Outlets Disguise Agenda of Ex-Reporter's Group, Hype Iraq 'Lies' --1/24/2008

1. Outlets Disguise Agenda of Ex-Reporter's Group, Hype Iraq 'Lies'
AP, MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times on Wednesday all promoted a "study" by a couple of affiliated far-left groups, supposedly documenting "935 false statements" about Iraq made by Bush officials, but in hyping the proof of "lies" which led to war, the news outlets disguised the ideology of the groups -- led by a former ABC and CBS reporter/producer -- and how many of the "false" statements were about Iraq possessing WMD, which FNC's Brit Hume pointed out was "a concept nearly universally accepted by most of the world's intelligence services at the time." Keith Olbermann, who in 2006 slammed the Media Research Center as a "rabid right-wing spin group," Wednesday night on Countdown with "935 lies" on screen on top of a picture of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, described the Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism as merely "two non-profit groups" who have "done the algebra" on "the administration's countless lies about Iraq." Last September, CNN's Jack Cafferty accurately described the MRC as a "conservative media watchdog outfit," but he euphemistically tagged the left-wing groups as "two non-profit journalism groups" with a study which "found President Bush led the pack with 260 lies."

2. ABC's Diane Sawyer Longs for Calm Between Clinton and Obama
Good Morning America co-host Diane Sawyer used an interview with Senator Barack Obama on Wednesday to repeatedly plead for a truce between the Democratic presidential contender and his chief opponent, Hillary Clinton. Discussing the verbal battle that took place during Monday's debate, Sawyer implored: "We have heard a lot of people say they are exhausted by this charge, counter charge." Later in the segment, the GMA co-host reiterated the need for calm, saying: "So, is this done? Is it a truce for future debates? No more of that kind of back and forth?" Clearly, a contentious conflict between the two liberal heavyweights bothered Sawyer. (This is, it should be restated, the same show that in early 2007 featured a reporter sizing up the Obama/Clinton battle as one between the Illinois Senator's "fluid poetry" and the former First Lady's "hot factor.") She closed the segment by, yet again, repeating the same question. After Obama speculated that further debates would relate to issues and not personal attacks, the ABC journalist hopefully queried: "Sounds as if you're really declaring a truce this morning. Different tone?"

3. CBS's Smith Asks Obama About Rezko, Never Asked Clinton About Hsu
In an usually tough interview with Barack Obama on Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked the Illinois Senator about a financial scandal involving Tony Rezko that Hillary Clinton brought up during Monday's Democratic debate on CNN: "This is a guy that's facing federal charges of fraud and influence peddling next month. What is your real relationship with Tony Resco?" While such tough questioning of presidential candidates is certainly appropriate, one wonders why Harry Smith never asked Hillary Clinton about her involvement with convicted felon, Norman Hsu, who made significant financial contributions to the Clinton campaign.

Outlets Disguise Agenda of Ex-Reporter's
Group, Hype Iraq 'Lies'

AP, MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times on Wednesday all promoted a "study" by a couple of affiliated far-left groups, supposedly documenting "935 false statements" about Iraq made by Bush officials, but in hyping the proof of "lies" which led to war, the news outlets disguised the ideology of the groups -- led by a former ABC and CBS reporter/producer -- and how many of the "false" statements were about Iraq possessing WMD, which FNC's Brit Hume pointed out was "a concept nearly universally accepted by most of the world's intelligence services at the time."

Keith Olbermann, who in 2006 slammed the Media Research Center as a "rabid right-wing spin group," Wednesday night on Countdown with "935 lies" on screen on top of a picture of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, described the Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism as merely "two non-profit groups" who have "done the algebra" on "the administration's countless lies about Iraq." Last September, CNN's Jack Cafferty accurately described the MRC as a "conservative media watchdog outfit," but he euphemistically tagged the left-wing groups as "two non-profit journalism groups" with a study which "found President Bush led the pack with 260 lies." Cafferty's labeling echoed AP's reference to "two non-profit journalism organizations."

MSNBC's Dan Abrams lent the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) credibility as "a non-profit, non-partisan investigative journalism group." On WashingtonPost.com, Dan Froomkin hailed the "non-profit group pursuing old-fashioned accountability journalism" and a Wednesday New York Times story cited CPI as "a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy."

Froomkin's piece: www.washingtonpost.com

(For much more on the January 23 New York Times article, check this posting, "'Remarkable' New Left-Wing Database Shows Bush Lied Us Into War," by Clay Waters on the MRC's TimesWatch site: www.timeswatch.org )

[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Thursday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Olbermann on the MRC, as quoted above: www.mediaresearch.org

Cafferty applying a label to the MRC, as quoted above: www.mediaresearch.org

The CPI report, "False Pretenses: Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq," carried the bylines of Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith. CPI's bio for Lewis noted how he founded CPI "in 1989 and served as its executive director until December, 2004. He is now the president of The Fund for Independence in Journalism." The bio also recalled:
"From 1977 through 1988, Lewis did investigative reporting at ABC News, and at CBS News as a producer for senior correspondent Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes."

He may look familiar, since from the late 1990s through 2004, he was a frequent source in TV network stories about money in politics. The screen shot [to be added above to the posted CyberAlert] is from a soundbite on the May 11, 2004 NBC Nightly News.

The report: www.publicintegrity.org

The Lewis bio: www.publicintegrity.org

Home page for the Fund for Independence in Journalism: www.tfij.org

Home page for the Center for Public Integrity: www.publicintegrity.org

FNC's Brit Hume on Wednesday night noted the common belief of many of the statements considered false and how George Soros funds CPI. From the January 23 "Grapevine" segment on Special Report with Brit Hume:

A study by two self-described non-profit journalism organizations accuses President Bush and his advisers of 935 false statements about the threat from Iraq in the two years following the 9-11 attacks. But a large number of those statements were drawn from repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- a concept nearly universally accepted by most of the world's intelligence services at the time. For example, President Bush said of Hussein quote, "He has weapons of mass destruction. He's used them before. He's used them on his own people before." In fact we know now that Hussein had chemical weapons. He was being tried on charges of killing 5,000 Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons when he was executed for other crimes.

The study was done by the Fund for Independence in Journalism -- which is an arm of the Center for Public Integrity -- which is heavily funded by Bush critic George Soros.

In his "Best of the Web Today" rundown for the Wall Street Journal's Web site, James Taranto critiqued an AP dispatch headlined, "Study: False statements preceded war." Taranto asserted:

Nowhere in the entire dispatch does the AP tell us anything more about the two groups than that they are "nonprofit journalism organizations." In fact, the Center for Public Integrity is a liberal-left group that has taken money from George Soros, who has compared contemporary America to Nazi Germany. The Fund for Independence in Journalism seems to be but a spinoff; its Web site says its "primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support" for the center.

Taranto's January 23 posting: www.opinionjournal.com

The AP story, as posted by Yahoo: news.yahoo.com

With "935 lies" on screen in big letters over a picture of President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, with "BUSH LIES BY THE NUMBERS: IRAQ UNTRUTHS TALLIED UP" beneath, Keith Olbermann teased Wednesday's Countdown on MSNBC:
"So much for the theory of the administration's countless lies about Iraq: Two non-profit groups have done the algebra and show their math: 935 between 2001 and 2003, 935 false statements to the American people about the threat from Iraq."

In the subsequent segment, Olbermann interviewed Rachel Maddow of Air America.

In the next hour on MSNBC, 9pm EST, Dan Abrams set up a segment on his show: "We have all heard about the lies, the cherry picking, the hyped intelligence in the run-up to the war with Iraq, but now a new study is holding the Bush administration's feet to the fire. The Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit, non-partisan investigative journalism group has compiled a list of the instances the Bush administration made false statements leading up to the war. The magic number, 935..."

On Wednesday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty lamented the fact that American troops were still in Iraq and that thousands of them had died: "President Bush said that at the time he and other officials made these statements, the U.S. intelligence community and other nations thought Iraq had WMD. But they didn't. And yet, we're still there, and almost 4,000 of our troops are dead because of it."

Cafferty began his January 23 segment in the 4pm EST hour:

President Bush and top administration officials publicly made 935 false statements -- that's a polite way to say lies -- about the risk posed by Iraq in the two years following 9/11, according to a study done by two nonprofit journalism groups. The study found President Bush led the pack with 260 lies. But he wasn't alone. Other officials include: Vice President Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (before she got promoted), and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others. The study points to at least 532 times where officials said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to get them or had links to al Qaeda. They say the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

His question of the hour: "What do you make of a study that shows President Bush and his top aides made 935 false statements about the threat from Iraq in the two years following 9/11?"

Back later in the hour with the posted and e-mailed replies, Cafferty read one message which pointed out the Soros connection, but all the rest of the replies he highlighted condemned the "lies," urged prosecution for "war crimes" or called for impeachment:

The question this hour is: What do you make of a study? It was done by two nonprofit groups of journalist, a study that shows President Bush and his top aides made 935 false statements about the threat from Iraq in the two years following 9/11.

Larry writes: "I don't think anyone would be surprised that they lied, and this often. But, what's going to happen? Nothing. They will get away with this, like they have gotten everything else for the last seven years. What is wrong with this country when we have allowed this to happen? By tomorrow, you will never hear about this story again."

Dave in Brooklyn writes: "If I had any say in the matter at all, I would make a very strong case for impeachment out of it. But my question is, where were these journalists six years ago?"

Nelson in New Jersey: "Quick, someone make a copy of this database, so we'll have a proper backup in the event it disappears, like the administration's e-mails. This will come in handy when they're prosecuted for war crimes."

Vinny writes: "Hey, Jack, you failed to mention that the study was done by the Center for Public Integrity, which has ties to George Soros and which he funds through his Open Society Institute."

Michael writes from Connecticut: "Now that the truth has come out about what we already knew about Iraq, this Congress has a duty to bring impeachment against Bush and Cheney, as this is very serious and they must be held accountable -- billions and billions of dollars spent on top of thousands of innocent people dead because of this Iraq War based on lies. Congress must act."

Ben writes from Louisville, Kentucky: "What is worse, 935 lies or the watchdog press not doing anything about it for seven years?"

And Judy writes: "When I read your blog, my stomach turned: 4,000 kids who will never see the light of day again and their families, all for a pack of lies. Some legacy, this Bush and company."

ABC's Diane Sawyer Longs for Calm Between
Clinton and Obama

Good Morning America co-host Diane Sawyer used an interview with Senator Barack Obama on Wednesday to repeatedly plead for a truce between the Democratic presidential contender and his chief opponent, Hillary Clinton. Discussing the verbal battle that took place during Monday's debate, Sawyer implored: "We have heard a lot of people say they are exhausted by this charge, counter charge."

Later in the segment, the GMA co-host reiterated the need for calm, saying: "So, is this done? Is it a truce for future debates? No more of that kind of back and forth?" Clearly, a contentious conflict between the two liberal heavyweights bothered Sawyer. (This is, it should be restated, the same show that in early 2007 featured a reporter sizing up the Obama/Clinton battle as one between the Illinois Senator's "fluid poetry" and the former First Lady's "hot factor.") She closed the segment by, yet again, repeating the same question. After Obama speculated that further debates would relate to issues and not personal attacks, the ABC journalist hopefully queried: "Sounds as if you're really declaring a truce this morning. Different tone?"

(For a recap of the original GMA report on Obama's "fluid poetry," see the January 19, 2007 CyberAlert: www.mrc.org )

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Wednesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Sawyer also questioned Obama about Tony Rezko, the indicted real estate developer who bought property next to what would become the senator's Chicago home, thus making Obama's deal to buy his land go through easier. Sawyer began her question by stating, "As we know, Mr. Rezko is a real estate developer." Well, many Americans don't know about the story. A Nexis search found only one mention of the scandal on ABC prior to January 10, 2008. (On that date, reporter Brian Ross looked into the subject.) And one could certainly make the argument that the only reason it's being covered now is because Mrs. Clinton has been publicly attacking Obama about it. For more on the Brian Ross report on Tony Rezko, see the January 11 CyberAlert: www.mrc.org

A transcript of the story, which aired at 7:15am on January 23:

DIANE SAWYER: And minutes ago, we had a chance to talk to Senator Barack Obama about all of this. We have heard a lot of people say they are exhausted by this charge, counter charge. Senator Hillary Clinton said you're the one who came looking for a fight in that debate. My question is, did you, and do you think anything you did is turning people off?
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Well, Diane, I haven't been looking for a fight, I've been looking to solve the problems that face the country. And I think anybody who has watched this campaign knows we have run a consistently positive campaign. The only thing that I want to make sure to do during this debate was to correct some of the, you know, distortions of my record that have been brought up during the course of this campaign.
SAWYER: So, so-
OBAMA: Ultimately, ultimately what the American people, I think, are looking for is somebody who is going to be straight with them about how we solve the immediate economic crisis that we're facing and how we solve some of our long-term problems to make sure our next generation is going to be able to live out the American dream.
SAWYER: So, is this done? Is it a truce for future debates? No more of that kind of back and forth?
OBAMA: I'm sure that there are going to be disagreements on policy. My hope is, is that what we stop is some of the presentations of each other's records that may not be accurate. And that's what I think I wanted to specifically address.
SAWYER: Well, we are examining both sides this morning. And one thing I just wanted to address, and try to clear up this morning is the whole question of Tony Rezko. Because, as we know, Senator Clinton had something to say about him, this in the debate. It was a charge leveled at you.
HILLARY CLINTON: Yes. They did have ideas and they were bad ideas. Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.
SAWYER: As we know, Mr. Rezko is a real estate developer. He has been charged with fraud and money laundering. You returned $85,000 of money donated from him and business associates from his campaign. But, this morning, the Clinton campaign says you've not returned it all, an estimated $200,000 reported in the L.A. Times.
OBAMA: Well, we have returned any money that we know was associated to Mr. Rezko and, you know, that is something that if there's additional information that we don't know about, we would be happy to return the money. You know, the facts are this. This is somebody who was active in politics in Illinois, who I knew. Nobody had any indications that he was engaging in wrong-doing. At the point where he was engaging in alleged wrong-doing, it had nothing to do with me and nobody has made that allegation and Senator Clinton knows that. But the important thing -- The important thing, Diane-
SAWYER: You said it was -- excuse me, but you said it was bone-headed, to enter into the real estate relationship with him on that parcel of land when he was under a cloud of suspicion.
OBAMA: Well, what is certainly true is that, in terms of appearances, and I've already said this, that I should not have entered into any kind of agreement with him. But the important point, Diane, and this has been -- this story has been repeated again and again, everybody who is investigated, knows that I haven't gotten in involved in anything that was related to the problems that he's having with the law. Now, what is also important is that right now, we've gotten an economy that is tumbling, in a downward spiral, and we've got to have a president who is consistently talking about those issues that matter to the ordinary person who is living paycheck to paycheck.
SAWYER: Do you think that in what President Clinton is doing, that he has diminished the respected role of a former president? Do you think he's crossing some sort of line by campaigning against and attacking you?
OBAMA: Oh, I think it's perfectly acceptable for former President Clinton to campaign on behalf of his wife. You know, there's nothing wrong with that and I've never had any objection to that. The only thing I want to make sure of is that when he goes after me, that he goes after me on the basis of facts and policy differences, and, you know, stuff isn't just made up. And that's what we addressed in the debate. My hope and suspicion is that going forward, they will be a little more cautious in terms of how they present what's going on. And if we do that, then we have can have a healthy debate. I'm happy to have a discussion with anybody about how we're going to move this country forward in an effective way.
SAWYER: Sounds as if you're really declaring a truce this morning. Different tone?
OBAMA: You know, Diane, I think that we've been through a very long campaign. One thing I'm proud of is that my tone has been consistent. And that has been respectful, honest and trying to focus on the problems the American people are concerned about.
SAWYER: Quick question. Are you really going to give President Clinton an age allowance on the dance contest?
OBAMA: We'll certainly invite him to the inauguration party. We concede there.

CBS's Smith Asks Obama About Rezko, Never
Asked Clinton About Hsu

In an usually tough interview with Barack Obama on Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked the Illinois Senator about a financial scandal involving Tony Rezko that Hillary Clinton brought up during Monday's Democratic debate on CNN: "This is a guy that's facing federal charges of fraud and influence peddling next month. What is your real relationship with Tony Resco?" While such tough questioning of presidential candidates is certainly appropriate, one wonders why Harry Smith never asked Hillary Clinton about her involvement with convicted felon, Norman Hsu, who made significant financial contributions to the Clinton campaign.

On September 18 of last year, while Clinton was asked about the Hsu scandal by co-host Matt Lauer on NBC's Today, Smith was busy touting her health care plan on CBS, ignoring Hsu completely: "Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, has now outlined her plan for health care reform. In a new CBS News poll, 66 percent of voters said her health care experience in Bill Clinton's Administration is actually a strength for her. As we know, her efforts in the 1990s failed, 52 percent of those questioned said it wasn't her fault. Senator Clinton joins us this morning."

[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

This was despite the fact that Smith had reported on the Hsu scandal while filling in for Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News on August 31 and September 6.

Check the September 4 CyberAlert about Smith's reporting on Hsu here: www.mrc.org

Read the September 10 CyberAlert about Smith's reporting on Hsu here: www.mrc.org

Here is the full transcript of Wednesday's segment:

HARRY SMITH: We turn now to the presidential race, 2008. As we've been saying all week, the Democrats, Clinton and Obama, have been engaged in hand-to-hand combat with no let-up in sight. We spoke earlier this morning with Senator Barack Obama. Joining us now from Columbia, South Carolina, is Senator Barack Obama. Good morning, Senator.
BARACK OBAMA: Good morning, Harry. How are you?
SMITH: Very well. Quick question for you, when you walked off the stage Monday night, I wonder if you said to yourself, I wish I had said or I wish I hadn't said fill in the blank.
OBAMA: No, I thought it was a vigorous debate. It's what I think people are expecting in a hard fought contest, and you know, the key issues, I think, that need to be talked about are the ones that I'm hearing from families all across South Carolina and all across the country. People are working harder for less money. They're worried about the consequences of Bush economic policies that over the last several years have really put people in a hole, you know, because of a combination of lax oversight of the subprime lending market, as a consequence of tax policies that have been skewed against people who are living paycheck to paycheck. We've got a lot of problems in this country -- go ahead.
SMITH: Well, let's talk about your economic stimulus -- all right. Let's talk about your economic stimulus plan for a second, though. The president is talking about giving $800 a person, $1,600 a married couple. Yours calls for much less cash than that in the pockets of Americans. How come?
OBAMA: Well, we were first out of the box in terms of saying that we needed a tax rebate and a supplement to Social Security, and we've got two phases in terms of how that money is released. Initial phase of $35 billion. A second phase of another $35 billion. It appears that the economy may be deteriorating more quickly than when we first put out our plan, so we can make adjustments in terms of what the amount of the rebate is. The important principle is to make sure that we get --
SMITH: Well the pres -- here's the thing, the problem is now.
OBAMA: Money to productive people as soon as possible --
SMITH: The president and Congress have said something needs to be done within a month. If you were sitting in on those negotiations right now, what would you say needed to be done? How much?
OBAMA: Well, I think that it's important for us to make sure that we get as much money as quickly as possible into the pockets of hard-working Americans understanding that, you know, we have finite resources, but that it's better off for us to spend the dollars now, even if it turns out later that, you know, we're going to have to pay some of that money back.
SMITH: I'm going to go back to the debate Monday night. Mrs. Clinton brought up your relationship with Tony Rezko. You explained it to a degree, but can you just put into perspective who -- your relationship with this guy from the standpoint that he funneled tens of thousands of dollars into your campaigns over the years. You bought property right next to him. This is a guy that's facing federal charges of fraud and influence peddling next month. What is your real relationship with Tony Rezko?
OBAMA: Well, my relationship is that he was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed, and what is true is that I also purchased a piece of land from him. Everything was above board, and there's been no allegations that there wasn't.
SMITH: Senator Obama, thanks very much for your time this morning.
OBAMA: Thank you.

-- Brent Baker