Bennett Corrects Blitzer on Rush, CNN Cites 'Chicken Hawk' Insult --10/3/2007

1. Bennett Corrects Blitzer on Rush, CNN Cites 'Chicken Hawk' Insult
Bill Bennett corrected CNN's Wolf Blitzer's presumption on Monday that Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment was directed at soldiers who served in Iraq and now oppose the war, but in setting up the "Strategy Session" segment on Tuesday's The Situation Room, Blitzer again adopted as fact the spin of the far-left group pushing the attack on Limbaugh. With the text on screen, Blitzer highlighted how "Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania...says: 'Someone should tell chicken hawk Rush Limbaugh that the only phonies are those who choose not to serve and then criticize those who do.'" To Bennett and Donna Brazile, Blitzer wondered: "What do you make of this strategy that Harry Reid...and others are saying now that Rush Limbaugh was inappropriately offensive to veterans?" Bennett retorted with "not much" and observed: "When you shoot at a king, and he's the king of talk radio, you better get him. They didn't get him here." On Tuesday morning, CNN's Kiran Chetry proposed: "Two weeks after Republicans went after MoveOn.org's 'General Betray Us' ad, the Democrats are turning the tables on Rush Limbaugh. They say that he made hateful and unpatriotic remarks about U.S. troops." Not until the end, after relaying Senator Tom Harkin's insult that "maybe he was just high on his drugs," did Chetry provide Limbaugh's take.

2. FNC Shows Dems Criticizing Troops: 'Who Said That? Not Limbaugh!'
FNC's John Gibson opened Tuesday's The Big Story by looking at the "gall" of liberal Democrats condemning Rush Limbaugh for supposedly insulting as "phony soldiers" Iraq war veterans who oppose the war. During a segment with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, on how liberals have deliberately misconstrued Limbaugh's remark, Gibson played soundbites, critical of troop performance, from Senator Harry Reid, Senator John Kerry, Congressman John Murtha and Senator Dick Durbin. Following each clip, FNC displayed a bumper with a sound effect: "Who said that? Not Rush Limbaugh!" Gibson explained after the four videos aired: "None of those things were uttered by Rush Limbaugh. I mean, in a way you wonder where do they get the, I don't know, gall to be going after him over this?"

3. Ingraham Smacks Down CNN's Toobin on Clarence Thomas's 'Rage'
On Monday night's Anderson Cooper 360, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin unspooled a wild, unsubstantiated theory that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is "furious all the time" and when Cooper asked if his "hatred of the media" started with the Anita Hill charges, Toobin said that event sent his rage into "the stratosphere." Toobin also criticized CBS for not cross-examining Thomas on sexual harassment on 60 Minutes, when "subsequent evidence" (books by liberal reporters) "generally favors Anita Hill, not him, in what really happened between them." On Tuesday's Laura Ingraham radio show, Toobin accepted an interview invitation, and Ingraham, who was a clerk for Justice Thomas, lit into him about his Cooper interview. She found it "incredibly condescending," and also "appalling and stupid."

4. ABC Sympathetically Spins 'Withering' Media Attacks on Anita Hill
On Tuesday's Good Morning America, ABC host Robin Roberts sympathetically interviewed Anita Hill and asserted that her 1991 testimony in front of the Senate resulted in the law professor enduring "withering scrutiny from the press." Roberts also pointedly noted that Hill "passed a polygraph test. Clarence Thomas refused to take one. You passed one." An ABC graphic defiantly observed, "Anita Hill: 'I Stand by my Testimony'" The segment on GMA stood in stark contrast to the mostly positive and fair coverage Justice Clarence Thomas received on Monday's Good Morning America and Nightline.

5. Joy Behar: Thomas 'Should Write a Book, "If I Harassed Her'"
On Tuesday's The View, Joy Behar played on the title of O.J. Simpson's book, If I Did It, to make a quip that presumed Justice Clarence Thomas was guilty of harassing Anita Hill and Behar, as well as Barbara Walters, pressed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from the left on why she and other Democrats are not doing more to end the war in Iraq. A frustrated Walters fretted: "The Democrats came in. They were going to try to bring the troops home. They were going to try to end the war. What happened?" Talking about Thomas's new book, My Grandfather's Son, and Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations, Behar offered this snarky remark: "Why is he writing this book? He won basically the round. He's the Supreme Court Justice for life. He should write a book, 'If I Harassed Her.'"

6. 'Top Ten Ways George W. Bush Can Boost His Approval Rating'
Letterman's "Top Ten Ways George W. Bush Can Boost His Approval Rating."

Bennett Corrects Blitzer on Rush, CNN
Cites 'Chicken Hawk' Insult

Bill Bennett corrected CNN's Wolf Blitzer's presumption on Monday that Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment was directed at soldiers who served in Iraq and now oppose the war, but in setting up the "Strategy Session" segment on Tuesday's The Situation Room, Blitzer again adopted as fact the spin of the far-left group pushing the attack on Limbaugh. With the text on screen, Blitzer highlighted how "Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania...says: 'Someone should tell chicken hawk Rush Limbaugh that the only phonies are those who choose not to serve and then criticize those who do.'" To Bennett and Donna Brazile, Blitzer wondered: "What do you make of this strategy that Harry Reid...and others are saying now that Rush Limbaugh was inappropriately offensive to veterans?" Bennett retorted with "not much" and observed: "When you shoot at a king, and he's the king of talk radio, you better get him. They didn't get him here."

On Monday night, Blitzer had dismissed Limbaugh's explanation, that he was referring to anyone who claims to have served in Iraq but has not, and introduced a story on "Limbaugh's charge that some veterans who are criticizing the war are, in his words, quote, 'phony soldiers.'"

Meanwhile, on Tuesday's American Morning, CNN anchor Kiran Chetry proposed: "Two weeks after Republicans went after MoveOn.org's 'General Betray Us' ad, the Democrats are turning the tables on Rush Limbaugh. They say that he made hateful and unpatriotic remarks about U.S. troops on his radio show." Not until the end of the story, after relaying Senator Tom Harkin's insult that "maybe he was just high on his drugs," did Chetry provide Limbaugh's take.

[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [1] ]

CNN's on screen tag for the 4:45pm EDT segment during the third hour of The Situation Room: "DEMS BLAST LIMBAUGH; Claim: Offends U.S. Troops."

Bennett informed viewers that "the argument was that he used the phrase 'phony soldiers.' He was talking about a phony soldier," namely Jesse MacBeth, and both the AP and ABC News ran pieces on "phony" soldiers. My Friday NewsBusters posting pointed out how ABC's World News, in a September 24 story on what anchor Charles Gibson described using the same "phoney" term as Limbaugh, looked at "phoney heroes" -- those passing themselves off as Iraq war veterans. Reporter Brian Ross noted:
"The authorities say the most disturbing case involves this man: 23-year-old Jesse MacBeth. In a YouTube video seen around the world, MacBeth became a rallying point for anti-war groups as he talked of the purple heart he received in Iraq and described how he and other U.S. Army Rangers killed innocent civilians at a Baghdad mosque. It was a complete fabrication."

The Radio Equalizer blog has a transcript along with video from YouTube of the Ross story: radioequalizer.blogspot.com [2]

The Tuesday CyberAlert posting, "Blitzer Joins in Distorting Limbaugh, Advancing Far-Left Smear," began:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday night matched MSNBC in distorting the target of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment as the 7pm EDT hour of The Situation Room devoted a full story to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attack on Limbaugh based on a Friday hit job on Limbaugh by the far-left Media Matters. "It's an angry new shot in the dispute over the war in Iraq," Blitzer asserted before reporting that Limbaugh had charged "that some veterans who are criticizing the war are, in his words, quote, 'phony soldiers.'" In fact, on his show Friday and Monday, Limbaugh made clear he was referring to those who claimed to be soldiers, but never served, a point mentioned by reporter Dana Bash, but only after Blitzer framed the story by adopting as fact the spin of the left wing attack group.

Bash offered a favorable take on Reid's reasoning: "Harry Reid combined a biting attack on Limbaugh with a demand for an apology for what Democrats call an insulting rant against soldiers who joined Democrats in opposing the war." Though Bash noted that "Limbaugh insists he was only talking about one anti-war soldier, Jesse MacBeth recently convicted of falsely claiming to have served in Iraq," she proceeded to highlight how "Limbaugh's comments are burning up the liberal blogosphere. Watchdog group Media Matters, among the first to blast Limbaugh, says it doesn't buy his explanation." She next vaunted how "this new escalation of the Iraq debate has Democrats looking to turn the tables after the controversy of MoveOn.org's attack on the commanding General in Iraq." A strategy that will only work if the media play along. Bash did air a bit of Limbaugh's response to Reid: Laughter, followed by "he's got to be a nut!"...

For the October 2 CyberAlert article in full: www.mrc.org [3]

For MSNBC's approach on Friday, check the Monday CyberAlert item, "MSNBC Smears Limbaugh with 'Phony Soldiers' Distortion," online at: www.mrc.org [4]

A transcript of the relevant portion of the "Strategy Session" on the October 2 The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: What do you think of this Democratic strategy now to go after conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh? One Democratic Congressman, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, a veteran himself, he says [text on screen], "Someone should tell chicken hawk Rush Limbaugh that the only phonies are those who choose not to serve and then criticize those who do." What do you make of this strategy that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader and others are saying now that Rush Limbaugh was inappropriately offensive to veterans by some of the comments he recently made?
BILL BENNETT: Not much. You know, I'm willing to criticize Republicans and conservatives when they have it wrong. You've heard me do it on the show any number of times. Not this time. You know, when you shoot at a king, and he's the king of talk radio, you better get him. They didn't get him here. The argument was that he used the phrase "phony soldiers." He was talking about a phony soldier. The AP ran a story called "Phony Soldiers." ABC three days before Rush's comments ran a story called "Phony Soldiers." He was talking about a guy who was lying. He wasn't a corporal in the Army, he didn't get a Purple Heart. That's the guy Rush was talking about. Media Matters left that out.
I have been savaged by Media Matters unfairly. They did it this time. There's plenty to disagree with Rush if you're on the left. But this isn't, this wasn't fair. Let me tell you why. The Petraeus thing has really hurt the Democrats. They say it doesn't and it was all fair. But this thing is not going away. This is a soldier, commander in the field. And it really stung and they're looking for revenge.
BLITZER: As Bill says, Donna, a lot of people suggest that what Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats were doing in trying to go after Rush Limbaugh on this issue, quote, "phony soldiers," was sort of payback for the MoveOn.org and the "General Betray Us" ad that a lot of people think backfired on the Democrats.
DONNA BRAZILE: Well, a lot of Americans who care about our troops, we think our troops and we believe that what they're doing is noble and courageous. And the left can condemn MoveOn, the right should be able to condemn Rush Limbaugh the comments he made about phony soldiers. Not only did he talk about this one soldier who may be discredited but he also used Jack Murtha. And many of us believe Jack Murtha is a courageous American, he stood up and he fought for his country. And when Rush Limbaugh takes on Jack Murtha, then the left has every right to call on Rush Limbaugh to apologize.
BENNETT: He took on Jack Murtha. He did not call Jack Murtha a phony soldier. He took Jack Murtha on on the merits of the argument. That's an entirely different case. He can take on Rush Limbaugh, he can take on George Bush, take on Jack Murtha. Name calling was about a phony soldier.
BLITZER: Because you saw Bill Clinton last week in the interview with Anderson Cooper. He was really irate.
BENNETT: Seething.
BLITZER: He was seething -- I think that's a good word -- when he pointed out that the Republicans went after veterans like Max Cleland and John Kerry with the swift boat attack and all that.
BRAZILE: He said phony soldiers. So he didn't make a distinction that he was just referring to Mr. MacBeth. He was referring to soldiers who have come out against this war. And over a third of MoveOn.org members are soldiers, many of them who served in Iraq and they're now opposed to the war. So many people on the left believe that he was taking on those soldiers as well as Mr. MacBeth.
BENNETT: All you have to do is listen to the show and it is perfectly clear, crystal clear. Couldn't be clearer who he is talking about.

A short news update item at about 7:30am EDT on Tuesday's American Morning:

KIRAN CHETRY: Two weeks after Republicans went after MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, the Democrats are turning the tables on Rush Limbaugh. They say that he made hateful and unpatriotic remarks about U.S. troops on his radio show last week. Here's the conversation.

[CALLER LAST THURSDAY ON LIMBAUGH's RADIO SHOW: They never talked to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve.]

SEN. HARRY REID ON THE SENATE FLOOR ON MONDAY: Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man.
CHETRY: Senator Harry Reid has called on Limbaugh's boss, the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, to denounce his remarks. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa then followed Reid saying: "Maybe he was just high on his drugs." Here's how Rush responded.
LIMBAUGH ON HIS RADIO SHOW ON MONDAY: He's got to be a nut. This is, I cannot believe that they are actually going this far with this.
CHETRY: Limbaugh insists he was talking about one anti-war soldier who was actually convicted of lying about serving in Iraq, and that they took his comment out of context.

In contrast, on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough saw a "phony" controversy: "Now you've got Media Matters going after Rush Limbaugh. This really does look like a phony story about a phony soldier." He later added: "It's been blown out of context." For details, see Mark Finkelstein's NewsBusters posting: newsbusters.org [5]

FNC Shows Dems Criticizing Troops: 'Who
Said That? Not Limbaugh!'

FNC's John Gibson opened Tuesday's The Big Story by looking at the "gall" of liberal Democrats condemning Rush Limbaugh for supposedly insulting as "phony soldiers" Iraq war veterans who oppose the war. During a segment with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, on how liberals have deliberately misconstrued Limbaugh's remark, Gibson played soundbites, critical of troop performance, from Senator Harry Reid, Senator John Kerry, Congressman John Murtha and Senator Dick Durbin.

[6] | [7] | [8]

Following each clip, FNC displayed a bumper with a sound effect: "Who said that? Not Rush Limbaugh!" Gibson explained after the four videos aired: "None of those things were uttered by Rush Limbaugh. I mean, in a way you wonder where do they get the, I don't know, gall to be going after him over this?"

[This item was posted, with video, late Tuesday night on the MRC's blog. The video will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert, but in the meantime, to watch the Real or Windows Media video, or to listen to the MP3 audio, go to: newsbusters.org [9] ]

The four soundbites in the posted video:

# Senator Harry Reid: "That this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything."

# Senator John Kerry: "If you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

# Congressman John Murtha: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

# Senator Dick Durbin: "If I read this to you and didn't tell you it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings."

Ingraham Smacks Down CNN's Toobin on
Clarence Thomas's 'Rage'

On Monday night's Anderson Cooper 360, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin unspooled a wild, unsubstantiated theory that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is "furious all the time" and when Cooper asked if his "hatred of the media" started with the Anita Hill charges, Toobin said that event sent his rage into "the stratosphere." Toobin also criticized CBS for not cross-examining Thomas on sexual harassment on 60 Minutes, when "subsequent evidence" (books by liberal reporters) "generally favors Anita Hill, not him, in what really happened between them."

On Tuesday's Laura Ingraham radio show, Toobin accepted an interview invitation, and Ingraham, who was a clerk for Justice Thomas, lit into him about his Cooper interview. She found it "incredibly condescending," and also "appalling and stupid." She asked Toobin if he knew Thomas, and he changed the subject, referring to the theme of anger in his writings and speeches. Later, when Ingraham asked Toobin if he had ever met or interviewed Thomas for his new Supreme Court book, The Nine, he wouldn't even say yes or no. (Ingraham took that as a no.)

[This item, by Tim Graham, was posted Tuesday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [10] ]

How can someone who's supposedly a media professional claim without ever meeting someone that they're "furious all the time" and even "furious his entire life"?

It would be one thing to say Thomas associates or even adversaries have seen an episode of fury, but "furious all the time"? (It's even weirder when, in other interviews -- but not this one -- Toobin reports Thomas is the most popular justice inside the Court. Popular, well-liked -- and "furious all the time"?)

The October 1 Cooper-Toobin exchange aired at around 10:50pm EDT, and began with a big promotional "swoosh" of the words "The Nine" and the book cover, with Cooper gurgling about how remarkable Toobin's book was:

ANDERSON COOPER: CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin writes about Justice Thomas in his new book, "The Nine." It's a remarkable book. I spoke to him earlier. [To tape] We just heard Clarence Thomas talking about race. He really has not responded to criticism of him over the years, and there seems to be a lot of anger built up.
TOOBIN: The thread that goes through Thomas's life is rage. He -- by his own admission, he's furious his entire life. At first, he was furious at the racial discrimination. And, you know, he was, he wore overalls, and he says, you know, I named my son Jamal. That tells you where my head was at in those days. Yet, now, the rage is at white liberals. He is furious all the time at the people he believes tormented him during the Anita Hill hearings and criticized him on the court. I have never seen, frankly, anyone, much less a Supreme Court Justice, whose life is defined by anger as much as Thomas's.
COOPER: And it's interesting, though, I mean, in his law school days, in his college days, it was -- I don't think he said he was liberal, he said he was much more militant than that.
TOOBIN: No, he was a black separatist. I mean, he was -- I don't know if he was formally a member of the Black Panther party, but it was in that general idea of black nationalism, where he found himself. So, you know, he's done a 180, ideologically, but not temperamentally.
COOPER: Let's hear a little bit of what he said about the Anita Hill hearings.

[STEVE KROFT ON CBS's 60 MINUTES: Was the Anita Hill that testified on the Hill the Anita Hill that you knew at EEOC?
THOMAS: She was not the -- the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew.
KROFT: Who is the person you knew?
THOMAS: She could defend herself. Let's just put it that way.]

COOPER: He doesn't really address any of the details of the accusations that came up during those hearings.
TOOBIN: No. Nor was he asked by Steve Kroft. I mean, he wasn't asked about corroborating witnesses who said that Thomas had engaged in this behavior before. He wasn't asked about, well, what was the nature of his relationship with her? How often was he alone with her, were they ever together outside the office? You know, the things that 60 Minutes usually does to cross-examine people, Thomas was not asked those questions.
COOPER: Do we know if he wasn't asked or it just didn't make it into the-
TOOBIN: They didn't broadcast it. I don't know. But I mean, I think the point is, that -- I don't draw -- the subsequent evidence that has come out, you know, whether it's Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson's book called Strange Justice or elsewhere generally favors Anita Hill, not him, in what really happened between them.
COOPER: And the hatred of the media, of liberal Democrats, did that start with the Anita Hill hearings?
TOOBIN: Well, I think he felt like he was badly treated when he worked in the Reagan administration, and the Department of Education, at the EEOC. He felt like, you know, the liberals made him not feel like he was defending the interests of African-Americans. But certainly, it was the hearings that sent the conflict into the stratosphere and along with it, his rage.
COOPER: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks.

Ingraham played the "furious his entire life" and "life defined by anger" snippets on her Tuesday show, and walked Toobin through some of the outrages of Anita Hill's unproven charges. She asked Toobin if it was proper for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to leak raw allegations in Hill's FBI file to the media. He said no. She asked Toobin if he's "ever worked with a woman." He said of course. Has he ever been alone with a woman in the office? Yes. And if that woman came forward ten years later and accused him falsely of sexual harassment, wouldn't he be a little angry about that? Yes.

But overall, Toobin was incredibly slippery, trying to tell Ingraham that in his book, he tries to tell the "complete story" of Thomas. But that's not at all what he offered last night on CNN. He made wild allegations about Thomas that he cannot substantiate. CNN ought to be ashamed.

ABC Sympathetically Spins 'Withering'
Media Attacks on Anita Hill

On Tuesday's Good Morning America, ABC host Robin Roberts sympathetically interviewed Anita Hill and asserted that her 1991 testimony in front of the Senate resulted in the law professor enduring "withering scrutiny from the press." Roberts also pointedly noted that Hill "passed a polygraph test. Clarence Thomas refused to take one. You passed one." An ABC graphic defiantly observed, "Anita Hill: 'I Stand by my Testimony'"

The segment on GMA stood in stark contrast to the mostly positive and fair coverage Justice Clarence Thomas received on Monday's Good Morning America and Nightline. (The Supreme Court justice has been promoting his new autobiography.) Reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg allowed Thomas to tell his side of the story and attack accusers, such as when Greenburg noted: "Thomas says he faced more racism in the confirmation fight than he did as a child in the segregated south."

As the MRC's Tim Graham wrote on Monday, Hill, who accused then Supreme Court nominee Thomas of sexual harassment, hardly suffered through "withering scrutiny" from many media outlets, especially in the wake of the hearings. In early 1992, 60 Minutes reporter Ed Bradley gingerly asked Hill: "When someone looks at you and sees Anita Hill, what do you want that to mean?" See: newsbusters.org [11]

[This item, by Scott Whitlock, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [12] ]

In an interview that same year, Today host Katie Couric didn't exactly grill Thomas's accuser when she asked: "Twenty years from now, fifty years from now, when people look back at these hearings, how do you want them to think of you?" See the October 12, 1992 Notable Quotables: www.mediaresearch.org [13]

Although Roberts did ask a few tough questions, many of her queries were of the softball variety. She tacitly seemed to accept the validity of Hill's testimony and invited Hill to comment on whether the workplace situation is "better" 16 years later. The GMA host claimed that Thomas's accuser has "done a lot of work where you are over the years. Is it better now in the workplace for women?"

In a 1991 edition of Notable Quotables, the MRC catalogued the vicious attacks from the media on Clarence Thomas and the sympathetic portrayal of Anita Hill. One quote, from Nancy Gibbs in the October 21, 1991 edition of Time magazine, shows the absurdity of claiming Hill suffered "withering" scrutiny: "And then there was Anita Hill, the poised daughter of so many generations of black women who have been burned carrying torches into the battle for principle. The cause of civil rights and social justice has so often fallen to them to defend. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were slaves by birth, freedom fighters by temperament. Rosa Parks was a tired seamstress who shoved history forward by refusing to give up her seat on the bus....The latest to claim her place in line is Anita Hill, a private, professional woman unwilling to relinquish her dignity without a fight."

For more, see the October 28, 1991 Notable Quotables: www.mediaresearch.org [14]

A transcript of Tuesday segment, which aired at 7:12am on October 2:

7am tease, Robin Roberts: "Fighting back. Anita Hill, the woman who stood between Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court now facing new questions and new criticisms. Her story and what she has to say to Clarence Thomas now. She joins us live in a GMA exclusive."

7:12, Robin Roberts: "The new book by Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has not just given us a window into one of the most mysterious figures on the court, the book take us back 16 years to those explosive confirmation hearings that rocked the country, deepening the fault lines of race and gender here in America. On Monday, you heard what Justice Thomas had to say about that tumultuous time and what he had to say about his accuser Anita Hill. This morning, we'll hear from her. But first, a look back at those hearings."
Clarence Thomas: "This combative, in your face person, suddenly, this demur person. And it's just not that person."
Roberts: "16 years later, Clarence Thomas still says Anita Hill is a liar. In his new book he called her 'my most traitorous adversary,' once again, raising the question just who was telling the truth all those years ago?"
Unidentified voice [1991 file footage] "Professor, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
Anita Hill: "I do."
Roberts: "Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma when she was called before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Before she even testified, she was accused of being a political pawn."
Hill: "The idea that this is somehow a political ploy that I am involved in, nothing could be further from the truth."
Roberts: "She had not worked with Clarence Thomas in eight years, and yet Hill testified that her memories of their alleged interactions were vivid and vulgar."
Hill: "He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes."
Roberts: "As a result of her testimony, Hill faced withering scrutiny from the press and hours of questions from Republican Senators."
Alan Simpson (file footage: R-WY): "If what you say this man said to you occurred, why in God's name would you ever speak to a man like that the rest of your life?"
Hill: "That's a very good question. And I'm sure that I'm sure that I cannot answer that to your satisfaction."
Roberts: "So many of us riveted by the law professor versus the Supreme Court nominee. And Anita Hill, now a law professor at Brandeis University, join us this morning. Thank you for willing to come and talk to us. [sic] We certainly do appreciate it. How are you?"

ABC Graphic: "Anita Hill: 'I Stand by my Testimony'"

Hill: "I'm well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here with you."
Roberts: "You see the senator at the very end. Still 16 years later, that is a question that many people, especially men pose the question, if, indeed that dd happen, why did you continue to work with him? How could you even talk to him?"
Hill: "Well, it is amazing how much we tolerate in the workplace, workplace abuse. And I think men can understand it if they think about some of the bad behavior that they witnessed and that's been heaped on them. But still, they go back to the job because it's their job and either they want very much to do the job that they're hired to do and to prove that they can do it, or they really need the money. And so it's a combination, I think, of factors. Personal factor, financial factors. Just in some ways, it may even be ego involved. You really want to do the work that you're hired to do and you're going to do it even in the face of abuse."
Roberts: "Many of us are scratching our heads and saying it can't be 16 years. And looking back, is there anything that you would have done differently? I know you maintain, still, that your testimony was completely truthful. After the hearings, you passed a polygraph test. Clarence Thomas refused to take one. You passed one. But is there anything you, looking back, you would have done differently?"
Hill: "I did take the polygraph test in the midst of all that turmoil in Washington, D.C. and I don't know what I would do differently now. I've looked back and tried to think what could I have done that would have made this less combative, that would have made it less tumultuous and I can't think of anything I could have changed that at all. I do say, though, you know, hindsight always has 20/20 vision."
Roberts: "Sure."
Hill: "And in the 16 years that have passed, and I live every day of those 16 years and think about it probably every day, but in those 16 years that have passed, I've heard from so many people who say those hearings taught me. They allowed me to come forward. They've allowed me to reconcile what happened in my life. And so with hindsight, I can't think that I should have done anything differently."
Roberts: "Of course, we're talking about it now, again, 16 years later because of Supreme Court justice Thomas's memoir. And he has some very pointed things to say about you that I'd like to get your response. In his book, he describes you as 'touchy and apt to overact.' He says your work was 'mediocre.' And he calls your testimony 'extravagant fiction concocted as to have the maximum possible impact on the public.'"
Hill: "I have heard all of those things. I understand that he is very angry. But'€" And he wants to vindicate himself. But, in fact, when I testified in 1991, I was truthful. What I described happened, actually did happen, and what I've learned over the years is that it's happened to many people in the workplace. I don't have the imagination to come up with the things that occurred to me. I wouldn't even think of those things in talking about them. And I certainly wouldn't put myself in a position of testifying before the whole world about them. So they did happen, as I said."
Roberts: "His wife was also interviewed, and I want to play a portion of what she said. Because she had something that was directed directly towards you and needs a response."
Virginia Thomas: "I'm sure she got swept up into something bigger than she may have understood at the beginning of whatever she was doing, but I think she owes us an apology and I look forward to receiving that phone call or that visit one day."
Roberts: "Is that going to happen one day?"
Hill: "No. You know, I don't have a quarrel with Virginia Thomas and I don't want to be drawn into a fight with Virginia Thomas. I was there in 1981 and for almost two years and worked with Clarence Thomas and I know what happened. I'm sure she wants to stand by and support her husband, but she wasn't there in the workplace with me."
Roberts: "Is it better in the workplace now 16 later [sic], because you've done a lot of work where you are over the years. Is it better now in the workplace for women?"
Hill: "It is better now. But I'm really concerned that the approach that Clarence Thomas is taking now is really so typical of people who are accused of wrongdoing. They trash their accusers. They come up with characterizations that are as far from the truth as possible. And I don't want this to become the model for how we react to bad workplace behavior. I think we can move forward on these issues. We have begun to do that. And I think we can continue to do that. But we have to face them looking at all of the evidence and move forward and resolve these claims without this kind of rancor."
Roberts: "Anita Hill, thank you very much. Appreciate you coming forward. She has op-ed in he New York Times explaining more."

Joy Behar: Thomas 'Should Write a Book,
"If I Harassed Her'"

On Tuesday's The View, Joy Behar played on the title of O.J. Simpson's book, If I Did It, to make a quip that presumed Justice Clarence Thomas was guilty of harassing Anita Hill and Behar, as well as Barbara Walters, pressed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from the left on why she and other Democrats are not doing more to end the war in Iraq. A frustrated Walters fretted: "The Democrats came in. They were going to try to bring the troops home. They were going to try to end the war. What happened?" Talking about Thomas's new book, My Grandfather's Son, and Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations, Behar offered this snarky remark: "Why is he writing this book? He won basically the round. He's the Supreme Court Justice for life. He should write a book, 'If I Harassed Her.'"

Later on the October 2 edition of the ABC daytime show, Walters attacked Pelosi for not doing enough to retreat from Iraq:

BARBARA WALTERS: The Democrats came in. They were going to try to bring the troops home. They were going to try to end the war. What happened?
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Well, we are trying to do that. We have a contrast her between a ten year, $1 trillion war that the president is proposing and we're talking about a year that, that redeployment begins as soon as safely possible and ends within a year. That's the debate.

That answer was not enough for the veteran journalist, who brought in Behar to bolster her argument. Walters and Behar both complained that the Democrats' leading candidates allegedly do not support an immediate withdrawal:

WALTERS: Well, but your leading candidates, Joy you-
JOY BEHAR: Well, all of the three leading candidates said that they can see this war going on until 2013. Hillary, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all said that.
PELOSI: Well, if you subscribe to that, then that would be your answer.
WALTERS: They are your candidates.
PELOSI: Democrats in Congress do not subscribe to that. But let me speak for the Democrats in the House. And by the way, we have some bipartisan support, which I think is important. What we're talking about is, all of the generals tell us, the retired generals, that if you're going to have stability in the region, you must begin by redeploying the troops out of Iraq to end the occupation, end-

This item was based on two postings, by Justin McCarthy, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [15]

And: newsbusters.org [16]

'Top Ten Ways George W. Bush Can Boost
His Approval Rating'

From the October 2 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Ways George W. Bush Can Boost His Approval Rating." Late Show home page: www.cbs.com [17]

10. Play comical slide-whistle every time he screws up

9. Release NSA wiretaps of Jessica Biel's hot phone conversations

8. Tell everyone "W" stands for "Whoa, this guy's awesome!"

7. Help O.J. find the real memorabilia

6. Send 20,000 troops to stop Michael Jackson's wedding

5. Devote weekly radio address to discuss what's happening on "The Hills"

4. What do you mean "boost"? Everything's great!

3. Co-star in a movie with a monkey

2. Go on television; Say, "You know what? I did lose in 2000"; Hand over the keys to Gore

1. Appoint blue ribbon commission to find out what happened to the Mets

-- Brent Baker