to look the other way." Froomkin explained: "On the central issue of whether the CIA should continue using interrogation methods on suspected terrorists that many say constitute torture, the White House got its way, winning agreement from the 'maverick' Republican senators who had refused to go along with an overt undoing of the Geneva Conventions." As Media Matters noted, the Post reported on September 29, 2006, that the compromise was reached largely on administration terms: "Written largely, but not completely, on the administration's terms, with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections, the bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are 'the tools' needed to handle terrorism suspects U.S. officials hope to capture." Broder has yet to address this "compromise" on terror detainee treatment.
• Hurricane Katrina. In his September 4, 2005, column, Broder wrote: "We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public." Broder himself later acknowledged that this column was "wildly off target." He wrote in his December 29, 2005, column:

On Sept. 4, I published a column so wildly off target that it could have gotten me indicted by a special prosecutor. It was written in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as President Bush was flying back from vacation to organize the federal response to that catastrophe.

Without waiting for him to actually do anything, I saluted his performance, leading off with the assertion that "it took almost no time for President Bush to put his stamp on the national response to the tragedy that has befallen New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."

And then this howler: "Because the commander in chief is also the communicator in chief, when a crisis emerges the nation's eyes turn to him as to no other official. We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public."

What it opened, of course, was an abyss of doubts about the president's awareness of what was happening and about the competence of his administration. He's still paying for that episode.

But if Bush were as vindictive toward the press as is sometimes reported, he could well turn to me and say: "You're doing a heck of a job, too, Davey."

• The case for war. During a March 25, 2003, online discussion on washingtonpost.com, Broder wrote that he was "unaware of any efforts by the administration to link Iraq to 9/11." In fact, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated several times the now-discredited claim that 9-11 ringleader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in 2001. On March 21, 2003, Bush sent a letter to the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate saying that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

During the April 25 broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for America during the April 23 edition of his television show. Olbermann stated: "Bill O'Reilly has issued another fatwa -- this time against the journalism watchdog website, Media Matters, proving, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that he has a flow chart and the access to the color red." Olbermann observed: "Nothing Media Matters has ever posted about Bill O'Reilly has failed to withstand independent vetting -- not a missing comma, not a missing context." He added: "In an age in which we rightly fear being inaccurately quoted or misinterpreted, it would seem that Bill-O's real anger and real fear rests in the dread that someone is quoting him correctly."

During his show, Olbermann displayed the flow chart O'Reilly had used on his April 23 show -- as Media Matters documented -- to accuse progressive financier George Soros of, in O'Reilly's words, influencing "the political process" by funneling money through his "complicated political operation" to Media Matters, which then "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people." Olbermann asserted: "In the Fox News 'Noise' investigation, Media Matters is some sort of major cog in an evil liberal spider web -- one of his guests [conservative talk radio host Monica Crowley] describing it as part of 'an incredibly well-oiled machine.' " In fact, as previously noted, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization. If Soros wanted to fund Media Matters, he or Open Society Institute (OSI) -- a grant-making foundation he established in 1993 to conduct his philanthropy -- could simply write a check directly to Media Matters, as he and OSI do with numerous entities.

Olbermann also noted O'Reilly's April 13 appearance on the Irish network RTÉ One's The Late Late Show, stating: "Thanks to Media Matters, you can watch Mr. Orally confronted last Friday the 13th by his own words during an interview on Irish television." Olbermann then played a video clip of the conversation taken from the Media Matters website, which showed Late Late Show host Pat Kenny asking O'Reilly about his reference to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqis as "prehistoric." O'Reilly replied that he "d[idn't] remember saying that" and challenged Kenny about where he had gleaned that information. When Kenny answered that he "got it off the website," O'Reilly responded by calling Media Matters "an assassination website." He later claimed that Media Matters frequently takes him "out of context." As Olbermann noted, however, Media Matters documented O'Reilly's references to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric."

Also, despite numerous requests to appear on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly still has not extended an invitation to Media Matters President and CEO David Brock to discuss O'Reilly's accusations and ad hominem attacks, nor has O'Reilly offered any evidence for his claims that Media Matters has "distorted comments" made by him or any other media figure.

From the April 25 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: In one of the most memorable of the Monty Python sketches, an unusually intense [late actor] Graham Chapman, replete with a pointer, an easel, and a vivid panel with three brightly colored bars, fairly screams at the audience: "In this graph, this column represents 23 percent of the population. This column represents 28 percent of the population, and this column represents 43 percent of the population." To which [actor] Michael Palin replies, "Telling figures, indeed."

Our third story on the Countdown: Bill-O meets Python.

Bill O'Reilly has issued another fatwa -- this time against the journalism watchdog website, Media Matters, proving, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that he has a flow chart and the access to the color red.

"In this graph, this arrow represents 23 percent of the population. This arrow represents 28 percent of the population, and this arrow represents 43 percent of the population."

And they all prove somehow that liberal billionaire investor George Soros digs into his pockets to fund groups that eventually make the mainstream media do stories that make O'Reilly look dumb.

In the Fox News "Noise" investigation, Media Matters is some sort of major cog in an evil liberal spider web -- one of his guests describing it as part of "an incredibly well-oiled machine."

You want to see oily? Thanks to Media Matters, you can watch Mr. Orally confronted last Friday the 13th by his own words during an interview on Irish television.

[begin video clip]

KENNY: Yeah. Some of the things that you've said and -- either on your radio show or on your TV show: "Advice to the poor, it's hard to do it, because you got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to do that?"

O'REILLY: Well, where did you get that, because I don't remember saying that?

KENNY: That's Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly; 11/06/2004.

O'REILLY: By whom? Who put that out?

KENNY: Well, we got it off the website.

O'REILLY: OK. The website you got it off is called Media Matters, which is an assassination website.

[...]

KENNY: But you do have views on, say, the Iraqi people. Did you say that thing about the Iraqi people -- that they're "prehistoric"?

O'REILLY: No, I don't remember saying that at all.

[end video clip]

OLBERMANN: I do. Being the mainstream media tools that we are, we scrolled around Media Matters and found the full quote about the poor from his radio show dated June 11, 2004. It is in full: "It's hard to do it, because you got to look people in the eye and tell them that they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period."

Ah, but what about his calling the Iraqis "prehistoric"? Remember, Alberto Gonzales O'Reilly did not recall saying that. That's OK. Media Matters has a tape.

O'REILLY [audio clip]: When 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it. You're not going to win. You're not going to win.

And I don't have any respect, by and large, for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.

OLBERMANN: Did you say excuses? Yes, we have one of those, too.

When word got out about his embarrassing Irish TV interview, here's what the big giant head had to say about it in his April 19th column: "When I asked the man why he was quoting from an obviously biased source, he blinked nervously and put down the cards."

Once again, here is the interview. Do you see any nervous blinking on the part of the host? Maybe some Bill-O projecting. It doesn't look like any blinking.

Nothing Media Matters has ever posted about Bill O'Reilly has failed to withstand independent vetting -- not a missing comma, not a missing context.

In an age in which we rightly fear being inaccurately quoted or misinterpreted, it would seem that Bill-O's real anger and real fear rests in the dread that someone is quoting him correctly -- someone besides Andrea Mackris.

As Media Matters for America noted, on April 23, the same day that Fox News' Bill O'Reilly went on the attack against Media Matters -- purporting to diagram what he presented as a web of conspiracy involving progressive donors, nonprofits, and the media, with Media Matters at the center -- The Politico ran an op-ed by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in which DeLay alleged that "George Soros, upset with the slight inroads conservatives have made recently, has funded an organization called Media Matters for America, led by liberal muckraker David Brock." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.

On April 26, The Politico issued the following correction:

On the April 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN correspondent Jack Cafferty claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was "comparing" herself to Harriet Tubman when she invoked what she said was Tubman's urging that "no matter what happens, keep going." Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer then repeated Cafferty's claim that Clinton was comparing herself to Tubman. But in airing the video of Clinton invoking Tubman, Cafferty left out a key part of her statement: She prefaced her remarks about Tubman by saying that she is "one of my favorite heroines." If he had included video of that part of Clinton's remarks -- or noted that in her autobiography, Living History, Clinton refers to Tubman as an "inspiration to Americans of all races" -- viewers might have concluded that Clinton was indeed citing Tubman as an inspiration, not comparing herself to Tubman.

Notably, in a report by congressional correspondent Dana Bash on the April 4 edition of The Situation Room, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani invoked Jesus Christ, but Media Matters could find no indication that anyone on the show accused Giuliani of comparing himself to Christ.

From the April 4 Situation Room:

GIULIANI: This is -- we're getting -- we're in the Easter season, and my view of Christianity -- and Christianity is very important to me, and the teachings of Jesus is very important to me. And I kind of think when he -- when Jesus drew the line and said, you know, he who hasn't sinned cast the first stone. So I don't go around judging other people. That isn't my -- my role, to determine what is a sin, what isn't a sin.

My role is, what's legal, what's illegal? I've been really clear on that role throughout my life. I've done a pretty good job of putting people in jail who did things that are illegal. And the rest -- the rest of it I leave to the priests and ministers, the rabbis, the imams, and to your personal conscience.

I think that's what -- I think that's what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. And I think it's, you know, gotten America to being the greatest country in the world.

Nor, apparently, did anyone accuse Giuliani of comparing himself to Thomas Jefferson.

Cafferty also failed to note Clinton made her comments before a loudly cheering audience.

On the April 24 Situation Room, Cafferty stated that "Clinton says she's going to fight like the escaped slave, Harriet Tubman," commenting that after a "microphone glitch at a New York fundraiser," Clinton "said it reminded her of Tubman." Cafferty's comment was then followed with a clip of Clinton's speech:

CLINTON [video clip]: She made it to freedom after having been a slave and she got to New York and she could have just been so happy just staying home and just breathing a big sigh of relief, but she kept going back down South to bring other freed slaves to freedom. And she used to say, no matter what happens, keep going. So, we're going to keep going until we take back the White House.

Cafferty went on to insist that Clinton was "comparing" herself to Tubman, asking, "[W]ill Clinton comparing herself to black heroes, or trying to sound like them, ultimately help her get that support, or will it be recognized for exactly what it is, which is pandering?" Cafferty then asked as the daily question to which viewers could respond: "Should Senator Hillary Clinton be comparing herself to escaped slave Harriet Tubman?"

In fact, as the New York Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac weblog noted, Clinton's microphone stopped working during her speech. When it started working again, she said:

"This reminds me of one of my favorite American heroines, Harriet Tubman. She made it to freedom after having been a slave and she got to New York and she could have been so happy ... but she kept going back down South to bring other freed slaves to freedom. And she used to say, 'No matter what happens, keep going,' " Hillary Clinton said. "So we're going to keep going until we take back the White House!

In her autobiography, Living History, Clinton wrote of Tubman:

Harriet Tubman is one of my favorite heroines. A former slave, she escaped to freedom on the Underground Railroad and then courageously returned to the South time and time again to lead other slaves to freedom. While not formally educated, this extraordinary woman was a nurse and scout in the United States Army during the Civil War and became a grassroots activist who raised money to school, clothe and house newly freed black children during Reconstruction. She was a force unto herself and an inspiration to Americans of all races. "If you are tired, keep going," she said to the slaves she lead on treacherous paths from slavery to freedom. "If you are scared, keep going. If you are hungry, keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going." [Page 462]

[...]

Choosing to run for elected office is a tribute to those who sacrificed for our equal right to vote for our leaders. I returned home with a renewed reverence for our flawed but vigorous system of government and new ideas about how to put it to work for all citizens. And when I thought about the obstacles Bill and I still faced in Washington, I dipped deep into the well of inspiration that Harriet Tubman had handed down to us all and vowed to just keep on going. [Page 463]

On the April 24 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, CNN correspondent Tom Foreman also claimed that in her comments, Clinton was "comparing" herself to Tubman, saying she was "once again" after airing a clip of her March 5 speech in Selma, Alabama, in which she recited the lyrics of a song by the Rev. James Cleveland. In neither case did she "compare" herself to those she was referencing.

From the April 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: Senator Hillary Clinton says she's going to fight like the escaped slave, Harriet Tubman.

Following a microphone glitch at a New York fundraiser last night, Clinton said it reminded her of Tubman.

CLINTON [video clip]: She made it to freedom after having been a slave and she got to New York and she could have just been so happy just staying home and just breathing a big sigh of relief, but she kept going back down South to bring other freed slaves to freedom. And she used to say, no matter what happens, keep going. So, we're going to keep going until we take back the White House.

CAFFERTY: The woman is amazing. Remember last month she was talking at that church down in Selma, Alabama, where the civil rights movement began? At that -- on that occasion, she quoted the Reverend James Cleveland. Listen to this.

CLINTON [video clip]: I don't feel noways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me.

CAFFERTY: It's just painful to listen to.

It's no secret black support's essential for any Democratic presidential candidate, but will Clinton comparing herself to black heroes, or trying to sound like them, ultimately help her get that support, or will it be recognized for exactly what it is, which is pandering?

Here's the question: Should Senator Hillary Clinton be comparing herself to escaped slave Harriet Tubman? E-mail [address] or go to [URL], you all -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jack, thank you for that.

[...]

BLITZER: Also, should Senator Hillary Clinton be comparing herself to escaped slave Harriet Tubman? Jack Cafferty has your email in "The Cafferty File."

[...]

BLITZER: Up next, Jack Cafferty is wondering whether Hillary Clinton should be comparing herself to escaped slave Harriet Tubman.

[...]

CAFFERTY: Question this hour, we've got some great email: Should Senator Hillary Clinton be comparing herself to escaped slave Harriet Tubman?

From the April 24 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

FOREMAN: And remember Hillary Clinton down in Selma?

CLINTON: I don't feel noways tired.

FOREMAN: Noways? No way! Well, she's once again comparing herself to a black leader -- this time, saying she'll fight for the White House like Harriet Tubman fought for freedom. I don't know.

[end video clip]

FOREMAN: African-American voters still generally like her, but there are rumblings that with Barack Obama in the race, some support among black leaders in New York is crumbling.

That's "Raw Politics" -- Anderson.

On the April 25 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, while discussing Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) official entry into the 2008 presidential race, host Steve Inskeep asked former McCain campaign manager Mike Murphy: "Does John McCain like doing all the things that you have to do to run for president?" Murphy replied: "He doesn't particularly like beating contributors out of money." Murphy said that this might be "one reason" McCain has had "some trouble" in his campaign, and added, "In some ways, I think that's a compliment to him."

Others in the past have also explained McCain's poor fundraising performance by claiming that he simply doesn't like it. As Media Matters for America noted, on-screen text shown during the March 28 edition of MSNBC News Live read: "How Will McCain's Dislike of Fundraising Affect His Campaign?" Other on-screen text displayed during the same segment emphasized other candidates' fundraising success -- "Mitt Romney Raised $6.5 Million in One Day," "Rudy Giuliani Has Held 57 Fundraisers So Far," and "Edwards Campaign Received Half a Million in Last 5 Days" -- leaving the impression that McCain, alone among the presidential candidates, happens to "dislike" fundraising. Furthermore, on March 25, the Associated Press quoted McCain asserting that he enjoys campaigning "more than I enjoy raising money," but the article added that McCain's campaign "said he has about 40 [fundraisers] scheduled before the start of May."

From the April 25 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition:

MURPHY: I think he's kind of getting boxed into the corner of being portrayed as a single-note supporter of a war that's had a lot of failures in it, which I think loses some context.

The final point I'd make about it, and it's the most, kind of, inside political one, is the early McCain strategy was to become to traditional front-runner -- the guy with the most money, the most endorsements, the most everything. And I'm not sure that campaign really fit John McCain. He's not a front-runner kind of guy. Rudy Giuliani based on name ID and popularity, Mitt Romney based on fundraising and early state organization have both broken through, so there's no front-runner now. But I think it could be an opportunity for McCain now to be what he's best at: the scrappy, come-from-behind guy. I think that's an easier campaign for him, and I think if he finds himself in those roots, he may have a comeback.

INSKEEP: Does John McCain like doing all the things that you have to do to run for president?

MURPHY: He doesn't particularly like beating contributors out of money. And I think that's one reason he has some trouble. In some ways, I think that's a compliment to him, but the reality of running for president is you've got to be good at raising money because money buys speech, advertising, message.

McCain's a fighter. So he likes finding a bully or somebody who's wrong and abusive about it, and fighting them -- whether it's political or from a policy basis. And that's why I think being a little behind in the polls now, and not being kind of the cruising front-runner, you know, "man in the gray suit" organizational candidate. I think this new situation, while at first glance it looks rougher for him, is better terrain for the real McCain to do what he does well, which is go out and connect with people and take the sharp side of issues that people may not agree with him on, but he earns some respect for telling the truth.

On April 24, the Public Broadcasting Service's Frontline aired Hot Politics, its new program with the Center for Investigative Reporting focusing on the politics of global warming, which falsely claimed that, during his 2000 presidential campaign, "candidate [Al] Gore rarely mentioned global warming or talked about mandatory carbon caps." In fact, Gore did mention the issue of global warming throughout his campaign -- including in his acceptance speech at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. The narrator then went on to document then-presidential candidate George W. Bush's September 2000 campaign promise to support mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions along with Bush's March 2001 reversal on the issue.

Hot Politics showed a clip from an October 26, 2000, Gore campaign speech in Davenport, Iowa:

DEBORAH AMOS (Frontline correspondent): In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore had the reputation as the strongest environmentalist ever to run for president.

GORE: Now, I want to talk about the environment here today, because we have a situation where the big polluters are supporting Governor Bush, and they are wanting to be in control of the environmental policies."

The narrator then cut in:

AMOS: But candidate Gore rarely mentioned global warming or talked about mandatory carbon caps.

In fact, following the line that Hot Politics clipped from that October 2000 speech, Gore went on to discuss global warming at length:

GORE: [I]nstead of just going up a few degrees in the lifetimes of these kids, unless we act, the average temperature is going to go up 10 or 11 degrees. The storms will get stronger, the weather patterns will change. But it does not have to happen, and it won't happen if we put our minds to solving this problem.

And that is one of the reasons I'm running for president. Here is the good news: If we take the leadership role that these kids have a right to expect us to play, we can create millions of good, new, high-paying jobs by building the new cars and trucks and furnaces and boilers and technologies to stop the pollution and lift standards of living at the same time. Are you with me?

(Cheering and applause)

There's a big difference on this issue. I laid out a plan this past summer that will create partnerships with the car companies and with the utilities and with the factories to give tax breaks to get the new kinds of technologies going. And we'll lead the world in those technologies. And all over the rest of the world, they're wanting to buy these new kinds of technologies, and we're the ones that ought to be making and selling them to the rest of the world.

Moreover, Gore highlighted the issue of global warming numerous times during his campaign:

• At a January 5, 2000, Democratic primary debate against former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ) at the University of New Hampshire, Gore stated: "Another one [difficult issue] would be in the early years, when I decided to take on the issue of global warming and make it a national issue, when everybody was saying 'You know, you're going to run a lot of risk there. People are going to think that that's kind of off the edge there.' Well, now more and more people say, 'Yes, it is real,' and the next president has to be willing to take it on."
• At a rally following the "Super Tuesday" presidential primaries on March 7, 2000, Gore told supporters: "Join us to achieve an America where pollution will never be the price of prosperity. Join us to secure cleaner air and cleaner water, and to slow and then reverse the tide of global warming in ways that create more high-paying jobs."
• On May 8, 2000, Gore told attendees at the Associated Press annual meeting: "Similarly, on the environment, I believe very strongly in protecting our air and water and attacking the global threats, like global warming, in ways that create more jobs and put us out at the cutting edge of building and selling the new technologies that we need. I have a profound difference with Governor Bush on this issue."
• On June 27, 2000, Gore said at Trigen Energy Corp.:

GORE: There can be a next stage of prosperity in which American creativity builds not just a better product -- but also a healthier planet. A next stage of progress in which it is an everyday accomplishment for Americans to develop path-breaking technologies that create millions of high-wage jobs, clean up the environment, and combat global warming at the same time. A next stage of prosperity and progress in which we encourage and support the Thomas Edisons of tomorrow -- and empower them to build a better, cleaner, more prosperous world.

We can now harness that uniquely American power of innovation. We will say to the nation's inventors and entrepreneurs: if you invest in these new technologies, America will invest in you.

[...]

GORE: And that's just the beginning of what we can do ... from transportation, to power plants, to industry.

We are close to the day when Americans can buy cars with new fuel cells that truly revolutionize fuel efficiency. We've worked for this in a public-private partnership with our leading auto makers. The only emission from these cars will be water; they create no greenhouse gases at all -- which means they combat global warming. And lest you think that this is a pie-in-the-sky prediction many years from the market, one version on display at this year's auto show got over 100 miles per gallon -- and we learned just last week that buses powered by this technology will be driving on America's city streets within two short years.

• During a July 13, 2000, speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Gore said: "Let us also reach for an America where we invoke all the wonders of science and discovery to cure cancer, ease the pain of disease and let all our children breathe free from pollution and smog, and clean up the environment and take on global warming and have clean air and clean water, and protect the Great Lakes."

• During his August 17, 2000, acceptance speech for the Democratic presidential nomination, Gore said:

GORE: On the issue of the environment, I've never given up. I've never backed down and I never will.

(APPLAUSE)

And I say it again tonight: We must reverse the silent rising tide of global warming, and we can.

[...]

GORE: We must confront the new challenges of terrorism, new kinds of weapons of mass destruction, global environmental problems, and new diseases that know no national boundaries and can threaten national security. We must welcome and promote truly free trade. But I say to you: It must be fair trade. We must get standards, we must set standards to end child labor to prevent the exploitation of workers, and the poisoning of the environment.

• At an August 18, 2000, campaign rally in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Gore stated: "You know, we need to keep the waters of our nation clean and pure so children always have safe drinking water. We need to make sure the air is clean and fresh for them to breathe. We need to take on the global problems like global warming. We need to care about the future and join together to make sure the environment and the economy go together hand in hand for future generations, create the good, new jobs for the future, building the new technologies that can clean up pollution and create good, new jobs at the same time."

• During an October 11, 2000, presidential debate, Gore responded to a general question about the environment by speaking at length about global warming:

MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Vice President Gore, on the environment. In your 1992 book you said, quote, "We must make the rescue of our environment the central organizing principle for civilization and there must be a wrenching transformation to save the planet." Do you still feel that way?

GORE: I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the consequences of what's called global warming. There was a study just a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already people see the strange weather conditions that the old timers say they've never seen before in their lifetimes. And what's happening is the level of pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the good news, Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new technologies, like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit is itching to build, then we can create millions of good new jobs by being first into the market with these new kinds of cars and trucks and other kinds of technologies.

From the April 24 edition of PBS' Frontline:

AMOS: In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore had the reputation as the strongest environmentalist ever to run for president.

GORE: Now, I want to talk about the environment here today, because we have a situation where the big polluters are supporting Governor Bush, and they are wanting to be in control of the environmental policies.

AMOS: But candidate Gore rarely mentioned global warming or talked about mandatory carbon caps.

FORMER SEN. TIMOTHY WIRTH (D-CO): The politics was so divisive. They wrapped all of the -- any problems with Kyoto around Gore's neck. The Republicans were going to try to beat him up on this very -- you know, really as aggressively as they possibly could. What did they call him? "Ozone Al" or whatever he was called.

BUSH: In Texas, we passed one of the toughest laws --

AMOS: Then, Texas Governor George W. Bush outflanked Gore on Gore's own turf.

BUSH: My opponent calls for voluntary reductions in such emissions. In Texas, I think we've done it better -- with mandatory reductions. And I believe the nation can do better as well.

AMOS: Bush surprised many, by backing mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

[...]

AMOS: Within a week of receiving the letter from the Republican senators, President Bush signed off on a reply. He would reverse his campaign pledge on carbon emissions.

On the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle claimed that an April 23 Chicago Sun-Times article "alleged [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] did legal work for [Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin] Rezko that enabled him [Rezko] to get $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 buildings." In fact, the Sun-Times reported that while Obama worked at the law firm that helped Rezko's company, Rezmar, secure the government funding, his role in the Rezmar deals is "unclear," and that Obama's campaign said Obama worked only five hours on Rezmar-related deals. "Senator Obama did not directly represent Mr. Rezko or his firms," according to an email from Obama's staff that the Sun-Times quoted. "He did represent on a very limited basis ventures in which Mr. Rezko's entities participated along with others."

Angle also reported: "Rezko's the same man whose wife bought the lot next door to Obama's house on the same day the senator bought his home, then later sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value." A December 17, 2006, Washington Post article, however, cited an Obama spokesman in reporting that Obama purchased one-sixth of Rezko's lot and paid Rezko more than double its appraised value because "Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot."

As Media Matters for America has documented, several media outlets have cast the Obama-Rezko land deal as a "scandal," despite the complete absence of evidence of impropriety or allegation of wrongdoing.

From the April 24 edition of Special Report:

ANGLE: One source intimately familiar with Rezko's business dealings told Fox that many of the newspaper allegations are grossly inaccurate but also called Rezko one of the greatest con artists in the history of the state. The Sun-Times alleged that when the housing projects weren't profitable, Rezko walked away from many of them, selling to not-for-profit groups, or letting them go into foreclosure after Rezko collected millions in development fees and tax breaks.

That prompted the kind of headlines no presidential candidate wants to see.

OBAMA [video clip]: -- used to suggest somehow that you're responsible for a whole bunch of failing housing throughout the city.

ANGLE: The paper alleged Obama did legal work for Rezko that enabled him to get $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 buildings. But Senator Obama said that is not true.

OBAMA [video clip]: My law firm was representing the non-for-profit partner, where there's no allegations that they did anything wrong. They were simply trying to develop non-for-profit housing in the district.

The April 23 Sun-Times article, however, made no such allegation:

Obama role unclear

Just what legal work -- and how much -- Obama did on those deals is unknown. His campaign staff acknowledges he worked on some of them. But the Rezmar-related work amounted to just five hours over the six years it said Obama was affiliated with the law firm, the staff said in an e-mail in February.

Obama, however, was associated with the firm for more than nine years, his staff acknowledged Sunday in an e-mail response to questions submitted March 14 by the Sun-Times. They didn't say what deals he worked on -- or how much work he did.

"The senator, relatively inexperienced in this kind of work, was assigned to tasks appropriate for a junior lawyer,'' according to an e-mail from Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. "These tasks would have included reviewing documents, collecting corporate organizational documents, and drafting corporate resolutions.''

In fact, Gibbs wrote, "Senator Obama does not remember having conversations with Tony Rezko about properties that he owned or any specific issues related to those properties.''

[...]

Obama works on Rezmar deals

Obama spent the next eight years serving in the Illinois Senate and continued to work for the Davis law firm.

Through its partnerships, Rezmar remained a client of the firm, according to ethics statements Obama filed while a state senator.

[Law firm top partner Allison S.] Davis said he didn't remember Obama working on the Rezmar projects.

"I don't recall Barack having any involvement in real estate transactions,'' Davis said. "Barack was a litigator. His area of focus was litigation, class-action suits.''

But Obama did legal work on real estate deals while at Davis' firm, according to biographical information he submitted to the Sun-Times in 1998. Obama specialized "in civil rights litigation, real estate financing, acquisition, construction and/or redevelopment of low-and moderate income housing,'' according to his "biographical sketch."

And he did legal work on Rezko's deals, according to an e-mail his presidential campaign staff sent the Sun-Times on Feb. 16, in response to earlier inquiries. The staff didn't specify which Rezmar projects Obama worked on, or his role. But it drew a distinction between working for Rezko and working on projects involving his company.

"Senator Obama did not directly represent Mr. Rezko or his firms. He did represent on a very limited basis ventures in which Mr. Rezko's entities participated along with others,'' according to the e-mail from Obama's staff.

Angle went on to report:

ANGLE: But aside from Obama's involvement, or lack of it, in these matters, he and Rezko are said by many in Chicago to be close friends. Rezko's the same man whose wife bought the lot next door to Obama's house on the same day the senator bought his home, then later sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value.

However, as the Post reported on December 17, 2006:

Obama said Rezko, who knows the neighborhood, was one of several people he called for advice on the real estate market. Rezko told him he knew the developer who renovated the house. In a later conversation, Rezko said he intended to buy the empty lot and build on it.

Later, the Obamas bought a 10-foot-by-150-foot piece of the lot for $104,500. An appraisal put the value of the strip at $40,500, a spokesman said, but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot.

"It wasn't something we needed to have," Obama said. "It was something I thought would be nice, if it worked economically for him."

An April 25 Newsday article uncritically reported that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) "insisted his recent support for the Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on" the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion "was consistent with his past opposition because the law changed in 2003 to include more scientific language about protecting the life of the mother." Similarly, an April 25 Associated Press article uncritically reported that Giuliani said there was no "inconsistency" between "his long-standing support of abortion rights and his affirmation last week of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion," adding that Giuliani "said he opposed" such a ban "when it was discussed during the Clinton administration because he didn't feel it made an exception when a mother's life was in danger." The AP noted that "Giuliani supported" President Bill Clinton when Clinton vetoed a ban of the procedure. However, neither article noted that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 that Clinton vetoed also included a similar "exception when a mother's life was in danger" or challenged Giuliani's reported assertion that the 2003 ban "include[d] more scientific language about protecting the life of the mother."

The 1997 abortion ban that Giuliani opposed included the following exception:

This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.

The 2003 abortion ban upheld by the Supreme Court included an exception that differed in two ways. It added the word "physical" before "illness" and "injury," presumably to ensure that mental illness and mental injury were not included in the exception -- in other words, it made explicit that the exception was narrower than might otherwise be construed -- and it specified that the exception covered "a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself":

This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

Additionally, the Nebraska ban struck down by the Supreme Court in 2000 contained an exception identical to the 2003 federal ban:

No partial birth abortion shall be performed in this state, unless such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

The articles did not report that Giuliani gave any evidence for his argument that the exception in the 2003 law was "more scientific" or provided any greater protection for the life of a pregnant woman, nor did the Supreme Court rely on the difference between the exception in the 2003 law and previous bills in this time upholding the ban.

From the April 25 Associated Press article:

Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani defended his positions on a late-term abortion procedure and gun control Tuesday as he faced skeptical GOP voters who questioned his sincerity.

"I don't think there's an inconsistency," the former New York City mayor said of his long-standing support of abortion rights and his affirmation last week of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion, a measure he opposed in the past.

[...]

On the late-term abortion procedure, Giuliani said he opposed it when it was discussed during Clinton's presidency because he didn't feel it made an exception when a mother's life was in jeopardy. Clinton twice vetoed bans on the procedure, arguing that they didn't adequately protect the health of the mother. Giuliani supported the vetoes.

Last week, after the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech, Giuliani said it "does not alter the Second Amendment" and emphasized state-by-state gun control measures, which contrasted with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners.

A tense moment came when Marty Capodice, 64, a registered independent of Hopkinton, N.H., questioned Giuliani about what he called the Bush administration's violations of civil rights in the name of national security.

From the April 25 Newsday article:

In Henniker [New Hampshire], Giuliani faced questions from fellow Republicans about whether he is, in essence, Republican enough to win his party's nomination in light of his positions on gun control and late-term abortion. Giuliani has shifted his stances on both issues in hopes of currying favor with conservatives who help pick the nominee.

On the procedure known to its opponents as partial-birth abortion, Giuliani insisted his recent support for the Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on it was consistent with his past opposition because the law changed in 2003 to include more scientific language about protecting the life of the mother.

The most dramatic exchange came when Marty Capodice, 64, of Hopkinton, N.H., a former Republican now registered as an independent, said he believes the Bush administration has undercut "just about every personal right" in the pursuit of al-Qaida.