Christian Forums

Fox graphics falsely asserted Castro "wants" Clinton-Obama as "dream team"

Summary: During a Fox & Friends segment discussing an August 28 column by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, on-screen text falsely asserted, "CASTRO'S DREAM TEAM: WANTS CLINTON AND OBAMA IN '08," referring to Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Also during the segment, an on-screen graphic depicted Castro, Clinton, and Obama enclosed in a red heart. In fact, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama. Indeed, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."

During the August 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, during a segment discussing an August 28 column by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in the Cuban newspaper Granma, on-screen text falsely asserted, "CASTRO'S DREAM TEAM: WANTS CLINTON AND OBAMA IN '08," referring to Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL). Also during the segment, an on-screen graphic depicted Castro, Clinton, and Obama enclosed in a red heart. In addition, during the August 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Michelle Malkin previewed an upcoming segment by falsely claiming that "Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket." Malkin went on to ask, "What is that all about?" In fact, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama. Indeed, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."

From Castro's column:

Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon.

The media declares that this would be essential, unless Gore decides to run. I don't think he will do so; better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course. When he was a candidate, he of course committed the error of yearning for "a democratic Cuba".

Enough of tales and nostalgia. This is written simply to increase the conscience of the Cuban people.

In an August 21 column in The Miami Herald, Obama stated that "[a] democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy," and that "f a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades." He added: "Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island." Further, the Herald reported in an August 22 article that "Clinton's campaign said she agrees with Obama that exiles should be able to freely send money to their relatives in Cuba but said she does not favor 'any wholesale, broad changes' to the travel restrictions until Fidel Castro falls." The Herald added that according to Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee, Clinton " 'supports the embargo and our current policy toward Cuba, and until it is clear what type of political winds may come with a new government -- if there is a new government -- we cannot talk about changes to U.S. policy.' "

From the August 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Fidel Castro, a dictator.

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Sure.

KILMEADE: Hasn't lost an election in a long time.

DOOCY: Sure.

KILMEADE: And now he's holding on to life. But before he does that, he's a student of our electoral process, and he thinks he knows who the unbeatable, impenetrable team is.

DOOCY: Impenetrable?

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): I'm surprised he did not only just pick Obama, because it was Obama, recently, who said that, yeah, he would start up any conversation with any dictators around the world, while Hillary Clinton, during that debate, said, "Hmm? Not so fast, I might have to do a little more research before I would do that."

DOOCY: Yeah, and of course anybody running for president of course needs to win Florida. And to win Florida and the very influential, powerful Cuban exile community, you gotta say stuff like, "Well, there should be democracy in Cuba." Anyway, Castro said, quote, "Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for president and Obama for vice president. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding a democratic government in Cuba." All right. Also, let's tell you a little about this, kids.

From the August 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

MALKIN: And Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket. What is that all about? We hope you stay tuned for those reports.

[...]

MALKIN: Very quickly, Laura [Schwartz, Democratic strategist].

SCHWARTZ: Minimum wage, raising it. Energy legislation --

[crosstalk]

SCHWARTZ: I wouldn't discount the working class in this country, Karen [Hanretty, Republican strategist]. That's the problem with the Republican Party today. I know that's another situation, but they've ignored the working class, and that's -

[crosstalk]

SCHWARTZ: Hey, what about those working poor, those families in the inner city that can't even make enough to live -

[crosstalk]

MALKIN: Well, Fidel Castro agrees with you, and he's endorsed the Hillary-Obama ticket, so there you go. Ladies, thank you.

****edited for violation of rule 2.1****

Every liberal and conservative knows Michelle Malkin is a Opinion/Editorial commentator.  She writes columns and appears on shows.  SHE made the comment, and the graphics guys were summarizing what she said.  This happens on every news channel no matter who is speaking.  Fox was NOT reporting that Castro endorsed any ticket.  An OP/ED writer made her opinion known and the graphics guys summarized what she said.

Your hatred of conservatives is quite evident, but please do not resort to lies to bash those you disagree with.

KP

Quote from: k-pappy on Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 07:15:02
I dare say that YOU, sir, are the liar.

Every liberal and conservative knows Michelle Malkin is a Opinion/Editorial commentator.  She writes columns and appears on shows.  SHE made the comment, and the graphics guys were summarizing what she said.  This happens on every news channel no matter who is speaking.  Fox was NOT reporting that Castro endorsed any ticket.  An OP/ED writer made her opinion known and the graphics guys summarized what she said.

Your hatred of conservatives is quite evident, but please do not resort to lies to bash those you disagree with.

KP

So, pointing out an alleged liar (Malkin) is itself a lie?  And Malkin is no conservative. A Republican, yes, but not a conservative.

Am I the only one who thinks it is terribly inappropriate for one poster to call another a 'liar' on a Christian discussion board?

What communist dictator Fidel Castro wrote, when translated into English was that a Hillary/Obama ticket would be an "invincible" ticket.

It depends on how he meant that as to whether or not it's an endorsement. But a communist dictator endorsing a socialist Democrat is certainly not a stretch. Just like when Osama/Al Qaeda told the U.S. that we'd better elect John Kerry or the "Bush states" would be punished, our enemies seem to prefer candidates from the Democrat party.

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what [Bin Laden's] sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy.

I saw the segment that Jim Abb was referring to and thought while watching it that they were taking it out of context.   You have to be careful with any news cast and evaluate the information they are trying to feed you.  This is especially true for the networks and CNN, but it is true to a lesser extent on Fox as well.

Who would want a demoncrat in office anyway?

Regarding being called a "liar". The topic of my post was "More Conservative Media Lies" and the comment by Malkin that Castro endorsed Clinton/Obama, as you can see from reading the text, is not what he said. That makes Malkin's statement a lie.

****edited for violation of rule 2.6 publically questioning the decision or integrity of a moderator.****

Also, I do not "hate" conservatives. What I "hate" are the lies that come from many conservative sources for the purpose of character assasination. I have a great deal of respect for conservatives like columnist George Will who argue issues. I may disagree with him, but I always read what he writes because I know that it will be well thought and supported.

The important word to connect with LIAR is not "conservative," but the word MEDIA.

TV news outlets focused on Clinton fundraiser Hsu but ignored Romney finance co-chair Fabian's indictment for fraud

Summary: In recent days, NBC, CNN, and Fox News have all aired reports or discussed the case of Norman Hsu, who The Wall Street Journal suggested may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Sen. Hillary Clinton. However, when Mitt Romney's national finance committee co-chairman Alan Fabian was charged with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice, the three networks did not report or discuss it during programs available in the Nexis database.

Between August 28 and August 31, NBC, CNN, and Fox News all aired reports or discussions on Norman Hsu, the Democratic donor known for being a top contributor and fundraiser to the campaigns of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). The Los Angeles Times reported on August 29 that, in 1991, Hsu "pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish. 'He is a fugitive,' Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview." The previous day, The Wall Street Journal had suggested that Hsu may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Clinton by reimbursing people for contributions made to Clinton under their names. However, there is no evidence that any candidate or committee who received money from Hsu knew anything about the controversies surrounding him, and many campaigns that received money from Hsu -- including Clinton's -- have since said they will donate it to charity. On August 31, Hsu turned himself in to authorities in California. The August 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, for example, teased the story with a picture of Clinton with the caption: "Fugitive Link."



By contrast, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's national finance committee co-chairman, Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press article, "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice," NBC, CNN, and Fox News did not air reports or discussions about it during programs available in the Nexis database. The AP reported that Fabian "allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel." Fabian resigned from Romney's finance committee shortly after being indicted, and the Romney campaign said it would return Fabian's $2,300 contribution, but not, however, "contributions from donors who were recruited by or have ties to Fabian," as The Boston Globe reported. While Fabian's indictment has generated some print coverage, it has resulted in no television coverage on news shows airing on NBC, CNN, or prime-time shows broadcast on Fox News, according to a Nexis database search conducted by Media Matters for America on August 31.

Fabian, a former Bush Pioneer, has also made donations to other Republican candidates and committees, including to Rudy Giuliani, according to the Federal Election Commission's searchable donor database. Giuliani's campaign said it would return Fabian's contribution. At least one other campaign did not immediately return the money. The Hill reported on August 15: "'We have no intention of returning the contribution,' said Matt Leffingwell, spokesman for [Rep. Jon] Porter [R-NV], who received nearly $1,500 from Fabian in 2004. 'Until the individual is convicted in a court of law, we don't return contributions.' " Fabian's arraignment is scheduled for Sept. 28.

According to Media Matters' review, the following shows included reports on or discussions about Hsu, but none reported or discussed Fabian:

CNN Newsroom, August 31
CNN's American Morning, August 31
CNN's The Situation Room, August 30
NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, August 30
CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, August 30
Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, August 30
NBC's Today, August 30
American Morning, August 30
Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, August 29
Special Report, August 29
Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, August 29
The Situation Room, August 29

Quote from: jb728b on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 08:52:22
Any political system will work (communism, socialism, democracy, empire dictatorship) as long as there are good leaders who put the people needs first.

The problem is that the leaders are not good and the people needs take a back seat to personal power and glory.

I vote republican because their agenda takes into consideration people like me.  The demon-crates have nothing to offer people like me.

I am not a minority
I am not a homosexual
I am against abortion
I believe in the freedom of religion
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms
I understand that diplomacy prevents war it doesn't win war.

The demon-crates have nothing to offer so why vote for them?

Behind all the "smoke and mirrors," the Republican policies are designed to represent the best interests of the top 5 to 10% of America's wealthiest citizens.

QuoteThe top 5% of Americans own just under 70% of all financial wealth.

The top 1% of Americans now claim more income per year than the bottom 100 million Americans taken together.

The top 0.5% makes more on the sale of stocks and bonds in one year than everyone else combined.

The distribution of wealth ownership in America is truly feudal--and deeply corrosive of our democracy...........[/b]

Republican positions on minority rights, gays, abortion, religious freedom, right to bear arms and foreign policy are all designed to appeal to the other 90 to 95%. 

Despite a Republican president, Congress and conservativeSupreme Court from 2000 to 2006, how much progress was made in these areas.

MONEY = POWER 

True democracy and freedom can't exist when 5% of the population own 70% the nation's financial wealth.

Those who virtually own the nation are never going to be content to follow a "hands-off" approach when it comes to who and how the nation is governed.

Wealthy individuals and coorporations have established "private" institutes and "think tanks" to provide the conservatice right with its own pseudo science. 

These institutes have also set up their own network of media outlets that attempt to disseminate "tabloid" attacks against the Left as fact through  the mainstream media.

But you get all your info from Media Matters.  Their goal is to create conservative media bias because they know it doesn't exist.

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 23:10:12
But you get all your info from Media Matters.  Their goal is to create conservative media bias because they know it doesn't exist.

Well, you know it's conservative media bias when they call the president "Bush" instead of "Beelzebush".  It's a dead give away.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 23:26:08

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 23:10:12
But you get all your info from Media Matters.  Their goal is to create conservative media bias because they know it doesn't exist.

Well, you know it's conservative media bias when they call the president "Bush" instead of "Beelzebush".  It's a dead give away.

The conservative media never mentions the Risian Hurricane Generator either.  Go figure.

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 23:33:32

Quote from: Mere Nick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 23:26:08

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 23:10:12
But you get all your info from Media Matters.  Their goal is to create conservative media bias because they know it doesn't exist.

Well, you know it's conservative media bias when they call the president "Bush" instead of "Beelzebush".  It's a dead give away.

The conservative media never mentions the Risian Hurricane Generator either.  Go figure.

And there you have it, sports fans.  Absolute and undeniable proof that the MSM is actually packed to the gills with drooling henchmen who await their talking points from the very bowels, bowels I say(!), of Beelzebush's Whitehouse that has been turned into a fetid den of vile iniquity.

All comments high on emotion and low on any factual rebuttal.

Typical.

Quote from: Jim Abb on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 19:08:00
All comments high on emotion and low on any factual rebuttal.

Typical.

If Mitt Romney was the leading contender for the Republican nomination instead of 3rd, it would have gotten bigger coverage. 

Media Matters is a fraud.  This has been proven before.  Claim what you wish, but you will get no converts if they are your only source.

As far as bias goes, you can not honestly claim there is a "conservative" bias when all the major news outlets (NYT, LAT, AJC, WaPo, USA Today, etc.) are claiming the surge is a horrid failure, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Take a look for yourself:

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070905aaindex.html

KP

It would take 100 conservative newspaper editors and 100 conservative webzine editors and 100 conservative radio program producers and 100 conservative TV newscast producers and 100 conservative movie producers and 100 conservative sitcom writers and 100 conservative soap opera writers and 100 conservative blog writers and 100 conservative TV preachers and 100 conservative politicians --

Seated, 1000 strong, before 1000 typewriters, pounding away continuously without rest for 1000 years, to pump out enough conservative information, to even begin to dampen and start to cleanse the hem of the skirt of the dirty... um... lady of ill repute... that is the Dominant Liberal Media today.

Quitcher whining, Jim, liberalism is alive, well, and unthreatened.

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 07:08:00
Media Matters is a fraud.  This has been proven before.  Claim what you wish, but you will get no converts if they are your only source.

As far as bias goes, you can not honestly claim there is a "conservative" bias when all the major news outlets (NYT, LAT, AJC, WaPo, USA Today, etc.) are claiming the surge is a horrid failure, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Take a look for yourself:

http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20070905aaindex.html

KP

So, you're citing the Early Bird to refute all critics of the President's war policy? Get real.

Quote from: janine on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 08:33:39
It would take 100 conservative newspaper editors and 100 conservative webzine editors and 100 conservative radio program producers and 100 conservative TV newscast producers and 100 conservative movie producers and 100 conservative sitcom writers and 100 conservative soap opera writers and 100 conservative blog writers and 100 conservative TV preachers and 100 conservative politicians --

Seated, 1000 strong, before 1000 typewriters, pounding away continuously without rest for 1000 years, to pump out enough conservative information, to even begin to dampen and start to cleanse the hem of the skirt of the dirty... um... lady of ill repute... that is the Dominant Liberal Media today.

Quitcher whining, Jim, liberalism is alive, well, and unthreatened.

This is simple projection, nothing more.

Conservatives say the media is 'liberal' because it doesn't portray the news the way they want it to.  Liberals say the media is 'conservative' for the exact same reason.  Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the media is mostly middle-of-the-road? 

As a middle-of-the-roader, I have very few complaints about any of the major media outlets.  If you want to read liberal media, read Mother Jones.  If you think the NY Times or NBC or CNN even come close to Mother Jones, Common Dreams, or The Nation, then you're just plain nutty.

Quote from: navyvet on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 09:41:54

Quote from: janine on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 08:33:39
It would take 100 conservative newspaper editors and 100 conservative webzine editors and 100 conservative radio program producers and 100 conservative TV newscast producers and 100 conservative movie producers and 100 conservative sitcom writers and 100 conservative soap opera writers and 100 conservative blog writers and 100 conservative TV preachers and 100 conservative politicians --

Seated, 1000 strong, before 1000 typewriters, pounding away continuously without rest for 1000 years, to pump out enough conservative information, to even begin to dampen and start to cleanse the hem of the skirt of the dirty... um... lady of ill repute... that is the Dominant Liberal Media today.

Quitcher whining, Jim, liberalism is alive, well, and unthreatened.

This is simple projection, nothing more.

Don't be dense.  it's simply my opinion.  Which is, of course, the correct opinion, in my opinion, or I wouldn't hold it.

Regardless of whether or not a news source feels conservative or liberal to me, I still try to make my own common-sense decisions about facts.

And I still assume some things -- like, even a politician I pretty much am happy with, will still be at least partially controlled and co-opted by the power structure he's elected to join.

Quote from: janine on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 10:36:28

Quote from: navyvet on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 09:41:54

Quote from: janine on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 08:33:39
It would take 100 conservative newspaper editors and 100 conservative webzine editors and 100 conservative radio program producers and 100 conservative TV newscast producers and 100 conservative movie producers and 100 conservative sitcom writers and 100 conservative soap opera writers and 100 conservative blog writers and 100 conservative TV preachers and 100 conservative politicians --

Seated, 1000 strong, before 1000 typewriters, pounding away continuously without rest for 1000 years, to pump out enough conservative information, to even begin to dampen and start to cleanse the hem of the skirt of the dirty... um... lady of ill repute... that is the Dominant Liberal Media today.

Quitcher whining, Jim, liberalism is alive, well, and unthreatened.

This is simple projection, nothing more.

Don't be dense.  it's simply my opinion.  Which is, of course, the correct opinion, in my opinion, or I wouldn't hold it.

Don't be so dismissive: after all, you're asserting your certainly with the subjunctive voice.  A certitude based on wishing or wanting is not really certain at all.  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:23:10
The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

You better watch it Mike, someone may accuse you of being "dismissive and subjunctive"  

Quote from: navyvet on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 10:42:04

Quote from: janine on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 10:36:28

Quote from: navyvet on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 09:41:54

Quote from: janine on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 08:33:39
It would take 100 conservative newspaper editors and 100 conservative webzine editors and 100 conservative radio program producers and 100 conservative TV newscast producers and 100 conservative movie producers and 100 conservative sitcom writers and 100 conservative soap opera writers and 100 conservative blog writers and 100 conservative TV preachers and 100 conservative politicians --

Seated, 1000 strong, before 1000 typewriters, pounding away continuously without rest for 1000 years, to pump out enough conservative information, to even begin to dampen and start to cleanse the hem of the skirt of the dirty... um... lady of ill repute... that is the Dominant Liberal Media today.

Quitcher whining, Jim, liberalism is alive, well, and unthreatened.

This is simple projection, nothing more.

Don't be dense.  it's simply my opinion.  Which is, of course, the correct opinion, in my opinion, or I wouldn't hold it.

Don't be so dismissive: after all, you're asserting your certainly with the subjunctive voice.  A certitude based on wishing or wanting is not really certain at all.  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I'm not being wishful.  I'm a reasonably intelligent person with all my senses intact, I see, I hear, I read, I learn -- and I've worked in a midsize-market Midwestern newsroom, you can't get any more finger-on-the-pulse than that.

(That's a pun, really... I was an obituary writer.)

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:26:09

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:23:10
The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

You better watch it Mike, someone may accuse you of being "dismissive and subjunctive" 

Ah, another former high school student who slept through English. 

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:26:09

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:23:10
The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

You better watch it Mike, someone may accuse you of being "dismissive and subjunctive"   

Just keeping it pithy...remember, no bloviating.

Quote from: navyvet on Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 09:42:31

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:26:09

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:23:10
The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

You better watch it Mike, someone may accuse you of being "dismissive and subjunctive" 

Ah, another former high school student who slept through English. 

Ah, another former wise guy .

Ya gotta love 'em.

Quote from: Jaime on Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 10:54:26

Quote from: navyvet on Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 09:42:31

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:26:09

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:23:10
The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

You better watch it Mike, someone may accuse you of being "dismissive and subjunctive" 

Ah, another former high school student who slept through English. 

Ah, another former wise guy.

Ya gotta love 'em.

Better to be wise than, er..., not wise.

Quote from: navyvet on Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 11:16:19

Quote from: Jaime on Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 10:54:26

Quote from: navyvet on Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 09:42:31

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:26:09

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:23:10
The liberals have 3 network stations, 2 cable news channels and every newspaper on the planet.  Not to mention Airhead America.

You better watch it Mike, someone may accuse you of being "dismissive and subjunctive" 

Ah, another former high school student who slept through English. 

Ah, another former wise guy.

Ya gotta love 'em.

Better to be wise than, er..., not wise.

2 shay  mon ami

Couric did not challenge Petraeus' assertion that violence in Iraq has fallen "dramatically"

Summary: Katie Couric did not challenge Gen. David Petraeus' assertion during an interview that "if you look at the country as a whole ... the number of ethno-sectarian deaths, you name it, the number of incidents has been reduced dramatically" in Iraq. Couric failed to note the conclusion reached by a recent progress report by the Government Accountability Office on Iraqi benchmarks that "t is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased;" the report also stated that "the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months."

During a report containing an interview with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq, that aired on the September 4 CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric did not challenge Petraeus' assertion that "if you look at the country as a whole ... the number of ethnosectarian deaths, you name it, the number of incidents has been reduced dramatically." Neither in the interview, nor in her overall report, did Couric note the conclusion reached by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its recent progress report on Iraqi benchmarks -- which Couric referred to at the outset of the broadcast -- that "t is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased." The report also stated that "the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months [February to July 2007]."

As Media Matters for America noted, at a September 4 Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) claimed that the GAO accounted for data only through July and added that Petraeus recently provided him data for August showing a reduction in violence in Iraq. Asked to reconcile his agency's findings with Petraeus' view, Comptroller General David M. Walker said that the GAO "asked [the military] for, but did not receive, the information through the end of August," and that even though the military "were unable to give us the data through August" "we obtained their views for where the situation was through as of August 30th." Walker added that "there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree." He added that "part of the problem that [the GAO] had in reaching a conclusion about sectarian violence is there are multiple sources showing different levels of violence with different trends."

At the beginning of the September 4 broadcast, Couric noted that "[a] congressional report out today says violence in Iraq remains high and the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks." Indeed, the supplemental war funding bill that Congress passed on May 24 and President Bush signed on May 25 -- the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 -- requires an "independent assessment" of the Iraqi benchmarks by the Comptroller General, who heads the GAO, "[n]ot later than September 1, 2007."

From the September 4 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

COURIC: It's early Wednesday morning here in the Iraqi capital as we begin four days of special broadcasts on one of the most critical issues facing our country today -- the war. A congressional report out today says violence in Iraq remains high and the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks. An even more critical report comes in a week on the progress of the surge.

[...]

COURIC: Our visit involved extensive security afforded any four-star general, but General Petraeus insisted you can feel when a place is dangerous.

PETRAEUS: Let's go. You know, come on. Look at all the good stuff in here.

COURIC: And he believes this one is not.

COURIC: Some people might be watching this and saying, "Oh, this is a nice dog and pony show. Yeah, there are some areas of calm. But if you look at the country as a whole, it's still a nightmare."

PETRAEUS: Well, if you look at the country as a whole, there is an unacceptable level of violence, but that level of violence, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths, you name it, the number of incidents --

COURIC: Sunni-Shia killing, Shia-Sunni --

PETRAEUS: -- has been reduced dramatically. That is not to say that there are not places where it is very, very tough. The question is, which way is it headed? And I think it's headed up.

COURIC: Headed up enough to start reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq? Yesterday, while talking to servicemen and women in Anbar Province, President Bush raised the possibility. When I sat down with General Petraeus following our tour, he left the door open.

COURIC: As you know, Senator John Warner [VA], a very high-ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, after a visit to Iraq, said some troops must begin to come home by Christmas. Do you agree with that?

PETRAEUS: Well, wait and see when I offer recommendations. I'll brief Congress on that in about a week and a half. The surge has to run its course. There's no question about that. The question is, how can you make adjustments to the force, bring the force levels down, and retain what we have fought so hard to achieve?

Fox News' Wilson, CBS affiliate misrepresented Couric's claims about Fallujah, Anbar

Summary: An article posted on wcbstv.com (the online website of New York CBS affiliate WCBS-TV) claimed that, during an interview with WCBS, Katie Couric "sa[id] she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country" and that "incidents [of violence] in Iraq have gone down dramatically." Similarly, Fox News' Brian Wilson reported that Couric "says she has seen major improvements during her visit to Iraq." But Couric was talking about the city of Fallujah and Anbar province when she referred to progress, not Iraq as a whole.

A September 5 article -- with the headline, "Couric: 'Real Progress' in Iraq" -- posted on wcbstv.com (the website of New York CBS affiliate WCBS-TV) claimed that, during an interview with WCBS, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric "sa[id] she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country." However, according to a video clip of the interview posted alongside the article, Couric did not claim that there has been "progress" or "dramatic improvements" in Iraq as a whole. Instead, she said that "real progress" has been made in the city of Fallujah. In addition, the article misquoted Couric, claiming that she said, during the interview, "The incidents [of violence] in Iraq have gone down dramatically." Couric actually said that "the number of violent incidents really in Anbar province -- that's one third of Iraq, which is in the West -- have gone down dramatically." Additionally, on the September 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report, guest host and Fox News Washington bureau chief Brian Wilson reported that Couric "says she has seen major improvements during her visit to Iraq" and misquoted Couric exactly as the wcbstv.com article had done.

From the September 5 wcbstv.com article:

One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country.

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."

[...]

"The spike in police has really been significant," Couric said. "The incidents in Iraq have gone down dramatically."

However, during Couric's WCBS interview, which previewed her upcoming interview of Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq, Couric asserted: "[H]e [Petraeus] took me to Fallujah, which you know is in Anbar province in Western Iraq, and this is considered a real role model of something working right in Iraq." Couric added: "We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," referring to Fallujah. She later asserted that "the number of violent incidents really in Anbar province ... have gone down dramatically as well."

As Media Matters for America noted, according to a recently released Government Accountability Office progress report on Iraqi benchmarks, "t is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased." The report also stated that "the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months [February to July 2007]."

During the "Political Grapevine" segment of Special Report, Wilson reported that Couric had said "she has seen major improvements during her visit to Iraq" and that "real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," but he did not mention that she was referring to Fallujah and not Iraq as a whole. He then misquoted Couric exactly as the wcbstv.com article had done, claiming she said, "The incidents [of violence] in Iraq have gone down dramatically":

WILSON: CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has seen major improvements during her visit to Iraq. "We hear so much," she says, "about things going on badly, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability."

She said these comments -- made these comments on Tuesday's broadcast. She noted that moderate Sunnis are joining the Iraqi security forces, saying "The spike in police has really been significant. The incidents in Iraq have gone down dramatically."

She said that Fallujah is considered a real role model of something working right in Iraq.

The same day, the Republican National Committee released a research briefing, titled "They Said It! CBS' Katie Couric On Progress In Iraq," highlighting wcbstv.com's characterization of Couric's comments. Several conservative blogs have also cited wcbstv.com's report.

From the interview aired live on the September 4 edition of WCBS-TV's CBS 2 News:

CHRIS WRAGGE (co-anchor): Katie, last night, President Bush made an unexpected trip to Iraq. You had that last night; tonight, it's more of your interview with David Petraeus. Is that correct?

COURIC: That's right, Chris. You know, he took me to Fallujah, which you know is in Anbar province in Western Iraq, and this is considered a real role model of something working right in Iraq. We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability.

I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy, Al Qaeda, and now many more people have joined the Iraqi security forces. The spike in police has really been significant since last year and the number of violent incidents really in Anbar province -- that's one third of Iraq, which is in the West -- have gone down dramatically as well, so, General Petraeus took me on a tour of Fallujah and we had a long conversation about a lot of things, about Iraq in general, and he gave me a bit of a preview of what he'll talk about next week to the president and on Capitol Hill.

Newsweek ignored evidence that Thompson overlooked GOP wrongdoing in Senate inquiry

Summary: An article in the latest issue of Newsweek reported on Fred Thompson's leadership of a 1997 investigation into campaign finance irregularities, asserting that "Thompson wound up losing control of the investigation, and the support of his own party," and that "Thompson has said he wanted to make sure the inquiry was fair, and not just a Republican hunting party that would be viewed with suspicion by the public." But Thompson reportedly shut down the investigation before Democrats were able to introduce evidence linking Republican lawmakers to a fundraising group that was found to have skirted campaign finance laws.

An article in the September 10 issue of Newsweek magazine about former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), who, on September 6, announced he is running for president, reported that a 1997 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigation into campaign finance irregularities led by Thompson "fizzled and eventually shut down; Thompson was a near-pariah among some Senate Republicans." The article also asserted that "Thompson wound up losing control of the investigation, and the support of his own party, when the committee turned its attention to Republican campaign abuses as well," and that "Thompson has said he wanted to make sure the inquiry was fair, and not just a Republican hunting party that would be viewed with suspicion by the public." But Thompson reportedly shut down the investigation before Democrats were able to introduce evidence linking Republican lawmakers to Triad Management, a fundraising group that Democrats claimed -- and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) later agreed -- had skirted campaign finance laws.

Media Matters for America has previously noted evidence that Thompson prematurely shut down the hearings to avoid damaging Republican lawmakers by allowing the Triad evidence to be presented. An article in the June 25 edition of Newsweek that cited the hearings as evidence that Thompson "was willing to buck his party" similarly ignored his handling of Triad, as Media Matters noted.

While Thompson's committee did hear testimony from former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour in July 1997, on October 30, 1997 -- the day before Thompson adjourned the hearings -- The New York Times reported (subscription required) that Senate investigators had found evidence of Triad's connections to Republican lawmakers, including members of Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee. The Times added: "Hearings had been scheduled for this week before the Governmental Affairs Committee into Triad's campaign activities, but Republicans on the committee canceled them after Democratic members of the committee obtained names earlier this week of Triad's donors":

Documents released by Senate investigators today identified 20 donors to a private conservative organization that worked outside the normal political channels in ways that benefited conservative Republicans, including two members of the Senate committee investigating campaign finances.

One beneficiary was Senator Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican who as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee has been trying to persuade the Senate leadership to end the hearings that have proceeded for almost four months under the direction of Senator Fred Thompson, Republican of Tennessee.

Another committee member who benefited from the organization's activities was Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas.

Senator Nickles appeared in marketing advertisements for the organization, Triad Management Services, a consulting group that helped conservative donors make contributions outside the purview of Federal election laws. Mr. Nickles's political action committee received tens of thousands of dollars in donations in 1996 from some of Triad's biggest donors.

In Mr. Brownback's 1996 Senate race, a last-minute $400,000 television advertising blitz was paid for by Triad donors. These advertisements appeared in the closing weeks of the election and attacked his Democratic opponent as an out-of-state liberal.

[...]

Hearings had been scheduled for this week before the Governmental Affairs Committee into Triad's campaign activities, but Republicans on the committee canceled them after Democratic members of the committee obtained names earlier this week of Triad's donors.

Other media outlets also reported that Thompson canceled the hearings just as they were about to turn to testimony about Triad. For instance, an October 30, 1997, Roll Call article reported:

Senate Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn) is refusing to give Democrats their own day of hearings to air allegations of GOP fundraising abuses, saying they blew their chance when Democratic staffers allegedly obtained bank records improperly.

The bank records reveal the names of donors to two non-profit groups, Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republican Education Fund, which funded TV ads attacking Democratic candidates in the last election cycle. The contributions were solicited by Triad Management Inc., a GOP consulting firm that has come under heavy scrutiny by Democratic investigators.

One GOP committee aide said the manner in which Democratic staff obtained the records from Crestar Bank was "one of the most outrageous, unethical series of events we've seen to date."

The GOP aide added, "The chairman is going to have something to say about it... We're going to ask that something be done to the staff person involved in it."

In a letter to Thompson on Tuesday, Governmental Affairs ranking member John Glenn (D-Ohio) deplored "the false assertion that my staff has somehow acted improperly in regard to a subpoena for certain bank records of Triad Management. The fact is that they acted properly throughout."

Glenn has said that Thompson originally agreed to let him have three days of hearings, in addition to the three days Democrats controlled in August, to delve into GOP fundraising abuses. But GOP aides have strongly denied that such an agreement was ever made.

As Media Matters has noted, on November 1, 1997, the day after the suspension of the proceedings, the Los Angeles Times reported on Democrats' suspicion that the hearings had been ended just in time to prevent examination of Brownback's and Nickles' connections to Triad:

Although Thompson said he reserved the right to resume hearings before the committee's Dec. 31 cutoff date if dramatic new evidence turns up, Democrats noted the suspension came as they were about to examine how two Republicans on the panel had benefited from secret donations given to a conservative consulting group.

Democrats had planned to call witnesses to show that the group, Triad Management Services, accepted donations totaling $400,000 to help Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) win election last year. Triad also paid for advertisements to benefit Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), according to documents.

Although no illegalities were alleged, the Triad episode was to demonstrate how Republicans as well as Democrats had taken advantage of private citizen groups -- with no contribution limits or disclosure requirements -- to finance campaign activities with no public reporting required and no limit on contributions.

Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, the ranking Democrat on Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an interview Friday: "Obviously, they didn't want the Triad evidence to come out. But we'll include it in the final report."

A Boston Globe article from November 1, 1997, reporting on Thompson's cancellation of the remainder of the hearings also noted the connection and further noted that even though Thompson had canceled the day of hearings he had promised to Democrats, "continuing the Senate hearings likely would allow Democrats to control the agenda at some point." From the Globe:

On the surface, it may seem surprising that Republicans don't want to continue an investigation that has focused on Clinton. But continuing the Senate hearings likely would allow Democrats to control the agenda at some point and present evidence about GOP fund-raising practices.

For example, the most outspoken advocate for ending the hearings is Senator Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican, who serves on the committee. Democrats have spent months accumulating documents about an organization called Triad Management that is tied to Nickles. Democrats said Triad took anonymous donations and funneled the money into advertisements that helped Republicans. Democrats have said the operation skirts campaign-finance laws and have noted Nickles once filmed an advertisement praising the group. Triad officials have denied any wrongdoing.

A Knight-Ridder Newspapers article from the same day reported that Democrats said they were preparing to introduce information that might have damaged Nickles:

Nickles may have found himself under the spotlight if the hearings had continued and started examining independent groups, as Democrats wanted.

Democrats said Friday that the hearings were stopped just as they were about to start turning the spotlight on campaign spending by independent groups, including groups that help Republicans. The DNC [Democratic National Committee] issued a statement charging that Republicans were blocking the committee Democrats from turning the focus to a pro-Republican organization with ties to Nickles.

By 1998, the FEC "had concluded that Triad had violated federal campaign laws by failing to register as a federal political committee," according to Roll Call (subscription required). A December 5, 2002, Kansas City Star article reported that the FEC found that "Brownback's in-laws, John and Ruth Stauffer of Topeka, violated federal election laws by funneling excessive campaign donations to him in 1996" through Triad and political action committees working with Triad. The FEC also ordered Brownback's campaign to refund to the U.S. Treasury $19,000 in over-the-limit contributions. A Media Matters search of the Nexis database did not find any reports indicating that Nickles' reported involvement with Triad resulted in legal action.

From the September 10 issue of Newsweek:

Though he'd been in the Senate only a few years, in 1997 Thompson was picked to lead a major investigation into Democratic fund-raising abuses during the 1996 presidential campaign. Republican leaders dreamed of calling top White House aides -- and maybe even Bill Clinton and Al Gore -- to testify about big checks from shady Chinese businessmen and rich donors buying pajama parties in the Lincoln Bedroom. GOP leaders saw Thompson as the perfect master of ceremonies for what they envisioned would be a C-Span skewering.

It didn't turn out that way. Thompson wound up losing control of the investigation, and the support of his own party, when the committee turned its attention to Republican campaign abuses as well. Thompson has said he wanted to make sure the inquiry was fair, and not just a Republican hunting party that would be viewed with suspicion by the public. But Republicans thought he was a weak chairman who was outmaneuvered by committee Democrats. The investigation fizzled and eventually shut down; Thompson was a near pariah among some Senate Republicans. Trent Lott was so furious at his friend that he stopped speaking to him. Letters in Thompson's archives show that he put in several requests for a seat on the Senate intelligence committee, but Lott blocked them.