werld.NET

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" -- and those who would exploit our fear, for power and for their own personal, selfish, cynical, gain.

I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate." True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to piously adhere to a religion's tenets.

Let's not repeat the absurd narrative that Wolfowitz's indiscretions have ruined an otherwise laudable antipoverty organization.

Many big businesses are calling for action on global warming, but will their solutions be the changes we need?

A recent ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board raised royalty rates for online radio broadcasting, which could put the exploing online commercial radio industry right out of business.

There are some things common to every state that's made the transition to fascism. Author Naomi Wolf argues that all of them are present in America today.

The stage had been set up in front of the reflecting pool below Capitol Hill, facing the length of the Mall and the Washington Monument. Just behind the stage, in a space set aside for media interviews, huddles of reporters moved scrum-like from the Rev. Jesse Jackson to actress Susan Sarandon to Rep. John Conyers before each took their turn addressing the January 27 antiwar rally and march in Washington D.C.

The day after he formally announced he was a candidate for the 2008 presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) took a shot at the media. Alluding to the perception that he avoids taking strong positions on important political issues, Obama told reporters (Washington Post, 2/12/07): “The problem is that that’s not what you guys have been reporting on. You’ve been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit.”

Sexist references abounded during MSNBC's April 26 coverage of the first Democratic presidential candidates debate in the context of discussions about the only female candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY). MSNBC host Chris Matthews focused obsessively on the appearances of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) wife, Michelle, to the point that NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reminded him that they are Yale and Harvard-educated lawyers, respectively. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson asked a Clinton campaign spokesman whether Clinton had an "unfair advantage because of her sex."

"Cosmetics"

During the pre-debate coverage, Matthews repeatedly discussed what Clinton would be "wearing" and asserted, "I'm fascinated by the visual." Matthews said of Clinton: "She's the only woman out there, so everybody else will be in charcoal or navy, and then everybody else will have a red tie, so she gets to be the distinguishing characteristic."

During the post-debate coverage, Matthews praised Clinton for her "dynamite" choice of pearls, which he also characterized as being reminiscent of [late actress] Grace Kelly, adding, "The cosmetics tonight are very important." Matthews also complimented Michelle Obama's pearl necklace. He declared that she "looked perfect," "well-turned out ... attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, 'classy.' "

Further, Matthews appeared to argue that many viewers would be basing their decisions about the candidates on how, in Clinton's case, the candidate was dressed, or, in the case of the male candidates, how their spouses were dressed: "Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle [Obama] -- and they said, 'I like the fact he's [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that.' They like the fact that Hillary was demur, lady-like in her appearance." When Mitchell interjected, noting "You're talking about two ... lawyers," who went to "Harvard and Yale," Matthews defended himself, saying, "Cosmetics are a part of this game."

"You can't be aggressive against a woman candidate"

Additionally, the MSNBC analysis focused heavily on stereotypes about female candidates, even though most agreed Clinton overcame those stereotypes during the debate. For instance, Matthews repeatedly asserted that "[y]ou can't be aggressive against a woman candidate on stage, or you're in big trouble," and wondered how the male candidates would overcome such a challenge. Similarly, during an interview with Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson on MSNBC's Tucker, host Carlson asked: "We were talking earlier about the difficulty the other candidates face in addressing and maybe even going after Senator Clinton on the stage. It does seem like all who attack Hillary Clinton come out the worse for it. Do you think that's true, and is it an unfair advantage she has because of her sex, do you think?"

After the debate, Matthews agreed with Newsweek magazine chief political correspondent Howard Fineman's assessment that Clinton "overcame all the questions of [whether] a woman" could be "tough[]" enough to be president:

MATTHEWS: I thought that she avoided playing victim to the other candidates. She avoided demanding any special courtesy or protocol as a woman. She never appealed to her femininity as any reason to be any different or treated any differently. And I thought, again, it's so hard and everybody disagrees, well, a woman has a special challenge when it comes to political argument because we can raise our voices and it works sometimes. When a woman raises her voice, the octave goes up, and Hillary didn't do it.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has frequently commented on Clinton's voice, once claiming that "some men" think it sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard."

Matthews also warned of "that big green monster out there in the Atlantic Ocean called 'I'm not going to have a woman commander-in-chief,' " adding, "I don't know whether that head is going to emerge." Matthews has repeatedly made mention of a "gigantic monster," a "big, green, horny-headed ... monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself," as Media Matters has noted.

Admitting mistakes

While giving post-debate analysis during the April 27 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted that Clinton would never admit to "ma[king] a mistake" in voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution "because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake, it will show a lack of surefootedness in national security and foreign policy, and, for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment."

From the April 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Do the Democrats have history on their mind right now? Are they in that romantic -- I happen to like the romantic part of politics -- are they, the Democrats, in a romantic mood right now where they want to do something really historic and pick an African-American guy for president or a woman?

From the April 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: We were talking earlier about the difficulty the other candidates face in addressing and maybe even going after Senator Clinton on the stage. It does seem like all who attack Hillary Clinton come out the worse for it. Do you think that's true, and is it an unfair advantage she has because of her sex, do you think?

WOLFSON: I don't think it has anything to do with her gender. I think that she's broadly popular in the Democratic Party, and so there may not be a huge advantage to attacking somebody who is well-liked.

From MSNBC's April 26 pre-debate coverage:

MATTHEWS: And let me not miss my chance to talk about something I love to talk about, which is gender. All our presidents have been men. They've all been white men. We know the facts. What happens when one of these candidates pulls a Rick Lazio, as we saw in New York against Hillary, where he served her papers, basically, on stage; and everybody, as a woman, goes, "Well, wait a minute, what's this?" You can't be aggressive against a woman candidate on stage, or you're in big trouble. What happens then? We're gonna know.

OLBERMANN: I guess we will know.

[...]

MATTHEWS: What's she wearing tonight?

MARK PENN (Clinton campaign strategist): You will see that. I will not --

MATTHEWS: She's the only woman out there, so everybody else will be in charcoal or navy, and then everybody else will have a red tie, so she gets to be the distinguishing characteristic.

PENN: I didn't know you were so into fashion.

MATTHEWS: I'm fascinated by the visual, yeah, I am. Like whether somebody has a riser or not, those kinds of things. I'm always fascinated by that.

OLBERMANN: [Washington Post columnist] Gene [Robinson], we've never had to deal with this before. Chris raises a fascinating point. All of a sudden, we have, not just, as we said, the symbolic elements -- both for Senator Obama, Governor Richardson, Senator Clinton -- we have these practicalities. What is she going to wear, as opposed to what are they going to wear?

ROBINSON: Right, right. It's going to be a different kind of debate. It's going to look different from any other presidential debate we've seen because there's a woman there, there's a Hispanic, there's a black guy, you know, and -- what a setting for it, too. I mean, you know, a historically black college in the South where African-American issues are going to come to the forefront and have to be addressed and then debated.

From MSNBC's April 26 post-debate coverage:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the decision on the war. Mrs. Clinton, the Senator, has made a point of saying, "I'm not going to apologize." Fair enough. That's a political decision, in terms of --

WOLFSON: It's a substantive decision, it comes from the heart.

MATTHEWS: No, because also Republicans will use it against her and say, "It's a woman's right to change her mind." They'll play all kinds of gender games on her probably. But here is to what I don't understand. She has said that her vote to authorize action was basically to help the president negotiate a United Nations supervised inspection of possible weapons of mass destruction, which would have, apparently, had it succeeded, would have avoided the war. But then, if that's the case and if that's her position, as of now, why did it take her so many years to really attack this war -- to really challenge the war?

WOLFSON: Chris, I don't think that that's fair.

[...]

OLBERMANN: But, in that context, was what Senator Clinton said, which amounted to, if we are attacked, we should quickly respond -- sort of fill in the blank on who you respond against. Does that answer then become sufficient because it looks or sounds strong or has the same echoes of strength as the Bush administration answers have been, and, in fact, practice has been the last seven years?

FINEMAN: I think it was Hillary playing it right smack down the middle of the American electorate, having the tone right, the sense of toughness, overcoming in one evening -- I think she's overcome all the questions about a woman -- this is a big statement to make. I think that she's overcome all the questions about a woman on that stage.

MATTHEWS: I agree.

FINEMAN: She didn't command it unnecessarily, but she was utterly comfortable and in command when she had to be. To me, she settled the commander-in-chief question right there, if there ever was one.

MATTHEWS: I completely agree with that. I thought that she avoided playing victim to the other candidates. She avoided demanding any special courtesy or protocol as a woman. She never appealed to her femininity as any reason to be any different or treated any differently. And I thought, again, it's so hard and everybody disagrees, well, a woman has a special challenge when it comes to political argument because we can raise our voices and it works sometimes. When a woman raises her voice, the octave goes up, and Hillary didn't do it.

SCARBOROUGH: But let's say, this is what she has to worry about because the only time -- we're talking about people in the spin room -- the only time people started to raise their eyebrows would be on an answer to where her voice started to go up.

MATTHEWS: At the end!

SCARBOROUGH: At the end, she started to sound a little shrill. That's the thing she needs to guard against. But, no, she has -- I think you're right. I think she has crossed that hurdle. There are a lot of people in the Democratic base who've been very angry with her position on the war, but, at the same time, she is doing what she needs to do. She's doing what a woman needs to do and what the Democrats need to do.

MATTHEWS: The cosmetics tonight are very important. First of all: her pearls, Grace Kelly -- dynamite. The pearls were great.

UNIDENTIFIED: No, let's calm down.

SCARBOROUGH: Here we go, the Philadelphia --

MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, the pearls were great.

SCARBOROUGH: You know what? You just lost a lot of people.

MATTHEWS: I thought Michelle, whatever you say about Obama, his wife looked perfect -- perfect for the occasion.

MITCHELL: I don't do fashion.

OLBERMANN: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: Perfect looking wife. She had the pears as well -- another Grace Kelly -- well-turned out, very dignified. Not dignified, attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, "classy." You know, I thought those things were important.

SCARBOROUGH: You're all Philadelphia, Chris Matthews. You're all Philadelphia.

MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, those things are important. You guys are ignoring it. Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle -- and they said, "I like the fact he's got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that." They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance.

MITCHELL: You're talking about two [inaudible] lawyers -- Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

MATTHEWS: That is --

MITCHELL: Excuse me.

MATTHEWS: -- can I talk about this for a second --

UNIDENTIFIED: Good-looking chicks!

MITCHELL: Yale and Harvard.

MATTHEWS: You guys jumped around for a week about poor, what's his name, John Edwards' haircut, you know. Cosmetics are a part of this game.

MITCHELL: That wasn't cosmetics.

MATTHEWS: What was that then?

MITCHELL: That was authenticity.

OLBERMANN: Expense reports.

MATTHEWS: Oh, OK, expense reports.

OLBERMANN: That was [inaudible] expense reports, but thank you for introducing Governor [Jennifer] Granholm [D-MI] into this particular part of the equation on the --

MATTHEWS: [Washington Post columnist] David Broder made that mistake.

OLBERMANN: -- on the public scale. But it's a valid point, and I think, we note it because we have a front-runner woman candidate for the first time, but, as Chris said, we have picked apart the appearance of the male candidates, too. Why -- what is the difference? What is the -- why is it invalid, suddenly -- is it political correctness? -- to raise the issue about a woman candidate and appearance and style and tone?

MITCHELL: No. I'm semi-joking, but I don't think that we talk about the cut of their suits or their jewelry. Tone, yes; substance, yes.

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: We don't wear a lot of jewelry to be honest with you.

FINEMAN: I second Andrea on this. I do, I'm allowed. Don't look at me like that.

MATTHEWS: The first pander of the evening was committed on this panel for the first --

FINEMAN: It won't be the last, I can assure you.

SCARBOROUGH: I can tell you that the first person I ran against was a female, and it is impossible to go after them in a debate. Remember Rick Lazio going over to Hillary Clinton?

MITCHELL: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: How bout George Bush Sr., the ultimate gentleman, the old money guy, saying, "I kicked her ass the other night"? Remember that line about [former Democratic vice presidential nominee] Geraldine Ferraro? That was a popular line.

[crosstalk]

SCARBOROUGH: We won't even repeat what he said about [CBS News correspondent] Leslie Stahl. But anyway, it is hard to go after --

MATTHEWS: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: -- a woman onstage in a debate situation. And, also -- and this sounds sort of shallow, too -- but, you know, guys always have to wear the dark suits. One night, she showed up in a debate in this bright red Nancy Reagan-type dress, and I'm like, "Oh damn, I'm sunk." There's no way to compete against that. When you talk about appearance, there are certain things women can do. But I think Hillary is more like Margaret Thatcher, in that people that voted for Margaret Thatcher weren't thinking, "Hey, I'm voting for a woman, I'm voting for a tough leader." I think the same with Hillary --

MATTHEWS: But she's a Tory. Tories get away with more than modern liberals.

SCARBOROUGH: I think Hillary Clinton, though, transcends gender. I think she's about something much bigger than that, that when people vote for her they are going to be thinking --

MATTHEWS: What does -- she transcends gender?

SCARBOROUGH: I think she does. Well, you can ask people what they think about Hillary Clinton, they will give you six or seven words before they say "woman." They'll say "liberal" or "Bill Clinton's wife," or this, that, and the other.

MATTHEWS: You are not -- you're not buying this are you, Andrea?

MITCHELL: No.

MATTHEWS: Not in a million years. She's not going to get by without anybody noticing she's a female.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm not saying that. I'm saying she is not identified as a female candidate first. She's not, and there's actually polling out there that shows that. Why does that shock you?

MATTHEWS: I think that that's a point of view. I've never heard that before because I think it's essential that she's a woman.

SCARBOROUGH: I'll send you [inaudible] the polls, tomorrow.

MATTHEWS: I think Colin Powell transcended ethnicity. I think that would be a case, but -- and maybe Barack Obama does -- but I think Hillary, in the end, I still think there's that big -- possibly -- that big green monster out there in the Atlantic Ocean called "I'm not going to have a woman commander-in-chief." And, I don't know whether that head is going to emerge.

MITCHELL: And, she's also trying to play to all those women out there, many women, who do like the fact that a woman is running and they have of all these websites organizing women.

MATTHEWS: And Howard's right. She passed the commander-in-chief standard tonight, and it wasn't a full pander, 'cause I'm joining you.

FINEMAN: I was about to do my second pander.

MATTHEWS: What is that?

FINEMAN: Andrea is right about the womanhood. She is -- the thing is, she is a woman, but she's showing that she can be plausible in that role, which is what was key. This format benefited her, ironically. Where she's going to have a problem is when she's cross-examined on her stance on issues, such as the war, such as health care, and so on. You've been doing it long distance for months, if not years.

MATTHEWS: That's not what you say when we're not on television.

FINEMAN: OK.

MATTHEWS: I'm just kidding. We'll be right back.

From the April 27 edition NBC News' Today:

VIERA: But she still didn't say "I made a mistake."

RUSSERT: The only one who will not say "I made a mistake," because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake, it will show a lack of surefootedness in national security and foreign policy, and, for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment.

On the April 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Bernard McGuirk, who was fired by CBS Radio for, according to MSNBC, "his role in the ugly incident" involving Don Imus, asserted, "it's like the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor who said, you know, first, they came for the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Jews, but I'm not a Jew, I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Catholics, but I'm a Protestant. Then when they came for me, there was nobody to speak." McGuirk was responding to a question from co-host Alan Colmes, who asked, "And now you've got JV and Elvis, also CBS properties, who are suspended because of a bit that they did. I wonder if you're closely following that and if you have strong feelings about what should happen in that situation."

On the April 4 edition of Imus in the Morning, which was simulcast by MSNBC, McGuirk described members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "[s]ome hard-core hos." Imus responded by saying, "That's some nappy-headed hos there." After a week of controversy over the remarks, MSNBC decided that it would no longer simulcast the program, and CBS Radio announced that it was firing Imus and canceling his radio show. On April 20, McGuirk was fired for his role in the incident. While appearing on Hannity & Colmes, McGuirk apologized to the Rutgers team.

Colmes responded to McGuirk's invocation of "the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor" by saying: "Niemoller, that was the guy," referring to Rev. Martin Niemoller, a German Protestant pastor who is credited with penning a famous statement about the Nazis called "First They Came." McGuirk then asserted: "Niemoller, right, exactly," and added that "it's the same thing. It seems to be a slippery slope."

According to the entry on Niemoller in the Jewish Virtual Library, Niemoller said: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Later, when Colmes asked, "What do you want to have happen now?" McGuirk said he hoped "[w]e go back to where we can -- everybody can relax, and everybody can have fun, and we can poke fun at each other, and not take it too seriously." McGuirk added, "Everybody's got to lighten up. And that people in the radio community and the broadcast community don't take this sitting down, because it is a slippery slope. It can happen to you, so stand up for, you know, what's right." Colmes replied, "Absolutely," and co-host Sean Hannity asserted, "I hope you get back to work soon."

Earlier in the program, McGuirk asserted that the word "ho," which he used to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team, "doesn't mean, you know, a woman who is, you know, promiscuous. It's just a pejorative slang term for a woman." McGuirk added, "I didn't get the memo that it was elevated to the status, or lowered to the status of the N-word." He also claimed to have referred to "renowned authors Mary and Carol Higgins Clark" as "the Higgins Clark hos, you know, for fun."

As Media Matters for America has noted, McGuirk has referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as having a "Jew-hating name." Additionally, when host Don Imus referred to the "Jewish management" at CBS as "money-grubbing bastards," McGuirk said: "Even if you wear a beanie, how can you not love the [gospel group] Blind Boys [of Alabama]?"

On April 15, Michael Smerconish, whose radio broadcast was simulcast in place of Imus in the Morning from April 23 to 27, posted an entry on the weblog Huffington Post titled "First They Came for Imus" in which he asserted, "The very day Imus was fired at CBS, I was alerted to a posting on Media Matters for America, a sophisticated Web site instrumental in stoking the flames for Imus' departure. The posting, titled 'It's not just Imus,' identified me as one of seven talk-show hosts in America who bear observation." Smerconish later asked, "How long before they start burning my tapes?"

From the April 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: But what I'm trying to get -- at the moment that that took place, though, was there any sense was, "We've gone too far"? Or was that not a thought at that moment?

McGUIRK: At that particular moment, no, no, not at that particular moment. That wasn't -- because, again, we engage in this type of humor all the time. I mean, you know, we have people like, say, renowned authors Mary and Carol Higgins Clark. They would come on the program, and we would refer to them as the Higgins Clark hos, you know. For fun. They'd come on, they'd laugh about it.

So the use of that word -- and it's so prevalent in today's society, and it doesn't mean, you know, a woman who is, you know, promiscuous. It's just a pejorative slang term for a woman. Unfortunately, and, you know, I didn't get the memo that it was elevated to the status, or lowered to the status of the N-word. I hadn't gotten the memo thus far.

[...]

HANNITY: Do you think you should have apologized to the girls? If you had an opportunity -- you have an opportunity now.

McGUIRK: I would have, sure. I mean --

HANNITY: You can now. Do you want to say anything to them?

McGUIRK: I apologize. You know, I have a daughter who's an 11-year-old girl. She plays on a basketball team. And if anybody characterized her directly as, you know, the H-word, you know, I'd kick their teeth in, you know, if I saw it happen in real time.

You know, but we dwelt in a world of, you know, comedy, ridicule. And at the time, it was just an abstract group of women. Of course, in retrospect, that wasn't the case. But, you know -- and, again, so the apologies, all of that legitimate and necessary.

[...]

COLMES: And now you've got JV and Elvis, also CBS properties, who are suspended because of a bit that they did.

McGUIRK: Right.

COLMES: I wonder if you're closely following that, and if you have strong feelings about what should happen in that situation.

McGUIRK: Well, no, I mean, it's like the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor who said, you know, first, they came for the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Jews, but I'm not a Jew, I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Catholics, but I'm a Protestant. Then when they came from me, there was nobody to speak.

COLMES: Niemoller, that was the guy.

McGUIRK: Niemoller, right, exactly. And it's the same thing. It seems to be a slippery slope.

[...]

COLMES: What do you want to have happen now? What is your hope that happens now? What do you want to see happen?

McGUIRK: What is my hope?

HANNITY: Get back to work.

McGUIRK: Well, I hope that [Rev.] Al Sharpton's blow dryer falls in the -- no. No. No. What do I hope? I hope everything --

HANNITY: I think you learned. You just monitored yourself.

COLMES: See, right there you stopped yourself from doing something.

McGUIRK: We go back to where we can -- everybody can relax, and everybody can have fun, and we can poke fun at each other, and not take it too seriously. Everybody's got to lighten up. And that the people in the radio community and the broadcast community don't take this sitting down, because it is a slippery slope. It can happen to you, so stand up for, you know, what's right.

COLMES: Absolutely.

HANNITY: All right. I hope you get back to work soon.

In an April 27 New York Post article on the previous day's Democratic presidential candidates debate, Republican strategist Rich Galen, who served as communications director for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), falsely suggested that, in contrast with Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) did not mention using military force when asked "how [each would] change the U.S. military stance overseas" in the event of an Al Qaeda attack in the United States.

Galen wrote:

The clear winner between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was Bill Richardson.

He won me over by giving by far the strongest answer on confronting terrorism - he would use military force.

Bravo!

In fact, in response to the question -- "[I]f, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it had been the work of Al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?" -- Clinton, Obama, and Richardson all expressed support for the use of military force.

NBC News anchor Brian Williams, one of the moderators of the debate, asked the question directly to Obama, former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), and Clinton, respectively. Williams did not directly ask that question of Richardson, but Richardson addressed the issue of a terrorist attack later in the debate.

Obama, whose initial response to Williams' question focused on the need for "an effective emergency response" and "good intelligence," later added, after responding to a different question: "[W]e have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down." Obama continued:

OBAMA: Networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years.

Clinton answered the terrorism question by saying: "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate," later adding, "[L]et's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can do destroy them." Clinton said:

CLINTON: I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported, or gave material aid, to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found [Osama] bin Laden, so let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can do destroy them.

After being asked how he felt about "normalizing relations with [Fidel] Castro's Cuba," Richardson addressed William's earlier question about terrorism, stating that he "would respond militarily, aggressively." Richardson said:

RICHARDSON: I have to answer a fundamental question that requires a presidential answer, and that is, I think you said, if two of our cities were attacked, what would I do?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

RICHARDSON: I would respond militarily, aggressively. I'll build international support for our goals. I'd improve our intelligence, but that would be a direct threat on the United States, and I would make it clear that that would be an important, decisive, military response. Surgical strike, whatever it takes.

In his response, Edwards said: "[T]he first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that." He later added:

EDWARDS: I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.

But, we have more tools available to us than bombs, and America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit -- the next generation -- get pushed to our side, not to the other side.

From MSNBC's April 26 Democratic presidential debate:

WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it had been the work of Al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

OBAMA: Well, the first thing we would have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response -- something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans -- and I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of, not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence: a) to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and b) to find out that we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network. But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast.

Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community, because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationship with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security, by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you. Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight; we knew it was Al Qaeda. What would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that. The second thing I would do -- and some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how that this happened without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage.

How did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built? You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here? And how do we stop it from happening again?

I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago, global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.

But, we have more tools available to us than bombs, and America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit -- the next generation -- get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one as president.

WILLIAMS: Senator, we're out of time, thank you. Senator Clinton, same question.

CLINTON: Well, again, having been a senator during 9-11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack, and the impact that it has, far beyond those who are directly affected. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported, or gave material aid, to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden, so let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can do destroy them.

[...]

WILLIAMS: Governor Richardson, Fidel Castro is still alive. How do you feel about normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba?

RICHARDSON: I have to answer a fundamental question that requires a presidential answer, and that is, I think you said, if two of our cities were attacked, what would I do?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

RICHARDSON: I would respond militarily, aggressively. I'll build international support for our goals. I'd improve our intelligence, but that would be a direct threat on the United States, and I would make it clear that that would be an important, decisive, military response. Surgical strike, whatever it takes.

WILLIAMS: All right, grant you a few more for the answer on Castro.

[...]

OBAMA: One thing that I do have to go back on, on this issue of terrorism, we have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down. Networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years. And that, I think, is going to be one of the most important issues that the next president is going to have to do -- is to repair the kinds of challenges that we face.

On the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly denied the assertion by Marvin Kalb, lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a senior fellow at the school's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, that prior to, and during, "the first year or even two after the [Iraq] war got started, Fox and many other people associated with Fox ... said all kinds of things in support of the war, which were not being borne out by the facts." O'Reilly replied: "No, I didn't. I went on facts and facts alone." In fact, in the lead-up to, and following, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, O'Reilly made several false claims and misleading suggestions regarding the threat posed by Iraq. Notably, O'Reilly repeatedly suggested a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, despite numerous reports undermining this claim.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi

Prior to the invasion, O'Reilly frequently repeated the Bush administration's claim that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Both claims -- that Zarqawi had prewar connections to Al Qaeda and that Saddam had a relationship with or harbored Zarqawi -- were discredited following the invasion. However, this did not stop O'Reilly from continuing to cite Zarqawi as proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

In the lead-up to war, O'Reilly frequently pushed the story that, in 2002, Zarqawi had his leg amputated at a Baghdad hospital operated by Uday Hussein, Saddam's son, as evidence of the Iraqi government's complicity with Al Qaeda. (While O'Reilly repeatedly claimed that Zarqawi's leg was amputated in Baghdad, that particular claim was later debunked. As Newsweek reported in March 2004, Zarqawi may have received medical treatment in Baghdad, but he did not appear to have had his leg amputated.) For instance, during the February 4, 2003, edition of the Factor, he asserted: "If this guy Zarqawi got injured in Afghanistan, had his leg treated in Baghdad, that's an Al Qaeda link right there."

The following day, Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council and discussed Zarqawi at length, claiming that Zarqawi had helped establish Al Qaeda "affiliates" in Baghdad. That evening on the Factor, O'Reilly praised Powell's mention of Zarqawi, stating: "You know, look, I mean if the guy's getting his leg amputated in Baghdad, you know, Saddam Hussein is going to know about it. He's an Al Qaeda big shot coming off the battlefield of Afghanistan. Yes, maybe he made a stop in Tehran, but who -- does that surprise anybody?"

But as The Christian Science Monitor reported at the time, several of Powell's claims about Zarqawi's connection to Saddam appeared not "to be true." According to the Monitor, the "International Crisis Group (ICG), a research organization in Brussels whose analysts are very familiar with the region, has cast serious doubt on the US claims" because "when talking about the Zarqawi network, Powell was referring to 'Ansar al-Islam,' a Kurdish Islamic-extremist group," of which "there is little independent evidence of links between Ansar and Baghdad." Moreover, as numerous news outlets reported in October 2004, a CIA report released to policymakers in August of that year found no conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi or gave him aid. (The Senate Intelligence Committee would later assert in a September 8, 2006, report that Saddam's "regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." The report also noted that "postwar information from an al-Qaeda detainee revealed that Saddam's regime 'considered Zarqawi an outlaw,' and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern-Iraq, for two bombings in Baghdad.")

Further, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, numerous reports published in 2003 and 2004 undermined the idea of any meaningful association between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion:

• In a June 22, 2003, article, The Washington Post reported that by the time Bush referred to Zarqawi in an October 2002 speech urging Congress to support a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, "U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents."
• Citing interrogations of Zarqawi associate Shadi Abdallah, Newsweek reported in June 2003 that "Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members."
• Roger Cressey, a former Clinton counterterrorism official at the National Security Council, was quoted in a June 25, 2004, New York Times op-ed as saying that Zarqawi's training camp in Afghanistan operated "as much in competition as it was in cooperation" with Al Qaeda.

Nonetheless, in 2004 and 2005, O'Reilly continued to claim that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq proved complicity between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, as Media Matters repeatedly noted. For instance:

• On the May 25, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly stated: "He [Zarqawi] has direct ties to Al Qaeda." Earlier that day on his radio show, O'Reilly had claimed that "after [Zarqawi] was wounded in Afghanistan, [he] went to Baghdad. This is the second Al Qaeda big shot."
• On the June 3, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly said that "Zarqawi is what, second or third in command of Al Qaeda." The next day on his radio program, O'Reilly asserted: "They've [Europeans who opposed the Iraq war] never heard about Zarqawi, the third in command in Al Qaeda getting his leg amputated in Baghdad."
• In his September 16, 2004, nationally syndicated column, O'Reilly wrote: "I mean, this guy [Zarqawi] is one of the most vicious Al Qaeda thugs in the world. ... In early 2000, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to assume a leadership position in an al Qaeda training camp."
• On the September 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly asserted: "I'm just going on what U.S. intelligence told my researcher face-to-face, that Zarqawi was a major Al Qaeda trainer in Afghanistan, was wounded on the Afghan battlefield, went then for treatment in Baghdad, where he remains, in Fallujah, beheading people. ... I want to make this clear. Zarqawi, according to U.S. intelligence -- and we spoke to them directly, this isn't taken from The New York Times or anything like that -- trained Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That's where he trained them from the year 2002-up, until the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. He was wounded on the battlefield, then he went to Iraq, where he was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein."
• On the October 5, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly dismissed the CIA's failure to find conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi as "a bunch of nonsense. ...There's no question he was in deep with Al Qaeda." That same day on his radio show, O'Reilly was confused by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's admission that he had seen "no strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda because "the Factor did its own independent investigation and the smoking gun is this guy, Al-Zarqawi."
• During the August 16, 2005, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly again claimed that Saddam had "allowed Ansar Al-Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate, to exist in Northern Iraq," when, in fact, Saddam had no control over the Kurdish region of Iraq.

Other claims

O'Reilly has also made numerous other false claims relating to the Iraq war, as Media Matters has documented:

• On the April 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Paris Business Review had documented the success of O'Reilly's boycott against France for not sufficiently supporting the United States in its fight against terrorism and in Iraq. According to O'Reilly, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.' " As Media Matters noted, a Media Matters search found no evidence of a publication called the Paris Business Review at the time. Also, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, U.S. imports from France actually appeared to have increased during the time in which O'Reilly conducted his boycott.
• On the September 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, in response to Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) criticism of Bush's use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished," O'Reilly falsely claimed that Bush didn't say "mission accomplished" during his May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, in which Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In fact, during his speech, Bush said: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."
• On the July 12, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq "says he [Bush] didn't lie" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, the report did not address the accuracy of Bush's public statements regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities.

From the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

KALB: What was true was that, when the war was being set up, and in the first year or even two after the war got started, Fox and many other people associated with Fox or the Fox point of view -- let's put it that way -- said all kinds of things in support of the war, which were not being borne out by the facts that the two of us --

O'REILLY: No, I didn't. I went on facts and facts alone.

In an April 25 ABC News report titled "Politics As Usual; Democrats Just Like the Republicans," chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported that, although Democrats "criticiz[ed] the Republicans for turning Congress in to what [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] called an auction house for sale to the highest bidder" while in the minority, they are now "taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play" in their fundraising from lobbyists and others. However, Pelosi's statement did not declare that Democrats would not do any fundraising if they became the majority party, and Ross, while discussing several fundraising events, provided no evidence that any of those events involved legal or ethical wrongdoing. By contrast, three Republican congressmen -- former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Bob Ney (R-OH), and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) -- have been indicted, and two -- Ney and Cunningham -- pleaded guilty to offenses during the 109th Congress. The report aired on the webcast of ABC's World News.

Another version of the report aired the same day on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, during which Ross also quoted Pelosi's January 2006 statement that "[t]he Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play."

During the World News report, Ross asserted that "Congressman Charlie Rangel [D-NY] and Senator Max Baucus [D-MT], collected as much as $9,200 a person at a swanky gathering with New York's financial elite this February," but again offered no evidence of "pay for play." Following that report, Ross asserted, "The Democrats say they are working on a new comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform package that will be introduced in the next several weeks. But until that is passed, everything they're doing is legal under the current law. The Democrats are enjoying the privilege of power." In response, Gibson said, "The more things change, the more things stay the same."

However, in neither report did Ross offer any evidence that these fundraisers constituted legal or ethical wrongdoing by any Democratic congressmen. He asserted that "Speaker Pelosi, who called about Republicans auctioning off Congress, recently attended a swanky dinner, 28,000, as much as $28,000 a person to attend to have dinner with her and the top committee chairman from the Democratic Party who controlled the House," and added, "many say that is nothing short of pay for play."

Responding to Ross' assertion that Pelosi attended a fundraiser that cost "as much as $28,000 a person," Gibson asserted, "Up to 28,000 bucks to go to a party where she appears. Is that within the rules?" and added, "I thought there were limits in how much you're gonna give." In response, Ross suggested the Democrats had found a loophole to otherwise applicable limits by claiming, "They found a new way. Democrats have been very creative," and adding, "By having more than one member of Congress there, you can give to kind of a, a group of them." Ross continued:

For instance, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Charlie Rangel, they control the two committees in the House and the Senate that set all tax policy. They formed their own little group and you can give as much as $9,200 a couple, and that's what happened recently in a New York and a Fifth Avenue apartment, 9,200 bucks for a couple, to have a couple of cocktails with Rangel and Baucus.

In fact, the fundraiser Pelosi attended was for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as The Washington Post noted in a February 24 article. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the limit for donations to a national party committee is $28,500.

With respect to the Baucus-Rangel fundraiser, as the Post noted, and as Ross noted later on World News, the request was for up to $9,200 per person, not per couple. However, this was also within applicable limits and did not involve a loophole as Ross had suggested. According to the FEC, the contribution limit for a congressional candidate is $2,300, but, as the FEC notes, "the limit applies separately to each election," and "[p]rimaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections." Therefore, an individual could give $4,600 to each candidate per cycle, and $9,200 to two candidates.

Moreover, as part of his case for claiming that "the game is the same," Ross offered the example of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who raised funds by taking lobbyists to a Who concert in Washington, D.C. Ross noted that "nothing stopped him from buying the tickets himself and then selling them back to lobbyists at 10 times the going price." But, as Ross noted, Issa is a Republican, so he hardly represents an example of Democrats, now in the majority, engaging in the same conduct they condemned.

The World News report was promoted on Ross's ABC home page under the headline "Congressional Democrats Spell Reform: C-A-$-H."

From the April 25 edition of the ABC World News webcast:

CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): We stick with politics, but of a very different variety. When the Democrats took control on Capitol Hill in January, they were criticizing the Republicans for turning Congress in to what Nancy Pelosi called an auction house for sale to the highest bidder. And she introduced legislation, you may recall, that she promised would fundamentally change how the Democrats interacted with lobbyists. Three months later, how are Democrats interacting with lobbyists? Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, has been looking into that question. So how are they?

ROSS: Just as well as the Republicans did. They are now in power, and they are taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play, which to get access to Congress, you have to pay a lot of money, make contributions, provide all kinds of things of value. Some small rules have changed, but essentially, the game is the same.

GIBSON: Examples?

ROSS: For example, Speaker Pelosi, who called about Republicans auctioning off Congress, recently attended a swanky dinner, $28,000 -- as much as $28,000 a person to attend to have dinner with her and the top committee chairman from the Democratic Party who control the House -- $28,000. Many say that is nothing short of pay for play.

GIBSON: Up to 28,000 bucks to go to a party where she appears. Is that within the rules? Can you get -- I thought there were limits in how much you can give.

ROSS: Well, there are limits. They found a new way. Democrats have been very creative. By having more than one member of Congress there, you can give to kind of a -- a group of them. For instance, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Charlie Rangel, they control the two committees in the House and the Senate that set all tax policy. They formed their own little group, and you can give as much as $9,200 a couple, and that's what happened recently in a New York in a Fifth Avenue apartment -- 9,200 bucks for a couple, to have a couple of cocktails with Rangel and Baucus.

GIBSON: Now, you said there've been some small rules changes made. For instance, I thought you couldn't take the same kind of gifts from lobbyists that you used to be able to take.

ROSS: Exactly. Under the disgrace of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, they said you can no longer accept from a lobbyist free tickets, for instance, or for free trips. But they found a way around this. We were at a big concert for The Who in Washington, and in the skybox was a congressman, Republican Congressman Issa. He was there with lobbyists -- it was the same group. But what he did -- instead of receiving free tickets, he bought the tickets himself for about 125 bucks and then sold each one to the lobbyists for $1,500, made a nice profit, and still had a fun evening out.

GIBSON: Oh, wait a minute. He, he bought the tickets --

ROSS: He's like a scalper.

GIBSON: He bought it, he marked them up to 10 times the price --

ROSS: Right.

GIBSON: -- and then sold them to the lobbyists.

ROSS: Exactly. And they bought them, so it's the same thing. They're paying for the tickets.

GIBSON: So it's business as usual.

ROSS: Under a different set of rules, business as usual.

GIBSON: All right. Democrats, just like Republicans. Who knew? Brian Ross, our chief investigative correspondent.

From the April 25 edition of ABC's World News:

GIBSON: Next, we turn to politics and money. When Democrats seized control of Congress last year, they vowed to limit the influence of lobbyists and major donors and crack down on what they called the culture of corruption. Well, now the Democrats have settled in. Has anything changed? Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, went back on "The Money Trail" to find out.

ROSS: This was the scene last month at a private estate outside Washington -- luxury cars delivering guests who paid as much as $28,000 to have dinner with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

REPORTER: How much did you pay for this party?

INTERVIEWEE: $10,000.

ROSS: Speaker Pelosi was whisked in under heavy guard in the kind of scene only a few months ago she labeled corrupt.

PELOSI: The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play.

ROSS: Only now, it's the Democrats who get wined and dined, taking full advantage of the system.

TONY PODESTA (lobbyist, Democratic fundraiser): There's a, a cuisine and a place to greet your favorite politician in almost -- any hour of the day or night.

ROSS: The chairs of the powerful congressional committees that set taxes, Congressman Charlie Rangel and Senator Max Baucus, collected as much as $9,200 a person at a swanky gathering with New York's financial elite this February. Senator Baucus claimed not to know how much his guests had to pay.

BAUCUS: Gosh, I don't know.

REPORTER: You, you don't know?

BAUCUS: I don't know. I couldn't tell you.

ROSS: Campaign finance records made public this week tell the story. Democratic congressional campaign committees are raking in the cash, one and a half times as much as the Republicans in the first reporting period of the year.

ELLEN MILLER (executive director, Sunlight Foundation): Access is still for sale. There's no question about it.

ROSS: And the few changes that have been made haven't really made much of a difference. We found Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California in a private skybox with lobbyists and other big donors at a recent Who concert in Washington. Under new House rules, the congressman could not accept a free ticket. But nothing stopped him from buying the tickets himself and then selling them back to lobbyists at 10 times the going price.

MILLER: It's just like the old days of Jack Abramoff, even though those days are what this Congress promised to clean up.

ROSS: The Democrats say they are working on a new comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform package that will be introduced in the next several weeks. But until that is passed, everything they're doing is legal under the current law. The Democrats are enjoying the privilege of power, Charlie.

GIBSON: For now. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

ROSS: That is exactly right.

GIBSON: Brian Ross on "The Money Trail."

On the April 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz complained that Media Matters for America -- which he referred to as "Media Myrmidons" -- had "picked up on" an April 20 New York Times article which reported that he aired an instrumental of the Pat Benatar song 'Hit Me With Your Best Shot' on his April 18 program while discussing the April 16 shooting at Virginia Tech. Boortz claimed that the song "was not chosen by me ... It was chosen by a computer," and said of Media Matters: "Let's see if they correct this one." In fact, in the March 20 item to which Boortz referred, all Media Matters "picked up on" was Boortz's false assertion on the April 20 broadcast of his show that Media Matters had been the source of the Times' claim regarding the Benatar song. Indeed, the item simply noted that Media Matters did not document Boortz's comments -- or the music that was aired -- on the April 18 broadcast of The Neal Boortz Show. Moreover, the item noted Boortz's claim that the music for each segment is "completely and totally random" and selected by a "computer."

Boortz did not contest other claims made in Steinberg's article, which an April 18 comment by Boortz on the Virginia Tech shooting: "When the history of this event is written ... we will have 25 students standing meekly waiting for this guy to execute them. Waiting for what? The government to come save them."

Boortz also repeated the false claim that Media Matters "is another George Soros-funded enterprise." In fact, Media Matters, which is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign, has never received funding directly or indirectly from billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

Boortz is not the first media figure to use the word "myrmidons" to refer to Media Matters. In a December 14, 2005, weblog entry on FrontPageMag.com, right-wing pundit David Horowitz made reference to the "myrmidons at Media Matters."

From the April 26 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: I've waited until today to hit this, but I just want to bring it up on the air. And the reason I'm bringing it up on the air is because of something that appeared yesterday on Media Myrmidons. Media Myrmidons for America.

On April the 20th, which was last Friday, Jacques Steinberg, a reporter for The New York Times, wrote an article entitled "Talk Radio Tries For Humor and a Political Advantage." Now, in the preview hour of The Neal Boortz Show, which we've just completed before many of you signed on, we had a call and a little bit of discussion about the all-out attack on talk radio that is under way right now. This story in The New York Times last Friday was part of that attack on talk radio.

We have a very important presidential election coming up, and the left -- it is without question, without question, the majority of those who play a role in what we call the mainstream media in this country will vote for Democrats and want a Democrat to win the presidency. And by majority, I mean about -- over 90 percent. Every single poll I have ever seen taken of reporters and producers and editors that work for the nation's major newspapers and broadcast networks, every single poll I've ever seen -- magazines included -- shows well in excess of 90 percent of those people consider them to be Democrats. And, for instance, in the Clinton era, 97 percent of them voted for Bill Clinton. Ninety-seven percent.

These people want a Democrat in the White House. And these people specifically want Hillary Clinton in the White House. So they are scanning the landscape looking for anything that might step up and spoil their plans. And if you look around for something that could possibly spoil a Democrat victory in 2008, talk radio is right there. Air America has recently failed. Air America, another George Soros-funded enterprise, just like Media Myrmidons.

[...]

BOORTZ: So, as you can see, the instrumental version of that Pat Benatar song -- and Steinberg didn't mention it was an instrumental -- was not chosen by me, as he wrote. Nor was it chosen by Royal. It was chosen by a computer.

So, I read this Times story last Friday morning. I had Belinda call Jacques Steinberg, tell him what happened. He said, "Well, I'm sticking with my story." So, she handed me the phone; I talked to him. And I explained to him how the bumper music is chosen. And he said -- he asked me some questions -- I mean, it was a cordial conversation. Then he said, "I'll talk to my editor." That's the last we heard. No correction, and no surprise.

So, the net result from this will be, folks, I'm telling you, for the rest of my life, my talk radio career, which I hope will be very lengthy, I'm going to be dogged by this, "Yeah, and when Neal Boortz was talking about Virginia Tech, he played that 'Hit Me With Your Best Shot' song." It's going to be there. And I won't have a correction in The New York Times to point to. I mean, they ignored me. And why?

I mean, it's already starting, by the way. Media Myrmidons, yesterday -- they've already picked up on it. In Media Myrmidons yesterday, they say, Boortz aired an instrumental version of the Pat Benatar song "Hit Me With Your Best Shot." They didn't say that I chose it, they just said that I aired it. But the urban legend is born; it's going to be with me for a while. And these people at Media Myrmidons, they're fairly good at correcting errors, unlike the Times. Let's see if they correct this one.

In an April 25 Politico article, chief political correspondent Mike Allen uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that he decided "a long time ago" that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should step down but said nothing because "I just haven't been asked" about it. In fact, a March 16 New York Times article reported that McCain "declined to say ... whether he thought Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be ousted," as Media Matters for America noted. Moreover, three additional reports from late March and mid April mentioned the senator's reluctance to comment on whether Gonzales should remain in office.

Allen wrote in the Politico on April 25:

The senator disclosed his view as his Straight Talk Express luxury bus rumbled away from the second stop on his announcement tour, a rally held in the pouring rain in a park in New Hampshire's largest city.

"Out of loyalty to the president, he [Gonzales] should obviously step down," McCain said. "He's not serving the president well. I reached that conclusion a long time ago. I just haven't been asked."

The Times article on McCain's March 15 presidential campaign stop in Iowa reported:

On Thursday, even as he promised a stream of the candid comments that distinguished him in 2000 -- "Anything, anything you want to talk about," he said -- he steered clear of offering opinions on two of the biggest issues on the political landscape this week. He declined to say whether he agreed with the assertion by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality is immoral, or whether he thought Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be ousted for his handling of the firing of federal prosecutors.

Moreover, an April 20 article, Manchester, New Hampshire's Union Leader reported that, in an April 19 telephone interview with senior political reporter John Distaso:

McCain reiterated his strong support for the war in Iraq and was noncommittal on the future of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. McCain said he believes how Gonzales handled yesterday's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be a key factor in whether he should remain in office or resign.

In a March 27 Associated Press article, Laurie Kellman wrote:

Asked Tuesday if Gonzales had lost their confidence, many Senate Republicans demurred. Sen. John McCain's response was typical.

"He has my confidence that I think he ought to make his case," said the Arizona Republican, who also is running for president.

Other members of Congress didn't hold back.

On March 22, the AP reported:

In Iowa last week, McCain said it was too soon to call for Gonzales' resignation. "I'd like to give him his chance to appear before the Congress and respond to the allegations," McCain said."

An April 26 Associated Press article uncritically reported Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) assertion that if the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq, "terrorists 'will follow us home.' " Experts, however, reportedly disagree with that assertion: According to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "Military and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim repeatedly made by President Bush -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerate[s] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland."

McCain made his assertion in discussing the then-upcoming Senate vote on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill while campaigning in South Carolina. The AP reported that McCain said, "If we leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home."

According to the McClatchy article, "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States." The article reported that, according to a February 2007 Defense Intelligence Agency report, "Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence." The article also reported that "[w]hile acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time -- whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not -- the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say."

Moreover, the McClatchy article reported, the Iraq war itself may be inspiring more Muslims to turn against the United States. " 'The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America,' said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. 'If anything, that -- along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy.'"

From the April 26 Associated Press report:

Republican presidential contender John McCain predicated [sic] Thursday as the Senate prepared to vote on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq that terrorists "will follow us home."

McCain, who was campaigning in this early voting state and didn't plan to vote on the bill containing the withdrawal timetable, said the consequences of withdrawal would be severe.

"If we leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home," the Arizona senator said, calling the war against al-Qaeda "a struggle between good and evil."

On Wednesday, the House brushed aside a veto threat and passed legislation that would order President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1.

On the April 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for America, saying that "the vile Media Matters outfit is denying receiving funding from any of [progressive financier] George Soros' outfits," and claiming, "Well, that is a total lie." As evidence, O'Reilly noted that the Tides Foundation donated over $1 million to Media Matters in 2005, "[a]nd just by coincidence Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005." He added: "Figure it out." But O'Reilly's conclusion that Soros donated $1 million to Media Matters through the Tides Foundation is false. OSI's donations to Tides were earmarked for several specific programs, and Media Matters was not included on this list.

As Media Matters documented, on April 24, O'Reilly unveiled a chart that purported to expose a "complicated political operation" in which "Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process" by funding Media Matters, which "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people." As previously indicated, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.

According to the Tides website, the "Tides Foundation has had 30 years of visionary philanthropy for progressive social change. Since 2000, it has granted more than $400 million to progressive nonprofit organizations. Our growth is a testament to the joint commitment among our partners and staff to supporting positive social change domestically and globally." According to the foundation's IRS Form 990, Tides received $81,044,306 in public contributions, gifts, and grants in 2005. Media Matters for America was awarded $1,074,454, and the Media Matters Action Network was awarded $5,000 from Tides in 2005. Tides awarded a total of $85,941,477 to several hundred organizations. According to OSI's Form 990, the organization awarded a total of $550,000 to Tides in 2005 and instructed that this sum be directed to two specific programs or entities: Tides' Death Penalty Mobilization Fund, which was awarded $150,000, and the Right to Vote Campaign, which received $400,000. A total of $988,655 from OSI was actually paid through Tides in 2005 to three programs or entities -- the Death Penalty Mobilization Fund, the Right to Vote Campaign, and Connect US Fund and Network.

From the April 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: The techniques [PBS journalist Bill] Moyers uses are standard-issue secular-progressive far left. And when they're exposed, as Moyers has been, they launch personal attacks. We expect them.

After our report on Monday, the vile Media Matters outfit is denying receiving funding from any of George Soros' outfits. Well, that is a total lie. As we laid out for you, the smear website received more than a million dollars from the Tides Foundation alone in 2005, and just by coincidence, Soros' Open Society Institute donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005. Figure it out.

Now, I could sit here for the entire hour and detail the corruption in the far-left media. It was no accident that elements at NBC News rose quickly to defend Media Matters. NBC News uses their propaganda as fact almost daily. Disgraceful. And that's the "Memo."

There's been a feeling lately that the party has a fabulous, unstoppable array of candidates for the next election. Bob Moser argues that the first Democratic debate gave the lie to that comforting notion.

On the April 25 edition of the Public Broadcasting Service's Bill Moyers Journal, host Bill Moyers presented a 90-minute-long documentary special, Buying the War," that examined how the media "largely surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with our government in marching to war" in Iraq. The film extensively reported on the role New York Times reporters and columnists played in contributing to the "drumbeat" of war. However, the documentary has not been either reviewed or mentioned in the Times itself, aside from a two-sentence blurb that appeared in the print newspaper's television listings.

By contrast, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post all ran reviews of the Moyers documentary. The Post -- whose editorials in favor of the invasion and front-page coverage of Bush administration prewar claims were extensively highlighted by Moyers -- published two articles on the special: a preview of the documentary and a review of it. On April 25, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales reviewed the film, calling it "one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year ... as disheartening as it is compelling." Shales further observed: "The show asks: Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers -- a contingent that Washington Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus calls 'the marketing group' -- or did the outrage of 9/11 made the press more vulnerable to being duped?"

While the documentary cast a critical eye on most of the mainstream press, Moyers especially noted The New York Times' role in credulously reporting administration claims about Iraq's WMD program, particularly focusing on former Times reporter Judith Miller. Moyers noted that, before the invasion, "Miller would write six prominent stories based on" the "testimony" of Iraqi defectors, whose stories were later found to be exaggerated or fictional. Miller relied heavily on Ahmed Chalabi -- then an Iraqi exile and head of the Iraqi National Congress -- who put her in touch with other defectors who, according to Moyers, "told Miller the Iraqis had hidden chemical and biological weapons ... [r]ight under [Saddam Hussein's] 'presidential sites.' " Moyers reported that the "story spread far and wide," opening floodgates for other Iraqi defectors to peddle misinformation to the U.S. media.

Moyers highlighted another front-page Times article, to which Miller contributed, that helped the Bush administration make the case that Saddam "had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed [aluminum] tubes," a claim that later turned out to be false. Moyers used this story to demonstrate how administration officials would manipulate the media by "plant[ing] a dramatic story," then appearing on news talk shows and "point[ing]" to the story they had leaked to confirm their argument, thus creating a "circular, self-confirming leak":

MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that [Vice President Dick] Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?

TIM RUSSERT (NBC News Washington bureau chief and host of NBC's Meet the Press): I don't know. The New York Times is a better judge of that than I am.

MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

RUSSERT: No, no. I mean --

MOYERS: The -- the Cheney office didn't make any -- didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't -- I don't have the -- this is, you know, on Meet the Press, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum-tube story until I read it in The New York Times.

MOYERS: Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in The New York Times and then the vice president comes on your show and points to The New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and [New York Times reporter] Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of The New York Times. When Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

Buying the War also highlighted The Washington Post's prominent coverage of the Bush administration's prewar claims, while simultaneously burying stories that cast doubt on the administration's assertions. Moyers also noted that "in the six months leading up to the invasion The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times." But while two Post staffers -- media critic Howard Kurtz and staff writer Walter Pincus -- agreed to be interviewed for Moyers' program, three Times staffers Moyers sought to interview -- Miller and columnists Thomas Friedman and William Safire, both of whom advocated for the war -- all declined to be interviewed. In fact, aside from file footage, no one from the Times appeared on air.

Media Matters for America found that, in the past two months, the only coverage The New York Times devoted to the special was a two-line mention in the April 25 edition of the paper's Arts & Entertainment section, Page 9, which noted: "The season premiere of 'Bill Moyers Journal' examines the proposition that the news media were complicit in pushing the United States into the war in Iraq. Dan Rather, Tim Russert and Bob Simon appear in interviews."