|
1. Out of Control: Matthews Drops F-Bomb in MSNBC Rant Against Bush
Hardball host Chris Matthews lurched even further off the deep end on Wednesday's Imus in the Morning. After praising the "great job" Rudy Giuliani did in cleaning up New York City, the MSNBC star, who appeared by phone, went on a rant declaring how he's "sick of southern guys with ranches running this country." Losing control, Matthews dropped the F-bomb on national television: "I want a guy to run for President who doesn't have a fucking -- I'm sorry, a ranch." As host Don Imus began to snicker, Matthews plowed ahead with his Democratic talking points: "Wouldn't that be good, Don, a guy who wasn't on the ranch during Katrina, he was on the street corner answering questions?" AUDIO&VIDEO
2. Hume Scolds Papers for Spin on Iraq Resolution Favorable to Dems
FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night scolded the mainstream media for framing their coverage, of the Senate battle over Iraq resolutions, around a spin favorable to Democrats. Citing headlines, such "GOP blocks a debate over Iraq policy" in the New York Times, Hume countered: "In fact, of course, both sides were trying to have the debate on terms most favorable to their party, but in this case as it happened, the Republicans were actually seeking a broader debate with more resolutions considered while the Democrats wanted to address just those that seemed most likely to come out their way."
3. Today Show Cues Up Tom Friedman's Iraq Solution: Raise Taxes
Tom Friedman is at it again. Whenever a reporter asks him how to fix the Middle East, Friedman's response is increasingly the same: increase taxes. On Tuesday's Today show, NBC's Meredith Vieira brought on the New York Times columnist to discuss the Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Setting up Friedman with his own premise, Vieira asked: "Well you've said, 'We need to reshape the game board.' What do you mean by that?" Friedman then gave a long-winded response that eventually revealed his solution: "Oil tax."
4. CNN: Money 'Poured Down' Iraq 'Hole' Instead of Domestic Spending
Books, not bombs? Like a golden oldie from the Reagan Eighties, CNN's Tom Foreman forwarded the classic liberal claim on
Tuesday's (noon Eastern) Your World Today -- a CNN International simulcast on CNN -- that the Iraq war is so costly that it could have been better spent on hundreds of grade schools or millions of new teachers, new cargo inspectors, and new cops -- or "every American driver could get free gasoline for a year." Co-anchor Jim Clancy began by lamenting all the money "poured down the hole" on Iraq: "Turning back to Iraq now, it is a loaded question, for sure, Hala, and it's this -- do you have any idea at all how much money in U.S. taxes have poured down the hole, so to speak, in Iraq?"
5. Read It Here First: FNC Picks Up Thomas on 'Our Job to Bash' Bush
You Read it Here First. FNC's Brit Hume, in his "Grapevine" segment on Tuesday's Special Report with Brit Hume, picked up on how Newsweek's Evan Thomas declared on last weekend's Inside Washington that, referring to journalists, "our job is to bash the President."
 Out of Control: Matthews Drops F-Bomb
in MSNBC Rant Against Bush
[This item, by Rich Noyes, was posted with video Wednesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. The audio/video will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert. In the meantime, to listen to the MP3 audio, or to watch the Real or Windows Media video, go to: newsbusters.org ]
Radio listeners were spared Matthews' cursing, but no such luck for those watching the MSNBC simulcast. After saying goodbye to Matthews about three minutes later, Imus and his crew mocked their MSNBC colleague. MSNBC's on-screen file photo of Matthews was altered to include a black censor bar over his mouth. Executive Producer Bernard McGuirk suggested Matthews was the sort who would "put on a diaper and drive 900 miles to abduct Dick Cheney or somebody," and someone else offered that "he's crazy."
Imus was the diplomat: "But isn't that what we like about him? I love his energy, his passion."
Here's the transcript of Matthews' comments, which happened at about 7:45 ET: "We love good mayors because we love our cities and Giuliani is the city guy, and I'm so sick of southern guys with ranches running this country. I want a guy to run for President who doesn't have a fucking -- I'm sorry, a ranch. Wouldn't that be good, Don, a guy who wasn't on the ranch during Katrina, he was on the street corner answering questions?"
 Hume Scolds Papers for Spin on Iraq Resolution
Favorable to Dems
FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night scolded the mainstream media for framing their coverage, of the Senate battle over Iraq resolutions, around a spin favorable to Democrats. Citing headlines, such "GOP blocks a debate over Iraq policy" in the New York Times, Hume countered: "In fact, of course, both sides were trying to have the debate on terms most favorable to their party, but in this case as it happened, the Republicans were actually seeking a broader debate with more resolutions considered while the Democrats wanted to address just those that seemed most likely to come out their way."
Hume reported during his "Grapevine" segment on the February 6 Special Report with Brit Hume:
"When Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of all three competing resolutions on Iraq yesterday, seeking instead to bring only two to the Senate floor, Republicans stopped them from bringing the issue up at all. The Democrats then complained that Republicans were blocking debate on Iraq, and mainstream media outlets immediately agreed.
"'Republicans block Senate Debate on Iraq,' said the AP. 'GOP blocks a debate over Iraq policy,' concurred the New York Times. 'GOP stalls debate on troop increase,' echoed the Washington Post. In fact, of course, both sides were trying to have the debate on terms most favorable to their party, but in this case as it happened, the Republicans were actually seeking a broader debate with more resolutions considered while the Democrats wanted to address just those that seemed most likely to come out their way."
 Today Show Cues Up Tom Friedman's Iraq
Solution: Raise Taxes
Tom Friedman is at it again. Whenever a reporter asks him how to fix the Middle East, Friedman's response is increasingly the same: increase taxes. On Tuesday's Today show, NBC's Meredith Vieira brought on the New York Times columnist to discuss the Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Setting up Friedman with his own premise, Vieira asked: "Well you've said, 'We need to reshape the game board.' What do you mean by that?" Friedman then gave a long-winded response that eventually revealed his solution: "Oil tax."
[This item, by Geoffrey Dickens, was posted Tuesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Below is the conversation as it occurred in the 7am half hour of the February 6 Today show:
Meredith Vieira: "Well you've said, 'We need to reshape the game board. What do you mean by that?'"
Thomas Friedman: "Well I would argue, you know with all humility, also this is a very confusing situation but it seems to me we need to change the dynamic fundamentally by setting a date to leave and setting a new oil price to live by. What I mean by that is we need to force choices on everybody there. Right now everyone's having their cake and eating it too at our expense. People have militias and they negotiate with us. The Sunnis have an insurgency and they negotiate with us. The Arabs support the Sunni insurgency and they negotiate with us. We need to create a situation, basically, where everyone has to make a choice. If they make the right choice we will continue to help them, if they make the wrong choice we will be out of there. By setting an oil price, and I'm talking about a oil tax that makes us energy independent we create an environment where they, if they make the right choice we win and if they make the wrong choice we are out of Iraq, we are not hostage to their madness and we have a stronger country."
Vieira: "Tom let me go back to that because I want to make sure that I understand. You think that we should set a price floor of $45 per barrel of oil. What does that mean and why would that have a great impact?"
Friedman: "We need to drive conservation in this country at a whole new level and stimulate alternatives so we will be independent of the madness of that part of the world if they make the wrong choices and if they make the right choices we will be nothing but a stronger country for having more alternative energy and basically more independence in our energy choices."
Vieira: "So at this point do you believe there's any leverage the U.S. has to bring these sectarian parties together in Iraq? The Sunnis, the Shia and the Kurds?"
Friedman: "No that, that, that's the problem is that to negotiate in the Middle East, Meredith, you need leverage, alright? This is a region where to negotiate without leverages is like playing baseball without a bat. No one takes you seriously. And the only way we get leverage is if we tell everybody, we are gone by December 1st. All our people are gonna be home for Christmas or on the border of Iraq for Christmas, now you have to make a choice. Do you want to go on with your madness? Well if you do you're gonna have to pay retail for your madness, not wholesale. We're not gonna hold up the floor here any more. If you make the right choices we'll be there to help you but we've got to bring this thing to a head. It will drift forever. You know the old saying Meredith, that if you're in a poker game and you don't know who the sucker is, it's probably you? That's what I'm beginning to feel about Iraq right now."
Vieira: "On that note, Tom Friedman, once again thanks very much."
 CNN: Money 'Poured Down' Iraq 'Hole'
Instead of Domestic Spending
Books, not bombs? Like a golden oldie from the Reagan Eighties, CNN's Tom
Foreman forwarded the classic liberal claim on Tuesday's (noon Eastern) Your World Today -- a CNN International simulcast on CNN -- that the Iraq war is so costly that it could have been better spent on hundreds of grade schools or millions of new teachers, new cargo inspectors, and new cops -- or "every American driver could get free gasoline for a year."
Co-anchor Jim Clancy began by lamenting all the money "poured down the hole" on Iraq: "Turning back to Iraq now, it is a loaded question, for sure, Hala, and it's this -- do you have any idea at all how much money in U.S. taxes have poured down the hole, so to speak, in Iraq?"
Co-anchor Hala Gorani: "Well, I have a general idea, but it's a safe assumption to say that few people do, at least in terms of how much each individual is paying, but some are following the spiraling costs very closely. Tom Foreman is one of them."
[This item about a story caught by the MRC's Michelle Humphrey, was posted Wednesday morning by Tim Graham on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
At least CNN admitted they're in the business of basing their news on "loaded questions." Foreman, an old ABC News hand, compiled a nice "progressive think tank" video news release, complete with the same spiraling cost estimate number the National Priorities Project put on its Web site: costofwar.com
Foreman: "If you study Iraq in purely financial terms and say, show me the money, it's quite a show. This is how much America taxpayers are paying for the war -- more than $350 million and still climbing, based on government records compiled and computed by a progressive think tank, the National Priorities Project. Ken Pollack is with the Brookings Institution."
Ken Pollack, Brookings: "One of the great tragedies of Iraq is that the administration has mismanaged this war so badly that it has wound up costing the taxpayers far more than it might have had things been handled otherwise."
Pollack, by the way, favored war in Iraq, and wrote a book on the Saddam threat titled "The Gathering Storm." He also has an "in" at CNN: he's married to CNN reporter Andrea Koppel, daughter of Ted. Or maybe Ted got his old colleague Foreman to put Pollack on.
There is no doubt that billions have been wasted in Iraq due to waste, fraud, and abuse. However, there is doubt that if a Democratic President was managing a major foreign-aid program of this kind, that the Democrat would be blamed for the waste, fraud, and abuse. It's more likely that it would be either ignored or blamed on the corruption of the locals, and of course, a liberal is always to be praised for his good humanitarian intentions. Back to the story, where Foreman began suggesting Team Bush is fudging the cost numbers:
Foreman: "How much money has been spent on Iraq? The Priorities Project Estimates enough to hire more than six million teachers, enough to build more than 700 new elementary schools, in each state. Eight million police officers could be hired, or six million cargo inspectors for ports. Or, we figure, every American driver could get free gasoline for a year. In the complex world of government budgets, the total estimate can be fairly questioned, but it's a lot more than the White House wants to suggest."
Bush soundbite from 2003: "Today I'm sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of $74.7 billion to fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict and our global war against terror."
This is a bit misleading since Bush makes no "gotcha" statement in this old clip that the war would be cheap, only that he proposed a supplemental spending bill, which he's done to fund the war in each budget cycle. It ended this way:
Foreman: "Government investigators say billions have been loss to fraud, mismanagement or bad bookkeeping. And the spending won't end when the fighting does. American troops and equipment have held up well.
USAF Major Gen. Don Sheppard (Ret.): "I could see the cost of war going up another 50 percent, and maybe even doubling because of what we have to do to replace personnel, ammunition and equipment over a long period of time."
Foreman: "Plenty of people argue that establishing democracy anywhere is worth whatever it takes, and of course no one can put a value on all of the brave young lives lost, or calculate the cost of leaving. But the price tag of the war so far is impressive. In time it took you to watch this story, Iraq cost America almost $500,000 more. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington."
 Read It Here First: FNC Picks Up Thomas
on 'Our Job to Bash' Bush
You Read it Here First. FNC's Brit Hume, in his "Grapevine" segment on Tuesday's Special Report with Brit Hume, picked up on how Newsweek's Evan Thomas declared on last weekend's Inside Washington that, referring to journalists, "our job is to bash the President."
Hume explained on his February 6 show: "Newsweek magazine Assistant Managing Editor and noted author Evan Thomas was asked on a local Washington TV program the other day whether the media has been bashing the President unfairly. His response quote, 'our job is to bash the President. That's what we do almost.' He went on to say that the President had lost support after he quote, 'kissed off the Iraq Study Group.' Thomas in the past has acknowledged the media have a bias in their reporting -- saying the press favored John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. His comments over the weekend followed an assertion by National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg that the President had received a quote 'free ride' for years, and now is getting fierce coverage."
A Monday NewsBusters posting by Tim Graham, which was included in Tuesday's CyberAlert, recounted:
On Friday night's edition of Inside Washington, a local Washington, DC program produced by DC's ABC affiliate, WJLA-TV, but first aired Friday night on PBS station WETA-TV, the first topic was whether the media's been unfair to President Bush, given his abysmal approval ratings. NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said Bush received a "free ride" for years, so now the worm has turned and the coverage is fierce. Then the host turned to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who was frank in his assessment of the media's role: "Well, our job is to bash the President, that's what we do..." See: www.mrc.org
-- Brent Baker
|
FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night scolded the mainstream media for framing their coverage, of the Senate battle over Iraq resolutions, around a spin favorable to Democrats. Citing headlines, such "GOP blocks a debate over Iraq policy" in the New York Times, Hume countered: "In fact, of course, both sides were trying to have the debate on terms most favorable to their party, but in this case as it happened, the Republicans were actually seeking a broader debate with more resolutions considered while the Democrats wanted to address just those that seemed most likely to come out their way." 
Tom Friedman is at it again. Whenever a reporter asks him how to fix the Middle East, Friedman's response is increasingly the same: increase taxes. On Tuesday's Today show, NBC's Meredith Vieira brought on the New York Times columnist to discuss the Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Setting up Friedman with his own premise, Vieira asked: "Well you've said, 'We need to reshape the game board.' What do you mean by that?" Friedman then gave a long-winded response that eventually revealed his solution: "Oil tax." 
Books, not bombs? Like a golden oldie from the Reagan Eighties, CNN's Tom
Foreman forwarded the classic liberal claim on Tuesday's (noon Eastern) Your World Today -- a CNN International simulcast on CNN -- that the Iraq war is so costly that it could have been better spent on hundreds of grade schools or millions of new teachers, new cargo inspectors, and new cops -- or "every American driver could get free gasoline for a year." 
Foreman: "If you study Iraq in purely financial terms and say, show me the money, it's quite a show. This is how much America taxpayers are paying for the war -- more than $350 million and still climbing, based on government records compiled and computed by a progressive think tank, the National Priorities Project. Ken Pollack is with the Brookings Institution." 
You Read it Here First. FNC's Brit Hume, in his "Grapevine" segment on Tuesday's Special Report with Brit Hume, picked up on how Newsweek's Evan Thomas declared on last weekend's Inside Washington that, referring to journalists, "our job is to bash the President." 
