|
1. ABC Distorts Bush's Admonition on "Lying/War for Oil" Rhetoric
In Louisville on Wednesday afternoon, President Bush welcomed criticisms of going to war in Iraq and of the conduct of the war, but he castigated those who say "'he lied.' Or, 'they're in there for oil.' Or 'they're doing it because of Israel.'" But on Wednesday's World News Tonight, Martha Raddatz centered an entire story around, in response to the question of "How can people help on the war on terror?", this soundbite from Bush: "One way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way." That was all viewers heard from Bush -- nothing about how he was specifically admonishing politicians against derisive "Bush lied/war for oil/blame the Jews" hate speech. Nonetheless, Raddatz then moved to discredit Bush's point by highlighting how "Marine Corps reservist Andrew Horne, a two-time Iraq veteran and now a congressional candidate" asserted that "the President is attempting to limit debate about the war because it is not going well." Horne then denounced Bush for trying to censor the very kind of "honest" analysis Bush specifically said was within bounds: "I don't think, you know, honest criticism damages morale at all..."
2. ABC Adopts Liberal Spin of "Discriminatory" CAP, Link to Alito
All three broadcast network evening shows on Wednesday night highlighted Mrs. Alito crying at the Senate confirmation hearing for her husband Samuel, as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham apologized for character attacks on her husband by left-wing Senators. Citing the breakdown, CBS's Gloria Borger suggested the emotional outburst "may be the picture that people really remember from these hearings," and she asked: "The question is whether the Democrats took this a step too far today?" But ABC adopted as fact the liberal Democratic allegations about the supposedly bigoted agenda of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas referred to Alito's "membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college." The subsequent report from George Stephanopoulos highlighted a soundbite of Democratic Senator Richard Durbin describing CAP as one which "would discriminate against women and minorities." Stephanopoulos relayed how Democrats "say the group was notorious for its discriminatory agenda when Alito listed it in his 1985 job application for the Reagan Justice Department. So notorious that prominent Princeton alumni like Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist had publicly disavowed it."
3. Stephanopoulos Corrects Gibson's Scolding of Alito on Abortion
On Wednesday's Good Morning America, co-host Charles Gibson so misconstrued what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said, about abortion at his Senate confirmation hearing the day before, that George Stephanopoulos was forced to correct him: "He didn't say that though. He didn't say either one." Gibson had propounded: "I'm confused. He did write in a 1985 questionnaire, and this is a critical question to so many people. He wrote that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. And then he said yesterday, 'That's what I thought in 1985. If the issue were to come before me now, I would approach the question now with an open mind.' I'm not sure what that means. How can he say he would have an open mind on it if he believes what he wrote in 1985?"
 ABC Distorts Bush's Admonition on "Lying/War
for Oil" Rhetoric
At an event in Louisville, Kentucky Wednesday afternoon, President George W. Bush said that "I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq" and he urged people to be "mindful about what messages out of the country can do to the morale of our troops." He went on to "welcome the voices of people saying, you know, 'Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision,' or, you know, 'you should have done it a better way,'" but castigated those who say "'he lied.' Or, 'they're in there for oil.' Or 'they're doing it because of Israel.' That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise."
But on Wednesday's World News Tonight, Martha Raddatz centered an entire story around, in response to the question of "How can people help on the war on terror?", this soundbite from Bush: "One way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way." That was all viewers heard from Bush -- nothing about how he was specifically admonishing politicians against derisive "Bush lied/war for oil/blame the Jews" hate speech. Nonetheless, Raddatz then moved to discredit Bush's point by highlighting how "Marine Corps reservist Andrew Horne, a two-time Iraq veteran and now a congressional candidate" asserted that "the President is attempting to limit debate about the war because it is not going well." Horne then denounced Bush for trying to censor the very kind of "honest" analysis Bush specifically said was within bounds: "I don't think, you know, honest criticism damages morale at all, you know. When I was there, it didn't damage my morale one bit."
Raddatz recited how nine of eleven Iraq war vets running for Congress are Democrats, before she wrapped up: "The Republicans are clearly worried about some of these candidates and the war in Iraq, or the President wouldn't keep making these speeches, Bob." Co-anchor Bob Woodruff then endorsed her spin: "Good point."
[This item was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To share your views, go to: newsbusters.org ]
The White House Web site provided a transcript of the exchange in question which came in the next to last question to Bush at the noontime (local time) event held at the Kentucky International Convention Center:
Bush: "How old are you?"
Boy: "Seven."
Bush: "Okay. That's good." (Laughter.)
Boy: "How can people help on the war on terror?"
Bush: "Well, that's the hardest question I've had all day. (Laughter.) First of all, I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq, and welcome it. People can help, however, by making sure the tone of this debate is respectful and is mindful about what messages out of the country can do to the morale of our troops. (Applause.)
"I fully expect in a democracy -- I expect and, frankly, welcome the voices of people saying, you know, Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision, or, you know, you should have done it a better way. I understand that. What I don't like is when somebody said, 'he lied.' Or, 'they're in there for oil.' Or 'they're doing it because of Israel.' That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.
"So that was a good question. Thank you. (Applause.)"
For the transcript of the entire session: www.whitehouse.gov
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth caught the January 11 World News Tonight story and provided this transcript:
Anchor Bob Woodruff: "And now to the war in Iraq and the politics that surrounds it. President Bush went to Kentucky today, where he delivered another strong message to critics of his Iraq policy: Be careful what you say. But there was also a very important political reason that he chose that state to make his point. Here's ABC's chief White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz."
Martha Raddatz: "None of the questions posed to the President in Louisville today was particularly challenging, but the President wanted to make a point. And it was a seven-year-old who gave him the opportunity."
Unidentified boy: "How can people help on the war on terror?"
George W. Bush, on a stage surrounded by a crowd: "One way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way."
Raddatz: "But one of the biggest critics in Louisville has already been in harm's way -- twice. Marine Corps reservist Andrew Horne, a two-time Iraq veteran and now a congressional candidate, is challenging the Republican incumbent in this district. He said today the President is attempting to limit debate about the war because it is not going well."
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Horne, Democratic congressional candidate: "I don't think, you know, honest criticism damages morale at all, you know. When I was there, it didn't damage my morale one bit."
Raddatz: "Horne is one of eleven veterans of the war in Iraq running for Congress. Nine of them are Democrats, including Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania, Paul Hackett, who is seeking a Senate seat in Ohio, and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois."
Tammy Duckworth, Democratic congressional candidate, to people on a sidewalk: "I'm a veteran of the Iraqi war."
Raddatz, over video of Duckworth's artificial legs: "Duckworth lost both her legs and the use of one arm when her helicopter was shot down outside of Baghdad."
Retired Major Tammy Duckworth, Democratic congressional candidate, on the December 18 This Week: "I think it's time to come up with an aggressive plan for how we're going to bring our troops home."
Raddatz, with the White House in the background: "The Republicans are clearly worried about some of these candidates and the war in Iraq, or the President wouldn't keep making these speeches, Bob."
Woodruff: "Good point. Martha Raddatz from Washington tonight, thank you."
 ABC Adopts Liberal Spin of "Discriminatory"
CAP, Link to Alito
All three broadcast network evening shows on Wednesday night highlighted Mrs. Alito crying at the Senate confirmation hearing for her husband Samuel, as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham apologized for character attacks on her husband by left-wing Senators. Citing the breakdown, CBS's Gloria Borger suggested the emotional outburst "may be the picture that people really remember from these hearings," and she asked: "The question is whether the Democrats took this a step too far today?" But ABC adopted as fact the liberal Democratic allegations about the supposedly bigoted agenda of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas referred to Alito's "membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college." The subsequent report from George Stephanopoulos highlighted a soundbite of Democratic Senator Richard Durbin describing CAP as one which "would discriminate against women and minorities." Stephanopoulos relayed how Democrats "say the group was notorious for its discriminatory agenda when Alito listed it in his 1985 job application for the Reagan Justice Department. So notorious that prominent Princeton alumni like Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist had publicly disavowed it."
In fact, a founder of the group, William Rusher, told National Review Online that CAP was simply "a group of alumni who were concerned over various liberal tendencies that had developed in the Princeton administration." A member of the group, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, now an FNC contributor, told FNC's John Gibson late Wednesday afternoon that it was not "anti-integrationist, anti-feminist," but instead "was a traditional, conservative mainstream organization." Napolitano added that the group's magazine, from which Senator Ted Kennedy read to smear Alito with guilt by association, had as its editor a woman as well as a man who was a native of India.
Borger described CAP as "a group that opposed affirmative action and co-education at his alma mater." On the NBC Nightly News, Pete Williams refrained from pejoratives as he relayed how Alito in 1985 had called CAP "a conservative alumni group" and Williams later referred to "the alumni group."
[This item was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To post your comments, go to: newsbusters.org ]
An excerpt from an interview with Rusher, the former Publisher of National Review, conducted Wednesday afternoon by National Review Online Editor Kathryn Jean Lopez:
Kathryn Jean Lopez: "What was your involvement in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton?"
William A. Rusher: "In or about 1972, I was asked to be on the board of the newly formed CAP. I remained on it for a few years, but am sure I left long before the organization closed down in the middle or late 1980s. My files on CAP went to the Library of Congress, along with my other files, in or about 1988 when I retired from National Review."
Lopez: "What was Concerned Alumni of Princeton?"
Rusher: "CAP was exactly what its name implied: a group of alumni who were concerned over various liberal tendencies that had developed in the Princeton administration in recent years. Shelby Cullom Davis, the former ambassador to Switzerland, gave us the money that enabled us to send mailings to the alumni, etc. Naturally, the University administration wasn't happy about our existence."
Lopez: "Was it racist and or sexist? Anti-gay? Ted Kennedy read a pretty bad-sounding quote from its publication today."
Rusher: "CAP was none of the things Senator Kennedy is smearing it as being: anti-black, etc. Since Alito apparently had next to no involvement with CAP, Kennedy is trying to give CAP the worst possible reputation, in the hope that some of that will rub off on Judge Alito."
Lopez: "Do you for any reason regret your involvement with the group?"
Rusher: "My only regret is that CAP didn't have a bigger effect on Princeton."
Lopez: "As you know, Ted Kennedy has an interest in your papers about CAP. What might they reveal?"
Rusher: "I haven't seen those files in 30 years, but I am sure there is nothing discreditable in them. Of course, Senator Kennedy can always hope."
Lopez: "Do you know Samuel Alito? Do you remember him involved in CAP?"
Rusher: "I have no recollection of Samuel Alito at all. He certainly was not very heavily involved in CAP, if at all."
END of Excerpt
For the January 11 NRO interview in full: www.nationalreview.com
At about 5:40pm EST on FNC's Big Story, John Gibson asked Napolitano about CAP: "Was it an anti-integrationist, anti-feminist group?"
Napolitano: "Absolutely not. It was a traditional, conservative mainstream organization, the purpose of which was to give alumni at Princeton a voice in a very, very liberal university administration, and to make sure that ROTC, Reserved Officers Training Corps, which had been kicked off the campus by radicals who firebombed the ROTC building when Sam Alito and I were undergraduates, would come back to Princeton and would stay there. I mean, to say it was against women belies the fact that the editor of the publication was Laura Ingraham, a woman, now a well-known radio talk show host. After Laura Ingraham the editor was Dinesh D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution and a man of color. So the allegations made by Senator Kennedy are borne by political necessity and are not grounded in truth."
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed captioning against the video of the January 11 ABC and CBS stories:
# ABC's World News Tonight. Elizabeth Vargas: "Good evening. We begin with high emotions at Samuel Alito's Senate confirmation hearing. There were tense moments today, as Democrats grilled the Supreme Court nominee about his views on abortion and his membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college. Republicans went to great lengths to praise Alito's record, but the exchange got personal. And the pressure took a toll on Judge Alito's wife. ABC's chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, joins us. George, what happened?"
George Stephanopoulos: "It was a dramatic moment, Elizabeth. Sources close to Mrs. Alito say she thought the Democrats' attacks on her husband were disgraceful. And late today, she left the hearing room in tears. All day long, Democrats drilled Alito on character and credibility. Then, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina rose to his defense."
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), at hearing: "Are you really a closet bigot?"
Judge Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Nominee: "I'm not any kind of a bigot."
Graham: "No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it, but that's a good enough reason because you seem to be a decent honorable man."
Stephanopoulos: "As the Senator continued, Mrs. Alito began to cry."
Graham: "Your colleagues who say that Sam Alito, whether I agree with him or not, is a really good man."
Stephanopoulos: "When he apologized, she left."
Graham: "Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."
Stephanopoulos: "The Democrats had been grilling Alito on his past membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton."
Richard Durbin, Senate Minority Whip: "How could you identify with a group that would discriminate against women and minorities?"
Alito: "I've said what I can say about what I can recall about this group, Senator, which is virtually nothing."
Stephanopoulos: "Democrats don't buy it. They say the group was notorious for its discriminatory agenda when Alito listed it in his 1985 job application for the Reagan Justice Department. So notorious that prominent Princeton alumni like Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist had publicly disavowed it."
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE): "Was part of your rationale for listing it on an application, you thought that would appeal to the outfit you were applying to, the people looking at your resume?"
Alito: "I don't have a recollection of having anything to do with CAPS."
Stephanopoulos: "Sparks flew when Senator Kennedy threatened to shut down the committee if it didn't subpoena documents on the group."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "We're going to have votes in this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution."
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA): "Well, Senator Kennedy, I'm not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again and again. And I'm the chairman of this committee, and I have heard your request, and I will consider it."
Stephanopoulos: "Senator Specter did agree to Senator Kennedy's request. And now, Mrs. Alito is back in the hearing room. At a break, Judge Alito went to check on her and escorted her back."
# CBS Evening News. Bob Schieffer: "After two days of fairly polite banter, the questions at the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had a much sharper edge today. So sharp that at one point they seemed to upset Alito's wife. Here's Gloria Borger."
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA): "Welcome back, Judge Alito."
Borger: "Day two of questioning started off just like the first, with abortion. Judge Alito said he will keep an open mind on the issue, but Democrats were not buying it."
Richard Durbin, Senate Minority Whip, at hearing: "It evidences a mind that sadly is closed in some areas."
Borger: "Democrats claim that Alito's view of the importance of Roe did not measure up to what John Roberts offered at his confirmation hearing."
Chief Justice John Roberts at his hearing on September 13: "It's settled as a precedent of the court."
Durbin: "Is it the settled law of the land?"
Judge Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Nominee: "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged, it has been reaffirmed, but it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels."
Borger: "But it was Alito's character that became an issue as Democrats repeatedly challenged his decision in the mid-'80s to join the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that opposed affirmative action and co-education at his alma mater."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "His explanations about the membership in this sort of radical group are extremely troubling."
Borger: "Despite the fact that he listed his membership on a 1985 job application, Alito now says he doesn't even remember joining the organization. His only explanation? He might have signed up to protest the removal of ROTC from the Princeton campus."
Alito: "The idea that it was beneath Princeton to have an ROTC unit on campus was an offensive idea to me."
Borger: "Late this afternoon, Republicans defended Alito."
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): "Are you really a closet bigot?"
Alito: "I'm not any kind of a bigot."
Graham: "No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it, but that's a good enough reason because you seem to be a decent honorable man."
Borger, from Capitol Hill: "Something that brought Alito's wife to tears. That's Mrs. Alito on the left, and this may be the picture that people really remember from these hearings. It was quite an emotional day for the Alitos, and in the end the question is whether the Democrats took this a step too far today, Bob."
Schieffer: "Well, why did the tone change so much here, Gloria?"
Borger: "Well, I think what happened is that yesterday the Democrats started hearing from all of their constituency groups which were really up for a fight saying that they hadn't pushed hard enough on abortion, that they hadn't pushed hard enough on Judge Alito's character, and so today you saw the Democrats really ratcheting up their questioning. It's a very fine line, very difficult, but some say they went over the line."
Schieffer: "Well, let's bring in Jan Crawford Greenburg, our legal analyst from the Chicago Tribune. Tough questions today, Jan, but did we find out anything about Judge Alito that we didn't know."
Jan Crawford Greenburg, at a remote location: "We did not learn how Judge Alito would rule on the big issues of the day: Abortion, presidential power. He declined to answer because those cases could come before him if he is confirmed. Instead we got an introduction to Sam Alito, the man, the calm and quiet son of Italian immigrants who became a conservative jurist and is now tapped for this critical seat on the court."
Schieffer: "Well, I agree with you. I don't think they really touched him up very badly, even as tough as the questions are. Gloria, is he going to be recommended to the full Senate for confirmation by this committee, do you think?"
Borger: "I think he will, Bob. I think right now we see a party-line vote, 10-8, with the Republicans in the majority, and I think the only question right now is whether the Democrats will filibuster him, whether they can get enough moderate Republicans to join them in that fight. Right now that doesn't look likely."
 Stephanopoulos Corrects Gibson's Scolding
of Alito on Abortion
On Wednesday's Good Morning America, co-host Charles Gibson so misconstrued what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said about abortion, at his Senate confirmation hearing the day before, that George Stephanopoulos was forced to correct him: "He didn't say that though. He didn't say either one." Gibson had propounded: "I'm confused. He did write in a 1985 questionnaire, and this is a critical question to so many people. He wrote that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. And then he said yesterday, 'That's what I thought in 1985. If the issue were to come before me now, I would approach the question now with an open mind.' I'm not sure what that means. How can he say he would have an open mind on it if he believes what he wrote in 1985?"
The MRC's Brian Boyd caught the exchange between Gibson and Stephanopoulos, who appeared from Washington, DC, on the January 11 GMA. The entire interview segment:
Gibson: "We're joined from Washington as well this morning by the host of This Week. George Stephanopoulos joins us from our Washington bureau. George, he's now spent a full day being questioned. Is he changing any minds pro or con?"
Stephanopoulos: "I don't think so, Charlie. I think he's solidified his support on the Republican side of the aisle. He also probably has a few Democrats going in with him. It looks like all the Democrats, at least so far, on the committee are still pretty opposed to Judge Alito. But they weren't able to draw any blood yesterday in part because, as Claire said, a lot of them talked a lot more than asked questions. But also their questions didn't have one theme going in. And I think there was some frustration among the Democrats because of that. They felt they did better at the end of the day when Senators Feingold and Schumer started to press the Judge harder on war powers and abortion."
Gibson: "Yes, it wasn't until late in the day that Senator Schumer got back to the abortion issue that was first raised by Senator Specter at the beginning of the day. But I'm confused. He did write in a 1985 questionnaire, and this is a critical question to so many people. He wrote that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. And then he said yesterday, 'That's what I thought in 1985. If the issue were to come before me now, I would approach the question now with an open mind.' I'm not sure what that means. How can he say he would have an open mind on it if he believes what he wrote in 1985?"
Stephanopoulos: "Well, he didn't say that though. He didn't say either one. He said I believed it then, he wouldn't answer on what he believes right now. What he did say is that he respects precedent. So he respects the Roe vs. Wade precedent, but he also added that those kind of precedents are not what he called an 'inexorable demand.' So he was walking a very fine line there, but I do think he did a fairly effective job of answering the questions without locking himself into how he would decide something."
Gibson: "And is that what these hearings have become? I've now watched 30 years of Supreme Court hearings and it does seem to me while these hearings are designed to get some sense of what is in the mind of a prospective justice, that the less that is said by the prospective justice the better chance he or she has."
Stephanopoulos: "You nailed it, Charlie. That's exactly right. Chairman Specter calls these hearings a 'subtle minuet.' But the game for all nominees, Democrats and Republicans alike, is to say as little as they need to say to get on the Court."
-- Brent Baker
|
At an event in Louisville, Kentucky Wednesday afternoon, President George W. Bush said that "I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq" and he urged people to be "mindful about what messages out of the country can do to the morale of our troops." He went on to "welcome the voices of people saying, you know, 'Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision,' or, you know, 'you should have done it a better way,'" but castigated those who say "'he lied.' Or, 'they're in there for oil.' Or 'they're doing it because of Israel.' That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise." 
All three broadcast network evening shows on Wednesday night highlighted Mrs. Alito crying at the Senate confirmation hearing for her husband Samuel, as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham apologized for character attacks on her husband by left-wing Senators. Citing the breakdown, CBS's Gloria Borger suggested the emotional outburst "may be the picture that people really remember from these hearings," and she asked: "The question is whether the Democrats took this a step too far today?" But ABC adopted as fact the liberal Democratic allegations about the supposedly bigoted agenda of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas referred to Alito's "membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college." The subsequent report from George Stephanopoulos highlighted a soundbite of Democratic Senator Richard Durbin describing CAP as one which "would discriminate against women and minorities." Stephanopoulos relayed how Democrats "say the group was notorious for its discriminatory agenda when Alito listed it in his 1985 job application for the Reagan Justice Department. So notorious that prominent Princeton alumni like Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist had publicly disavowed it." 
On Wednesday's Good Morning America, co-host Charles Gibson so misconstrued what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said about abortion, at his Senate confirmation hearing the day before, that George Stephanopoulos was forced to correct him: "He didn't say that though. He didn't say either one." Gibson had propounded: "I'm confused. He did write in a 1985 questionnaire, and this is a critical question to so many people. He wrote that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. And then he said yesterday, 'That's what I thought in 1985. If the issue were to come before me now, I would approach the question now with an open mind.' I'm not sure what that means. How can he say he would have an open mind on it if he believes what he wrote in 1985?"