Edward Piou's personal website

After highlighting reports last week that the House ethics committee was investigating whether former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) had sexually harassed a member of his staff, conservative media pivoted to promote Massa's subsequent claim that the Democratic leadership had orchestrated the investigation in order to force him out of office because he opposes health care reform legislation.

Hannity compares Massa to Foley, then runs with Massa's allegations

Hannity on March 3: "[R]emember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was?" On the March 3 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated (transcript from the Nexis database):

HANNITY: All right, remember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was leading into the 2006 elections? "Politico" reported earlier today that this guy, one-term congressman, Eric Massa, also from New York.

I don't know what's in the water in New York these days. But according to several House aides on both sides of the aisle, you know, this guy is married with two kids, who's being accused -- he's denying it -- but being accused of sexually harassing a male staffer.

Now do you remember the outrage then? So how big an issue -- I guess is my question -- how big an issue is corruption now going to be as we head into these midterms? You think it's going to matter?

Hannity on March 8: "[I]t looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House." During the March 8 edition of Hannity (from Nexis), Hannity stated that "the White House appears to be resorting to desperate measures to pass a government-run health care takeover. New York Congressman Eric Massa who resigned early this evening says the Democrats are starting to eat their own." After playing audio comments of Massa criticizing the administration and congressional Democrats, Hannity stated that "it looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House."

Limbaugh: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story"

Limbaugh on March 3: "Man, oh man, oh man." On the March 3 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated, "Man, oh man, oh man. New York Congressman Eric Massa, a Democrat, will not seek re-election after only one term in orifice. Literally." After reading allegations reportedly made against Massa, Limbaugh added, "I wonder if he's gonna -- could this be one less vote for Pelosi? I don't know. Doubt it. He'll hang in there."

Limbaugh on March 8: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part" to make his allegations against Dems "a national story." During the March 8 edition of his show, Limbaugh stated, "Massa says that they're coming after him because of his vote on health care." Limbaugh further stated:

LIMBAUGH: He was asked in this appearance: "Well, why don't you rescind your resignation?" He said, "The only way I can do that is if this becomes a national story." So Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story. But he then said, "But you have to understand something, if I don't quit, the ethics investigation continues and they're going to ruin me that way." What would you do if you were him? What would you do, Snerdley, what would you do? They're going to ruin him anyway. He sounds ticked off enough that I would stay. This guy is as fired up as anybody I've ever heard anywhere opposed this, and the process and how they're getting it done. This guy is going to have so much support from people. We'll see. He's got five hours or four hours unless I was missing something here and he's said today that he's going to go ahead and resign and I haven't seen that.

Fox Nation trumpets "Gay Sex Harass Allegations," then asks "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa?"

Fox Nation on March 3: "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations." On March 3, the Fox News website The Fox Nation linked to a Politico story using the headline "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations":

Fox Nation on March 8: "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa? Beck Finds Out Today!" On March 8, the Fox Nation front page promoted Massa's scheduled appearance on Glenn Beck's Fox News show:

The front page linked another Fox Nation page that quoted from a Washington Examiner item on Massa.

In a Washington Times' op-ed, Chris Horner revived a discredited study to conclude that green jobs initiatives in Spain were "economic and employment disasters." Horner also accused the Center of American Progress, the American Wind Energy Association, and the Department of Energy of coordinating "to produce an attack that would serve all their interests," ignoring news reports and the Spanish government itself that are also critical of the study.

Horner cites "Spanish academics and experts" who concluded "Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters"

Horner: Spanish experts "reveal[ed] Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters." From a March 9 Washington Times op-ed by Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Obama told Americans on no fewer than eight occasions to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" to see his model for successful "green jobs" policies, and what we should expect here.

Some Spanish academics and experts on that country's wind- and solar-energy policies and outcomes took Mr. Obama up on his invitation, revealing Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters. The political embarrassment to the administration was obvious, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asked about the Spanish study at a press conference, and the president hurriedly substituted Denmark for Spain in his stump speech.

In a March 3 PajamasMedia blog post, Horner stated, "In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: 'Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.' The paper concludes that Spain's 'green jobs' program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs."

Horner suggests criticism of study is rooted in conspiracy involving Department of Energy and CAP. Citing documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute using the Freedom of Information Act, Horner asserted: "What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests."

Study Horner cited roundly criticized for "lack of scientific rigor"

U.S. Department of Energy: "[T]he primary conclusion made by the authors ... is not supported by their work." In an August 2009 White Paper responding to the Spanish study, which was written by Gabriel Calzada, a professor of economics at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain and fellow of the Centre for the New Europe, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory stated that the Spanish study "represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors -- policy support of renewable energy results in net job losses -- is not supported by their work." The paper further concluded:

The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

WSJ's Johnson: "Study doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed." Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson challenged a key premise of the study, writing on March 30, 2009, that it "doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending." He went on to write: "The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it's hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January."

Spanish government criticized study for "non rigorous methodology." In a May 20, 2009, letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate Change, wrote that Calzada's analysis used a "low reliable and non rigorous methodology" and that the data he used are "totally out of keeping with the current reality of the sector." Stating that "the Spanish Government would like to express its views," Rodríguez further wrote:

In Spain, according to the last data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade the [renewable energy] sector employs 73.900 direct workers, while other report by ISTAS-CCOO (labour union institute of work, environment and health) estimates 89000 direct jobs plus 99681 indirect jobs, against de 52200 direct and indirect jobs of the Calzada's figures (unknown source). According to data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade and of the wind power business association, the wind power sector employed 37730 people instead of the 15000 jobs considered in the Calzada's paper.

ISTAS: "The lack of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming." In an analysis of the Calzada study, Spain's Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS) stated that the study contained a "lack of scientific rigor." ISTAS also said that the lack "of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming" and that Calzada had written not "a study ... but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts." ISTAS also stated that one of the "real intention[s] behind the document" was to "try and influence the U.S. media."

Study's author reportedly has ties to oil industry

Study reportedly "supported" by oil-funded Institute for Energy Research. Washington Post columnist George Will cited Calzada's study on June 25, 2009, and stated that Calzada's "study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech.)" As Media Matters noted, ExxonMobil Corp. has disclosed that it has provided funding for the institute. Moreover, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation -- the president of which is an executive vice president of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940" -- donated $85,000 in grants to the institute between 1997 and 2005, according Internal Revenue Service data compiled by mediatransparency.org, a website of the Media Matters Action Network.

Calzada is fellow at Centre for the New Europe, which has also taken oil-industry money. Calzada's biography from a Heartland Institute conference states that he is a "fellow of the Centre for the New Europe (Brussels, Belgium)." The president of the Centre for the New Europe has acknowledged receiving money from ExxonMobil in 2005, according to a December 7, 2006, article in London's Independent.

On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely suggested health care reform legislation contained no immediate benefits, and Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney claimed that "nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. In fact, numerous benefits found in the Senate's bill and President Obama's proposal would begin immediately, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that both the Senate and the House's legislation will reduce deficits.

Fox & Friends advances falsehoods that health care reform has no immediate benefits and would not reduce the deficit

Varney: "Nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. On the March 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney said that "even if ... you go to the right decade, and look at the correct numbers from the CBO, there is still a great deal of confusion as to whether or not you do actually save any money or whether it adds hugely to the deficit." Varney then claimed, "Look, nobody believes that you can cover 30 million extra people, maintain quality of care, and cut the deficit by a trillion dollars at the same time. Nobody believes that."

Carlson: "They're going to start taxing all the people" before the "so-called benefits kick in." After Varney cast doubt on the ability of health care reform to cut the deficit, Carlson said: "Here's how they're going to pay for it, here's how they're going to get all that: They're going to start taxing all the people first before any of the benefits -- so-called benefits -- kick in."

CBO: Health care reform will lower the deficit

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6 estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Carlson's suggestion, according to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, WashingtonPost.com blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

• The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

• The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

• The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

• The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

• The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.

Small Business Tax Credits

• The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

• Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.

[...]

Patient Protections

• The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

• The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.

Free Prevention Benefits

• The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.

• Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

• The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

• The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.

In an attack on Gen. Robert Harding, President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that Harding's views on the necessity for diversity hiring in the intelligence community are "controversial." In fact, numerous officials -- including President Bush -- and intelligence experts agree with Harding that diversity hiring in the intelligence community is vital to national security.

WND attacks TSA nominee: Views on diversity "controversial"

WND claims Harding has "controversial views on diversity." In a March 8 article, WorldNetDaily claimed that Harding "long has pushed for 'ethnic diversity' as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies." The article quoted November 2003 written testimony Harding gave to a Senate subcommittee stressing the need for diversity hiring in the intelligence community. From the article:

President Obama's pick to head the Transportation Security Administration long has pushed for "ethnic diversity" as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies, WND has learned.

[...]

WND found that in 2003, Harding submitted written testimony to a Senate subcommittee hearing on intelligence issues pushing for more diversity atsecurity agencies, going so far as to call diversity a "requirement."

[...]

Harding noted how he previously testified in Senate hearings while working at the Defense Department. He then applauded the senatorial committee for remaining "steadfastly clear about the need for diversity in the ranks of the CIA."

He urged the Defense Department to "build systems and incentives to attract, maintain and sustain a diverse group of gifted (human intelligence) operatives."

Harding maintained the military community "still needs senior folks with language and diversity at the top -- folks who feel a responsibility in a particularly focused way."

[...]

Harding, meanwhile, would not be the only Obama administration official with controversial views on diversity.

But Harding's views are not "controversial" or unique; numerous officials and experts have said diversity is vital to national security

Harding: Diversity in intelligence community is "an analytical necessity." In his 2003 testimony, Harding cited a report by Robert Callum, titled, "The Case for Cultural Diversity in the Intelligence Community," in which Callum argued, "While the leaders of the CIA, DIA, NSA and NRO have all acknowledged the lack of diversity and have created focused recruiting efforts, the acceptance of minorities into the IC [intelligence community] has been disappointing to date. The reason, in part, is that diversity has been viewed as a legal and moral imperative, and not as an analytical necessity." In his paper (purchase required), Callum also argued: "Diversity should be sought, not on legal or ethical grounds, but rather because increased diversity will lead to better intelligence analysis." After quoting a portion of Callum's argument, Harding said: "I sincerely hope that, given the current state of our analytical community, that we've collectively overcome that sentiment." Later in his testimony, Harding described the CIA's recent efforts to "ensure diversity of languages, skills and ethnic and cultural understanding" in its recruits as "a matter of survival."

Bush touted "cultural awareness" as "necessary to meet the threats of this new century." In remarks during the February 20, 2007, swearing-in of Mike McConnell as director of national intelligence, President Bush said of McConnell, "I've asked him to ensure that our intelligence agency focus on bringing in more Americans with language skills and cultural awareness necessary to meet the threats of this new century."

McConnell: "We have got to have more diversity." In remarks during a 2007 Border Security Conference, McConnell said, "It is now our policy across this [intelligence] community that we do not screen out first generation Americans. The very people that we need in this community to speak the languages, understand the cultures, are the ones who have come to America from the distant shores." He later said, "[O]ur focus is to get a more diverse culture," and that "[w]e have got to have more diversity."

McConnell stressed need to hire "first and second generation Americans who possess native language skills, cultural insights." In remarks during his swearing-in ceremony as director of national intelligence, McConnell said, "[W]e will revamp security and workforce policies of past. Our nation requires that we have the best and brightest of our citizens in our ranks to fight a very different enemy. The old policies have hampered some common sense reforms, such as hiring first and second generation Americans who possess native language skills, cultural insights, and a keen understanding of the threats we face."

Rep. Reyes: "[I]t's in our best interests ... to focus on recruiting and giving opportunities to minority groups. On the August 13, 2007, edition CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said, "[W]hat we're trying to do is point out that there ought to be a greater outreach by the different intelligence agencies to minority communities. One of the lessons we learned after 9/11 was that we didn't understand the cultures, the languages, the customs of many communities throughout the world." Reyes continued, "So I think it's in our best interests to get the agencies to focus on recruiting and giving opportunities to minority groups."

Army Lt. Gen. Rochelle: "Diversity is a national security issue." A July 25, 2008, American Forces Press Service article reported that "diversity in the force now takes on a national security context and serves as a combat multiplier on the battlefield, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, the service's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said." The article quoted Rochelle as saying, "Diversity is a national security issue and one that every one of us should be concerned about, frankly, because it is a force multiplier for our soldiers."

NSA director: "[D]iversity is an area in which improvement is essential to sustaining our mission." In November 5, 2003, testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- the same hearing at which Harding spoke -- then-National Security Agency (NSA) deputy director William Black said that "NSA has made significant progress in hiring, recruitment, retention, skills mix, and training. Despite successes in these areas, NSA recognizes that its diversity is an area in which improvement is essential to sustaining our mission."

Former CSIS South America Project director: "Pursu[ing] diversity within the intelligence services ... is the smart thing to do." During the November 5, 2003, Senate hearing, Miguel Diaz, former director of the Center for Strategic & International Studies' South America Project, said, "[W]e should pursue diversity within the intelligence services because it is the smart thing to do." He further stated: "Minorities have much to offer in the way of language capability, social skills, and cultural sensibilities that have been sorely lacking in the past. Because of the variety of our national origins we look like the rest of the world, an important attribute in the intelligence business."

Former National Commission on Terrorism member: "America needs ... to draw Arabs and Muslims into our intelligence agencies." During the November 5, 2003, Senate hearing, Juliette N. Kayyem, a former member of the National Commission on Terrorism, stated that "America needs to begin a strategic recruitment effort to draw Arabs and Muslims into our intelligence agencies" because "our law enforcement and intelligence communities are woefully inadequate in Arabic translation skills, and are often forced to contract out these vital duties."

Supreme Court has noted military officers' views that diversity is a national security issue

Court noted officers' views that "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps" is essential "to provide national security." In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court noted that retired military officers said that a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." From the Supreme Court opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger:

What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, "[b]ased on [their] decades of experience," a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27.

When news broke last Thursday that a deranged gunman had opened fire outside a Pentagon security checkpoint, wounding two officers before being stopped by return fire (the gunman later died from his wounds), the reaction from some oddly giddy right-wing bloggers was swift. They wanted everyone to pay attention to the story. Why? Because bloggers claimed the gunman, John Patrick Bedell, was a loony liberal.

Under increased scrutiny for the rampant anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, along with its often violent imagery and open talk of insurrection, right-wingers seemed anxious, even frantic, to hold up the Pentagon killer as proof that they weren't responsible for -- or connected with -- every political act of vigilante violence that makes headlines these days.

But as more details emerge about the incident, the far-right bloggers may wish they hadn't shone a spotlight on the disturbing Pentagon story. If anything, as we learn more about the anti-government rantings and writings of Bedell, this madman attack looks an awful lot like a string of other "lone wolf" attacks, such as the recent kamikaze pilot who flew his plane into an IRS office in Austin.

They're attacks that appear to be fueled by an almost pathological hatred for the U.S. government -- the same open hatred that right-wing bloggers, AM talk radio hosts, Fox News' lineup of anti-government prophets, and Tea Party leaders have been frantically fueling for the last year; pushing radical propaganda and warning of America's permanent, democratic demise under President Obama.

As I noted last year when the first red flags were raised about the specter of anti-government violence, what the GOP Noise Machine is doing today is embracing, and mainstreaming, the same kind of hate rhetoric and doomsday conspiratorial talk that flourished on the far-right fringes during the '90s. (Think Waco and black helicopters.) And legitimizing that kind of talk is dangerous.

On the one hand, right-wing media love mainstreaming vile, alarmist, anti-government rhetoric. Yet they're also hyper-sensitive to the charge that they're, y'know, mainstreaming vile, alarmist anti-government rhetoric and might also be goading some crazies into action. Consumed with Obama Derangement Syndrome, 'wingers literally cannot help themselves. Just this weekend, one prominent, albeit unhinged, right-wing site branded Obama as "suicide-bomber-in-chief." They've removed all sensible filters, which means the crazy talk flows 24-7.

Similar to the problematic birther brigade, the right-wing's crazy uncle who keeps showing up at public functions, radical insurrectionist rhetoric (i.e. war may have to be waged against the government) has been unleashed into the far-right masses and there's nothing that supposed leaders can do to contain it. They can't limit the violence that it continues to set off, either. Instead they scramble, like after last week's Pentagon attack, to shift the blame to the political left.

But the clumsy scapegoating doesn't work for obvious reasons: There are no major American liberal players, in media or politics, who today routinely preach the need to take up arms against the federal government. Conservative blogger Erick Erickson certainly couldn't point to any in his laugh-out-loud funny rewriting of history, in which he dutifully absolved the right-wing of any responsibility for anti-government violence, and instead blamed liberals.

Sorry, right-wingers, but you fostered this toxic environment. You're the ones who rally around Rush Limbaugh when he calls the president of the United States a Nazi. You're the ones who cheer when Glenn Beck compares our commander in chief to a dangerous, Hitler-like tyrant who wants to "take your gun away one way or another."

You're the ones who toasted the anti-Obama mobs last summer when members marched around with Swastika posters, brandished guns, and gave speeches about the need to wage bloody war against the federal government. You're the ones who compare health care reform to a bloody terrorism campaign waged by the government against its own citizens.

You cultivated this poisonous, arm-yourself-against-the-government hysteria -- and now you own it. You have to deal with increasingly predictable, and at times deadly consequences.

For instance, last year, it was Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a right-wing media darling and Tea Party favorite, who said to Glenn Beck during an interview on his radio show that she wanted "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous" to oppose the Obama administration. She also stressed that Thomas Jefferson "told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."

We've been down this road before.

On April 19, 1995, feeding off his hatred of the federal government, Timothy McVeigh drove a rented 20-foot Ryder truck and parked it in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. His truck's three-ton ammonium nitrate bomb detonated and sheared the north side off the Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. McVeigh later wrote, "I reached the decision to go on the offensive -- to put a check on government abuse of power." McVeigh wanted to "send a message to a government" by "bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government."

Back in 1995, McVeigh, keyed into far-right conspiracies and still seething about the siege at Waco, declared war on the federal government. Today, more and more combatants seem to be signing up for duty.

Last week's shooter, who traveled all the way from California to attack the Pentagon, certainly expressed a dark and unstable contempt for the government:

When the government can control how private property is used, and especially when the government controls the monetary system that is use to exchange private property, the government has the mechanisms and the motivation to control individuals to the smallest detail.

And:

When governments are able to confiscate the resources of their citizens to fund schemes that need only be justified by lies and deception enormous disasters can result.

And:

The imperative to defend the freedom of conscience must lead us to eliminate the role of the government in education and leave parents and communities free to raise their children as they see fit.

As blogger Charles Johnson, at Little Green Footballs correctly pointed out: "If you gave a speech at a tea party rally consisting of nothing but the quotes from Bedell you see above, you'd get a standing ovation."

But today, far-right bloggers scramble to deflect the connection. They excitedly point to the fact that Bedell was a 9-11 "truther," who demanded answers about the government's supposed involvement in the attacks that day, and so that automatically made the mentally ill gunman a liberal. But wait, wasn't it a right-wing Tea Party candidate for governor who recently made news when she refused to knock down the anti-government "truther" conspiracy?

Indeed. Texas Tea Party activist and candidate Debra Medina appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show and suggested she was open to the idea that the 9-11 attacks were an inside government job. "I have not taken a position on that," said Medina. (It's the same insurrectionist Medina who told a Tea Party crowd that "we are aware that stepping off into secession may in fact be a bloody war. We understand that the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.")

And meanwhile, aren't lots of Ron Paul supporters famously attached to the 9-11 conspiracy theory? And isn't that the same Ron Paul who ran away with the straw poll at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference convention in Washington, D.C.?

And isn't the 9-11 truther movement's most famous advocate the conspiratorial radio nut (and full-time Obama hater) Alex Jones, who has been mainstreamed by Fox News? And isn't that the same Alex Jones who today complains that Glenn Beck's show now sounds so much like Jones' that Beck is just ripping him off?

From this month's issue of Texas Monthly (subscription required):

More troubling, [Jones] told me, is the way personalities at the top of the media food chain have been co-opting his message. Glenn Beck is the worst, he said. "Two weeks after I have a guest on, they have him on. ... Glenn Beck is literally word for word taking everything I do and twisting it and turning it into a Roger Ailes Fox News evil doppelgänger of my show," he said" [emphasis added].

Bloggers also pointed to the fact that Bedell was reportedly a registered Democrat as more proof of his allegiance to the left. But that doesn't make much sense, either. Are bloggers really suggesting that no registered Democrats have attended anti-government Tea Party rallies this year? Haven't Tea Party leaders been bragging about how they're attracting a wide range of disaffected voters? And in fact, haven't Tea Party leaders been stressing how wrong it is to assume the movement is synonymous with the Republican Party? But suddenly a distant political registration proves all.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that Bedell was a dedicated Glenn Beck fan, or that Rush Limbaugh made him do it. I think the specifics of this case are too muddled for those kinds of conclusions. But the idea that panicked right-wing bloggers can turn Bedell into a tree-hugging Greenpeace activist is ludicrous. The allegation doesn't withstand scrutiny, simply because dangerous, anti-government rhetoric is not part of today's liberal dialogue.

It is however, a proud cornerstone of the conservative one.

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen defended the witch hunt against Justice Department attorneys who previously represented terror suspects and other detainees, falsely suggesting that criticism of the witch hunt has come only from progressives, when, in fact, conservatives have also condemned the attacks.

Thiessen brings "shameful" attacks on DOJ lawyers to Post pages

In column, Thiessen defended attacks on DOJ lawyers, singled out Clinton-era official Walter Dellinger for criticism. From Thiessen's March 8 column:

Finally, two weeks ago, he [Attorney General Eric Holder] admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the "al-Qaeda seven," and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities -- but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

[...]

Yet for raising questions, Cheney and the Republican senators have been vilified. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger decried the "shameful" personal attacks on "these fine lawyers," while numerous commentators leveled charges of "McCarthyism."

Numerous conservatives have joined Dellinger in condemning attacks on DOJ lawyers. According to Politico's Ben Smith, numerous conservatives signed a letter agreeing with Dellinger that the attacks on the Justice Department lawyers are "shameful." They also said the attacks "undermine the Justice system." Smith reported that the signers include:

[F]ormer Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, John Ashcroft's No. 2, and Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general during President Bush's second term. They also include several lawyers who dealt directly with detainee policy: Matthew Waxman and Charles "Cully" Stimson, who each served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs; Daniel Dell'Orto, who was acting general counsel for the Department of Defense; and Bradford Berenson, a prominent Washington lawyer who worked on the issues as an associate White House counsel during President Bush's first term.

Conservatives noted that DOJ lawyers acted in the tradition of John Adams. From the statement signed by Bush administration lawyers:

The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention policy. As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams's representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department's strengths. The War on Terror raised any number of novel legal questions, which collectively created a significant role in judicial, executive and legislative forums alike for honorable advocacy on behalf of detainees. In several key cases, detainee advocates prevailed before the Supreme Court. To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.

Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel. Guantanamo detainees likewise have access to lawyers for purposes of habeas review, and the reach of that habeas corpus could eventually extend beyond this population. Good defense counsel is thus key to ensuring that military commissions, federal juries, and federal judges have access to the best arguments and most rigorous factual presentations before making crucial decisions that affect both national security and paramount liberty interests.

Wash. Post itself has criticized the attacks on DOJ lawyers. From the Post's March 5 editorial:

It is important to remember that no less an authority than the Supreme Court ruled that those held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must be allowed to challenge their detentions in a U.S. court. It is exceedingly difficult to exercise that right meaningfully without the help of a lawyer. It is also worth remembering that the Bush administration wanted to try some Guantanamo detainees in military commissions -- a forum in which a defendant is guaranteed legal representation. Even so, it took courage for attorneys to stand up in the midst of understandable societal rage to protect the rights of those accused of terrorism. Advocates knew that ignorance and fear would too often cloud reason. They knew that this hysteria made their work on these cases all the more important. The video from Keep America Safe proves they were right.

Thiessen misrepresents DOJ lawyers' arguments on Guantánamo detainees

Thiessen suggested DOJ's Daskal was more concerned for detainees' rights than American lives. From Thiessen's column (ellipses in the original):

One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder's Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime "should be released from Guantanamo's system of indefinite detention" even though "at least some of these men may ... join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day." Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.

In fact, Daskal argued that holding detainees indefinitely without charge is "a greater threat to the United States." From Daskal's Human Rights Watch report, "How to Close Guantanamo":

An insurgency like al Qaeda is not static, but fluid and dynamic. If the particular detainees in Guantanamo are kept out of circulation, others can -- and will -- fight in their place. The supply outstrips demand. The high-profile detentions of a few dozen potentially dangerous men in Guantanamo do little to make the United States safer. To the contrary, it delegitimizes U.S. moral authority, helps to fuel the "recuperative power" of the enemy, and undercuts critical efforts to win hearts and minds.

The United States should do everything it can to mitigate the risks posed by the release of these men. It should press their home countries to lawfully monitor returned detainees' activities and to charge and detain anyone who commits a criminal act. But some countries are unable or unwilling to take on that role. Nearly 100 of the remaining Guantanamo detainees are Yemeni. It is unlikely that the United States will ever be adequately satisfied that Yemen is taking sufficient steps to monitor and respond to acts of terrorism within its borders. Does that mean that these Yemenis should be locked up without charge -- possibly until the ends of their lives -- based on an assessment that they might pose a future risk? No. They should be released. Doing so will require an assumption of risk. It will require the United States to accept that at least some of these men may cross the border and join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day.

General Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. drug czar, following an academic mission to Guantanamo Bay, advised the Pentagon: World opinion is so united against the detention facility that "there is now no possible political support for Guantanamo going forward." It "may be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat then sit on them the next 15 years."

General McCaffrey makes a point. Those detained at Guantanamo present a greater threat to the United States than they would if they returned to the battlefield, where -- under the laws of war -- they can be shot and killed on sight.

Supreme Court found that Bush admin violated detainee rights in cases at issue

Thiessen claimed DOJ lawyers were "using federal courts as a tool to undermine our military." Thiessen also wrote in his column: "The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war."

Supreme Court repeatedly found that Bush administration was violating detainee's rights. According to a Foxnews.com blog post cited by Thiessen, two of the Justice Department attorneys at issue represented "six Bosnian-Algerian detainees held at Guantanamo Bay," including Lakhdar Boumediene. In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court found that the Bush administration had violated Guantánamo detainees' constitutional right to present habeas corpus petitions to civilian courts. In addition, the Foxnews.com blog post noted that another of the DOJ lawyers was Neal Katyal, who represented Salim Hamdan in the Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Bush administration had violated the Geneva Conventions in its handling of detainees.

Thiessen relies on conspiracy theorist Andy McCarthy for attack on DOJ lawyers

Thiessen quoted Andy McCarthy's attack on DOJ lawyers. Thiessen countered the argument that the Justice Department lawyers "are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court" by quoting National Review Online's Andy McCarthy. Thiessen wrote:

Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who put Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," behind bars for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. "We need to be clear about what the American tradition is," McCarthy told me. "The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused -- that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime -- a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system." The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.

McCarthy has questioned Obama's birth certificate, claimed that Ayers may have written Obama's book. Undermining his credibility as an Obama administration critic, McCarthy demanded a "vault copy" of President Obama's birth certificate in a National Review article, claiming that it is necessary to determine Obama's "honesty." The article contained sub-headlines such as "Who Is This Guy?" and "A Muslim Citizen of Indonesia." McCarthy has also written two blog posts claiming that former Weather Underground member William Ayers may have written Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father.

In his book, Thiessen took attacks on DOJ lawyers to another level

In his book, Thiessen attacked lawyers who worked at firms that represented detainees. In his book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack, Thiessen not only attacked the Justice Department attorneys who represented terror suspects, but he also attacked "senior partners" at law firms in which other lawyers took on such cases for allowing "work on behalf of America's terrorist enemies" to continue.

Fox News' Sean Hannity displayed a graphic reading "More Tax Troubles" while discussing a Roll Call article about Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) receiving a Maryland property tax credit for which he was not eligible. In fact, Levin reportedly said he received the credit because of an error on the part of Maryland's Montgomery County and paid it back, as he reportedly did when the same error was made in 2006.

Hannity attacked Levin for correcting Maryland county's property tax error

From the March 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Michigan Congressman Sander Levin is facing issues of his own, and they are -- surprise, surprise -- tax-related. Now, Roll Call reported that Levin improperly received a $690 Maryland property tax credit. It was issued for a home that Levin owns in the state, but was intended only for, quote, "owner-occupied properties." Unfortunately, Levin does not live in his Maryland home. Now, according to Roll Call, Representative Levin repaid the IRS [sic: Montgomery County Department of Finance] on Friday, so it appears that the Dems have finally found a House Ways and Means Committee chairman, and I know that, given their options, a pretty difficult task -- somebody who paid their taxes.

Hannity aired the following on-screen graphic during the segment:

Hannity ignored Levin's response that Montgomery County tax authorities committed error

Levin's office: Rep. Levin did not apply for credit, but "paid the full amount to Montgomery County to correct their mistake." The Roll Call article to which Hannity referred quoted Levin's chief of staff Hilarie Chambers saying: "This is not a tax credit that Rep. Levin applied for and in an abundance of caution he has paid the full amount to Montgomery County to correct their mistake."

Levin's office stated he corrected county's error. Roll Call reported that the credit in question "was intended for only 'owner-occupied' properties" and reported Chambers' statement that Levin corrected the error:

"Since Mr. Levin was not residing in the property for the full year and it is not his 'principal residence,' Mr. Levin has written a check of $690 to the County and clarified and confirmed once again to them that the correct classification of the Morgan Drive property is 'Not a Principal Residence,' " Chambers wrote in an e-mail.

Chambers referred to public records maintained by Montgomery County, which indicate the Chevy Chase home is a principal residence. Property records available from a Maryland state Web site indicate the property is not used as a principal residence.

Montgomery County property tax records dating to 1999 show that Levin's home has changed classifications -- principal or not principal -- four times.

Chambers said the property was designated as a principal residence in 2009, after Levin's attorneys submitted a revised deed to the county.

"It appears that when Mr. Levin's lawyers submitted a deed to the County in April 9, 2009 that removed Mrs. Levin's name from the deed and transferred Mrs. Levin's share into a trust the County mistakenly changed the record on the property to 'principal' residence without request from or notification to Mr. Levin," Chambers wrote.

She also said that a change-of-address form Levin submitted after he moved to the Silver Spring condo prompted another change to "not a principal residence" in January 2010.

Levin reportedly repaid a similar credit in 2006. Roll Call further reported Chambers' statement that Levin previously repaid a mistaken credit. From the article:

The Chevy Chase home has also received negligible homestead tax credits intended for permanent residents of the state at times during the past 10 years.

Chambers said that Levin repaid homestead taxes several years ago.

"The County has inconsistently classified the property on Morgan Drive," she wrote. "In April 2006 when Mr. Levin learned of the earlier mis-classifications he repaid the full amount for the Homestead Tax Credit mistakenly applied to the property. We confirmed [Friday] with the Montgomery County Department of Finance the amount repaid was $531.51."

On the March 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief White House correspondent Major Garrett falsely claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had not found projected savings under the Senate health bill to be "meaningful" in its second decade. In fact, CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the deficit in its second decade.

Garrett falsely claimed CBO found savings from health bill's second decade "would not be meaningful"

From the March 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

GARRETT: Even as the president pushes harder on the road, his talking points have begun to fray around the edges. Listen to this description of the Senate bill.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: [video clip] It brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely. Those aren't my numbers; they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office.

GARRETT: In fact, the nonpartisan budget office estimates the Senate bill will save $132 billion in its first 10 years. The White House said later Mr. Obama meant $1 trillion could be saved in the bill's second decade. CBO has projected savings of that magnitude, but cautioned this estimate, quote, "would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great."

In fact, CBO reported that year-by-year cost projection "would not be meaningful"

CBO: A detailed year-by-year projection ... would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great." From a December 19, 2009, report:

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period (2010 through 2019 currently), Senate rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation's health care and health insurance systems. A detailed year-by-year projection for years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great. Among other factors, a wide range of changes could occur -- in people's health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care (such as advances in medical research, technological developments, and changes in physicians' practice patterns) -- that are likely to be significant but are very difficult to predict, both under current law and under any proposal.

CBO: Over second 10 years, health bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.

Karl Rove's forthcoming memoir Courage and Consequence purports to respond to critics by "putting the record straight," but Media Matters has found that Rove's book is full of falsehoods. Below is an ongoing list of Rove's misinformation in the book, which Media Matters obtained in advance of its scheduled release.

1. Rove distorts Senate report to claim Bush didn't "lie us into the war"

2. Rove falsehood: Obama claims "Obamacare would not add to the deficit ... evidence shows just the opposite"

3. Rove revives tired smear that Gore wrongly said "that he had created the Internet"

4. Rove revives Gore-Love Story smear

5. Rove falsehood: Gore said he had "discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster"

6. Rove pals around with falsehood that Ayers was "Obama's great friend"

7. Rove wrong on number of presidents who left office by "assassination or resignation"

1. Rove distorts Senate report to claim Bush didn't "lie us into war"

Rove claims Senate report said Bush statements were backed up by intelligence. From Pages 340-341 of Courage and Consequence:

So, then, did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not.

[...]

From my perch inside the West Wing -- but outside the frantic activity in the Situation Room -- I could see the care everyone was taking to not overstate the case or exaggerate the danger. The president emphasized this when we reviewed his speeches, and this care was reflected everywhere else in the administration.

[...]

And what about Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism? Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee 2004 report.

Senate report actually found that Bush made some statements that were not substantiated -- or were "contradicted" -- by intelligence.  Rove is presumably referring to a June 5, 2008, Senate Intelligence Committee report examining government officials' pre-war statements about Iraq. (Rove identifies it as a "2004" report in the excerpt above, but he cites the 2008 report in the relevant endnote.) Rove is correct that the committee found that some Bush claims -- specifically, "[s]tatements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda" -- were substantiated by the intelligence at the time. But the committee also concluded that Bush's allegations suggesting "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence"; and that Bush's statements indicating Saddam was prepared to give WMD to terrorists were "contradicted by available intelligence."

2. Rove falsehood: Obama claims "Obamacare would not add to the deficit ... evidence shows just the opposite"

From Page 513 of Courage and Consequence:

Another thing that has badly hurt President Obama is that his claims -- especially on health care -- are simply at odds with reality. He said ObamaCare would not add to the deficit, would bend the cost curve down, and would reduce premiums, while the evidence shows just the opposite.

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment: "CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

CBO also estimated on December 20, 2009, that the bill will continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 "with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP."

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6, 2009, estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

3. Rove revives tired smear that Gore wrongly said "he had created the Internet"

From Pages 161-162 of Courage and Consequence:

Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true.

In fact, Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" while in Congress. During the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth -- Rove sources his false claim to the CNN interview -- Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Blitzer set the record straight on the July 6, 2008, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, stating that Gore "never said, 'I invented the Internet.' "

Gingrich also said Gore "most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.' " In a September 22, 2000, article, the Los Angeles Times reported: "Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a Republican who is no friend of the Gore campaign, said earlier this month, 'Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.' "

"Father of the Internet" Cerf wrote that Gore "deserves significant credit" for his efforts. On September 28, 2000, Vinton Cerf, considered to be a "father of the Internet," submitted an essay he and Robert Kahn wrote about Gore's contributions to the creation of the Internet. Cerf and Kahn, who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bush for their work designing the TCP/IP internet protocol, wrote that they "would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time." They added that "there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."

4. Rove revives Gore-Love Story smear

From Pages 161-162 of Courage and Consequence:

Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true.

In fact, Gore attributed the claim to a newspaper article he had read, and was misquoted. In a November 30, 2002, The American Prospect article about political "pseudo-scandals," Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz wrote that Gore "never made the claim." According to a December 14, 1997, New York Times article, [Love Story author Erich] Segal "knocked down" a report in Time magazine that asserted that Gore, while on the campaign trail, "spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in 'Love Story.' '' From the article:

The Time magazine article about the Vice President included this passage: ''Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, the Vice President came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force Two. Sliding behind a table with the two reporters covering him that day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in 'Love Story.' ''

[...]

In their phone conversation a few days ago, Mr. Gore reminded Mr. Segal that while Mr. Segal was on his book tour for ''Love Story,'' a reporter for The Nashville Tennessean who knew that Mr. Gore and the author were friends had asked if there was not a little bit of Al Gore in Oliver Barrett. Mr. Segal said yes, there was, but the reporter ''just exaggerated,'' Mr. Segal said. ''He made it to be the local-hero angle.''

Mr. Segal said the Vice President told him that all he had said on the plane was that the article had made the connection -- and got it wrong.

''Al said, 'I didn't say that' about being the model,'' Mr. Segal said.

''Al attributed it to the newspaper, he talked about the newspaper,'' Mr. Segal said at another point in the interview. ''They conveniently omitted that part. Time thought it was more piquant to leave that out. He was talking on the plane off the record, a drink with the boys after a tiring day. I don't think he will be reminiscing much anymore.''

5. Rove falsehood: Gore said he had "discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster"

From Pages 161-162 of Courage and Consequence:

Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true.

In fact, Gore was misqoted by Wash. Post, NY Times. As Media Matters for America noted, Slate.com editor-at-large Jack Shafer wrote on February 17, 2000, that New York Times reporter Katharine Q. "Kit" Seelye and Washington Post staff writer Ceci Connolly were responsible for creating the false Love Canal story: "[I]t's Seelye's fault -- and the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly's -- that folks think Gore claimed credit for Love Canal in the first place. Which he didn't" [emphasis in original]. Indeed, in December 1 and December 2, 1999, Post articles, Connolly quoted Gore as saying of the Love Canal disaster, "I was the one that started it all." In fact, as a December 7, 1999, correction made clear, Gore actually said " 'That was the one that started it all,' referring to the congressional hearings on the subject that he called." Additionally, the Post's obmbudman wrote in a March 5, 2000, column that what Gore actually said about Love Canal was "a whole lot different from The Post's version ... which fits the role The Post seems to have assigned him in Campaign 2000." Similarly, Seelye quoted Gore as saying "I was the one that started it all" on a December 1, 1999, Times article, which was corrected by the Times on December 10, 1999.

6. Rove pals around with falsehood that Ayers was "Obama's great friend"

From Pages 515-516 of Courage and Consequence:

Though we didn't discuss it in our West Wing encounter, Obama also went on in his book to describe me and other conservatives as "eerily reminiscent of some of the New Left's leaders during the sixties," who "viewed politics as a contest not just between competing policy visions, but between good and evil." Now that's rich, isn't it? The last time I checked, I hadn't bombed any government buildings (like, say, Obama's great friend William Ayers); or asked that God "damn" America (like, say, Obama's former pastor and close friend Jeremiah Wright); or declared that I was proud of my country for the first time in my life only when I was in my forties (like, say, Obama's wife, Michelle).

NY Times: Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close." The New York Times reported on October 4, 2008, that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

McClatchy: "There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to [Obama's] campaign." McClatchy reported on October 9, 2008, that "Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign." [accessed via the Nexis databse]

The AP: "[T]here is no evidence that they ever palled around." Reporting on then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim that Obama sees America as so imperfect "that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," the Associated Press reported on October 5, 2008 that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around," and "it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts."

FactCheck.org: Obama and Ayers were "never very close." In an October 10, 2008, article, FactCheck.org wrote of the 2008 presidential campaign: "What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign's attempts to sway voters -- in ads and on the stump -- with false and misleading statements about the relationship [between Obama and Ayers], which was never very close.

7. Rove wrong on number of presidents who left office by "assassination or resignation"

Rove: Eight presidents "gained the Oval Office as a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor." From Page 518 of Courage and Consequence:

But others find themselves forced to face the unknowable. Eight presidents -- from John Tyler to Gerald Ford -- gained the Oval Office as a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor.

Five presidents have left office via "assassination or resignation." As detailed by Stanford University history professor David M. Kennedy, four presidents have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. The only president to resign from office was Richard Nixon. Four others -- William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding, and Franklin Roosevelt -- died of natural causes while in office.

In his forthcoming book, which Media Matters obtained in advance of its release date, Karl Rove misrepresents a Senate report to argue that President Bush did not "lie us into war" and that Bush's attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda were supported by available intelligence. The report actually found that Bush made statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda that were not supported -- and were even "contradicted" -- by intelligence.

Rove claims Senate report said Bush statements were backed up by intelligence

From Pages 340-341 of Courage and Consequence:

So, then, did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not.

[...]

From my perch inside the West Wing -- but outside the frantic activity in the Situation Room -- I could see the care everyone was taking to not overstate the case or exaggerate the danger. The president emphasized this when we reviewed his speeches, and this care was reflected everywhere else in the administration.

[...]

And what about Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism? Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee 2004 report.

Senate report found that Bush made statements that were not substantiated -- or were "contradicted" -- by intelligence

Senate Intel. Committee: Only some Bush statements on Iraq were substantiated by intelligence -- others were not. Rove is presumably referring to a June 5, 2008, Senate Intelligence Committee report examining government officials' pre-war statements about Iraq. (Rove identifies it as a "2004" report in the excerpt above, but he cites the 2008 report in the relevant endnote.) Rove is correct that the committee found that some Bush claims -- specifically, "[s]tatements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda" -- were substantiated by the intelligence at the time. But the committee also concluded that other claims Bush made about Iraq's supposed relationship with Al Qaeda were either "not substantiated" or were "contradicted" by the available intelligence.

Senate Intel. Committee: Bush allegations suggesting "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence." Directly contradicting Rove's suggestion that the Senate Intelligence Committee found that "Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism" were supported by the available intelligence, the committee actually reported that Bush's allegations "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence." The committee also found that "policymakers' statements" misrepresented the nature of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

(U) Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qa'ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR [State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported the claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qa'ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind the claim that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned by DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from a prior report that "assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida."

(U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa'ida.

Senate Intel. Committee: Bush statements indicating Saddam was prepared to give WMD to terrorists were "contradicted by available intelligence." The Senate Intelligence Committee wrote:

(U) Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks [sic] the US using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at that time, in part because he feared doing so would give the US a stronger case for war with Iraq. This judgment was echoed by both earlier and later intelligence community assessments. All of these assessments noted that gauging Saddam's intentions was quite difficult, and most suggested that he would be more likely to initiate hostilities if he felt that a US invasion was imminent.

Reacting to progress on health care reform legislation, conservative media figures have repeatedly referred to President Obama and Democratic officials as "health care suicide bombers" and characterized their efforts to pass a bill as "a kamizake mission" and "political suicide missions."

Limbaugh portrays Dems as "kamikaze party" and suicide bombers

Rush: "Mullah Nancy Bin Pelosi ... is no different" than those who "convince all these people to put bombs on their kids." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said: "Here's the way we have to start looking at Nancy Pelosi: Mullah Nancy Bin Pelosi. She's no different than these mullahs and these imams who convince all these people to put bombs on their kids and send them out there to blow up. ... That's exactly what she's doing to the Democrat Party. The only thing she can't do is promise them 73 virgins or whatever it is." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/10]

Limbaugh: Dems are "the kamikaze party." In November 2009, Limbaugh said: "We're going to have to call the Democrat Party the 'kamikaze party.' " He also said that "Bill Clinton went up to the Senate yesterday and personally gave these guys instructions on how to fly their Zeros into our aircraft carriers." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/11/09]

Limbaugh: Democrats "are martyring themselves politically." Limbaugh subsequently repeated his comments that the "Democrats are a kamikaze party" and added: "They just don't know it yet. In fact, they may know it and some of them not care. They are martyring themselves politically." Later, Limbaugh said: "Democrats are the equivalent of political suicide bombers. They have strapped political bombs to themselves. They are hell-bent on taking out as many Americans as they can with them." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/20/09]

Other right-wing media figures follow suit

Carlson: Obama is telling Democrats to "go on a kamikaze mission." On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson commented that Obama's position on health care was, "If you're a moderate Democrat, go on a kamikaze mission. Subject yourself to potential failure at the polls in the midterm elections, because you have to do this for the presidency." [Fox & Friends, 3/8/10]

Breitbart's Big Journalism calls Obama is the "suicide-bomber-in-chief." In a post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism website, Frank Ross wrote: "Mark Steyn is always right, whether he's writing about Andrew Lloyd Webber or, in this case, the suicide-bomber-in-chief, Barack Obama, who doesn't much care how many Democrats get sent to the electoral Elysian Fields -- or even whether he gets a second term -- as long as he can blow up the capitalist system from within." [Big Journalism, 3/6/10]

Wash. Times' Pruden compares Democrats to suicide bombers. In his Washington Times column, editor emeritus Wesley Pruden wrote: "You have to be a true believer in Barack Obama's radical agenda to be a Democrat in Congress, and believe with the intensity of a suicide bomber. Mr. Obama can't even promise a harem of virgins in paradise." [The Washington Times, 1/19/10]

Erickson: "Dorgan and Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers." In a post on his Twitter account, RedState's Erick Erickson commented: "[Sens. Byron] Dorgan and [Chris] Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers. Instead of 72 virgins, they'll get ambassadorships." [1/6/10]

Crowley: Health care reform is Democrats' "suicide mission." Guest-hosting on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said: "Well, the Democrats intent on flying a suicide mission, and some Democrats already bailing out of the plane." [The O'Reilly Factor, 12/23/09]

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by radiologist Mark E. Klein criticizing President Obama over the Medicare board's decision not to cover virtual colonoscopies. But Klein performs virtual colonoscopies at his Washington, D.C.-area practice, and the Journal did not disclose his interest in whether Medicaid covers them.

Journal publishes op-ed criticizing Obama over coverage for virtual colonoscopies

From Klein's March 2 Wall Street Journal op-ed:

On Sunday President Barack Obama underwent a complete medical examination, which included a screening for pre-cancerous polyps in his colon. If detected, such polyps would be removed before they became dangerous. The screening the president and his doctors chose was a virtual colonoscopy -- a relatively new, high-tech exam that uses a CT scan to visualize the entire colon.

Last May, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decided virtual colonoscopies would not be covered by Medicare.

[...]

In 2008, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, issued a report that found that there was not enough evidence to determine whether Medicare should cover virtual colonoscopies. Medicare based its decision not to cover the virtual exam on the task force's findings.

Why did the task force refuse to endorse a procedure enthusiastically recommended by numerous physician organizations, the American Cancer Society, and the national Blue Cross Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center, a group not anxious to add to the cost of health care? The task force accepted that virtual colonoscopy could accurately diagnose colon polyps. However, according to their report, the experts on the panel feared that the CT-based technique could identify possible abnormalities outside of the colon that might lead to further testing and additional costs. They worried about a theoretical and unsubstantiated risk.

[...]

Of course, the problem is that Americans over the age of 65 do not currently enjoy the same option. They cannot have a virtual colonoscopy unless they are willing to pay out of their own pockets for it. You can imagine their surprise to learn that the president had personally chosen a procedure that his own administration had decided did not warrant Medicare coverage.

This is one reason why Americans fear a government-backed health plan. They have been told that such a plan would not affect the availability of high-tech diagnostic tests and treatment, but their eyes tell them otherwise.

Journal did not disclose Klein's ties to virtual colonoscopy procedures

Klein performs virtual colonoscopies at his practice. The Journal identified Klein only as "a practicing radiologist at Washington Radiology Associates," and "on the clinical faculty of the George Washington University Medical Center." But Klein's biography at Washington Radiology Associates, P.C. says he "has gained recognition in the Washington metropolitan area for his work in the use of virtual colonoscopy for the early detection of colon cancer." The Washington Radiology website also promotes its virtual colonoscopy procedures.

In recent days, conservative media figures have been sounding the alarm, attacking President Obama and the Department of Justice (DOJ) for employing lawyers who previously represented terrorism suspects or supported their legal arguments in their private practices. It really is just the latest case of Bush-nesia, in which media conservatives block all memory of the Bush administration in an attempt to tar the Obama administration with politically motivated, half-baked smears.

The fact that President Bush's DOJ also hired lawyers who represented terror suspects hasn't fazed right-wing media shills.

Fox News host Sean Hannity led the charge on the conservative network, doing his best impersonation of Sen. Joe McCarthy, saying, "If you're going to work in our Justice Department ... and you represented Al Qaeda, I want to know who you are." He later stated, "Obama is weak. He's an appeaser. Obama is making this country and every citizen vulnerable to attack."

S.E. Cupp, a Fox News contributor, said, "If what these guys are doing is so great and they're so proud of it, then why can't they tell us who they are? I think they're -- the silence is a tacit admission that they're not doing -- that they're something controversial," later adding, "These are people who specifically make their bread and butter defending terrorists." Similarly, on the network's crown jewel, The O'Reilly Factor, Cupp's fellow Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "These people chose to do, for free, defense work for people in Guantánamo, for people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who not only was the architect of 9-11, but he boasts of slitting the throat of Daniel Pearl." He then said of Attorney General Eric Holder, "He's choosing at least nine people who chose that this is the work they are going to do on the side. That tells you there is some ideological affinity here," adding, "And that's very troubling, because it tells you why the Justice Department has ended up with some of the absurd decisions it's made in the war on terror."

Worse still, it appears Bush-nesia is highly contagious.

Copying Fox News and Investor's Business Daily, which both used headlines asking, "Department of Jihad?" CNN's The Situation Room ran a graphic with the same text and spent eight minutes asking if DOJ lawyers are "disloyal." (Wolf Blitzer continued, media gadfly Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe produced a video attacking the DOJ attorneys, which prompted former head of the Office of Legal Counsel Walter Dellinger to pen an op-ed calling the smears "shameful."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out that the Washington Post editorial board -- which Fred Hiatt runs -- has now denounced the video attacking the Obama administration as a "smear" that plays on "ignorance and fear" at the expense of reason. Perhaps Hiatt and the editorial board could have taken just a moment to look inward, because one of their own opinion columnists, Bill Kristol, sits with Cheney on the board of directors for Keep America Safe -- the organization responsible for the disturbingly misleading video. Hiatt, whose op-ed pages have been plagued with problems of late, praised Kristol when he hired the neocon last year, saying, "I think he's a very smart, plugged-in guy," adding, "I thought he wrote a good column" at The New York Times, which tired of Kristol after only a year.

Perhaps there are media conservatives out there looking for a cure to Bush-nesia. If you or someone you know fits that bill, please consult your physician and be sure to read Media Matters' memo to right-wing media: Bush DOJ lawyers also represented terror suspects.

Other major stories

The "reconciliation as 'nuclear option' " lie: Let's go through this one more time

The use of the "reconciliation process" is fundamentally different from the use of the so-called "nuclear option." The phrase "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2005. At the time, Lott was one of the leading advocates of a proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. Again -- he wanted to change Senate rules, a process unto itself. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters noted at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.

By contrast, the budget reconciliation process is entirely separate. It is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution." Notice that there are no rule changes involved whatsoever.

Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as the 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act. The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, between 1981 and 2008, Republicans used the reconciliation process no fewer than 16 times (a point made by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough -- a former GOP congressman, no less).

Has reconciliation been used solely on tax and budget bills? No. As has been noted, the process was used to pass changes to COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. In other words, health care reforms.

Got it? Now, please, somebody go explain it to the right-wing media.

Fox News hosts and guests have repeatedly pushed the falsehood that the "nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process. The Fox Nation and Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Bill Sammon have all falsely called reconciliation the "nuclear option," and The Fox Nation has frequently coupled its headlines with images of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear bomb.

This past week proved to be more of the same, especially in the wake of Obama's announced willingness to use the process to pass changes to Democratic health care reform legislation if Senate Republicans refuse to allow an up-or-down vote.

"Reconciliation or the nuclear option ... people aren't calling it the nuclear option" but "it's exactly what it is," said Baier. "White House: Let's Go Nuclear..." read a Fox Nation headline. "Obama to Trigger Nuke Option on Healthcare," screeched Matt Drudge. "What used to be called the 'nuclear option' is now kind of a warm-and-fuzzy phrase called 'reconciliation,' " explained Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett. When Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) described the possible use of the reconciliation process to pass health care reform as "an abuse of the Senate rules like I've never seen before," Van Susteren offered no challenge -- in spite of the fact that Hatch has repeatedly supported the use of the process to pass major Bush administration initiatives.

Last week, conservative media figures feverishly pushed a video montage, promoted by Andrew Breitbart, of Democrats objecting to the actual nuclear option in 2005. The clips were held up as evidence of Democratic hypocrisy, even though the lawmakers in question were not talking about the reconciliation process. This didn't stop Glenn Beck from hyping the video or Hannity from doing the same.

It's worth noting that the use of the reconciliation process was hardly worthy of mention for media outlets when it was used to pass Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in 2003. But now, even mainstream outlets are intrigued. Politico and The Washington Post have advanced GOP attacks that using the process is "arrogant" and "an end-run around the normal legislative process." The Hill allowed Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to claim it is a way for Democrats to "circumvent Senate rules," even though it's in the Senate rules. CNN has gotten into the misinformation mix as well.

It's clear that when it comes to Fox and its phalanx of conservative media imitators, reconciling reality with reporting is a non-starter.

With ACORN cleared in Brooklyn, Breitbart flails and Giles pleads for defense-fund dough

On Monday, the district attorney of Kings County, New York, Joe Hynes, concluded a nearly six-month investigation "into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees" in the organization's Brooklyn office who "had been secretly videotaped by" James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. Announcing the investigation's completion in a statement, Hynes said that "no criminality has been found."

Andrew Breitbart, O'Keefe and Giles' right-wing mentor, took to his Twitter account with a post stating that the ACORN tapes were "less about 'criminality' than facility with which employees all knew how to work [the] system." An odd statement to be sure, especially when one considers the fact that Breitbart has been demanding criminal investigations into ACORN for months. I'd be remiss if I didn't note that Breitbart's Big Government website this week compared ACORN to the Ku Klux Klan -- so you can imagine just the type of fair-minded investigation Breitbart's seeking.

After news broke that "no criminality" was found, right-wing blogs began pushing the wacky notion that Hynes was a "member" of the Working Families Party, and that given ACORN's support of that party, the investigation was a scam. Their claim was simple: Since Hynes, a Democrat, had received the endorsement and ballot line of the Working Families Party, he was automatically a member of that party. As Media Matters' Todd Gregory noted, by that standard, Hynes is a member of four parties: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Conservative Party, and the Working Families Party. See, in New York, candidates can earn the endorsement of more than one party and appear on a ballot line for each of them. And in the 2009 election, all four of those parties endorsed Hynes.

Another classic example of "conservative investigative journalism." Sigh.

Things didn't get much better for Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles as the week progressed. On Tuesday, the New York Post, under the headline "ACORN set up by vidiots: DA," reported that the "video that unleashed a firestorm of criticism on the activist group ACORN was a 'heavily edited' splice job," according to sources. The News Corp./Rupert Murdoch-owned Post further reported, "Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said."

For her part, Giles isn't standing idly by as the ACORN escapade continues to unravel on a seemingly daily basis. The Washington Independent's David Weigel obtained a letter this week soliciting cash for her legal defense fund, and one thing was abundantly clear from the missive: O'Keefe's undercover ACORN video partner loves to annotate her pleas for help with plenty of pink pen -- stars, underlines, double underlines, circles, double parentheses, arrows -- you name it! Other than that, the plea for support is exactly what you'd expect -- chock full of attacks on ACORN and Obama.

How to invent a scandal with a single punctuation mark

Here's an urgent question: Is The Weekly Standard funding its operations by selling drugs to children?

As Media Matters' Jamison Foser explained earlier this week, the addition of a question mark at the end of the previous sentence allows me to suggest something entirely baseless without accepting responsibility for it. And that's exactly what occurred recently when the Standard's John McCormack suggested that Obama had appointed Scott M. Matheson Jr. to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to influence the health care vote of Matheson's brother, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT).

No evidence was provided to back up the claim -- but as Foser explained, "John McCormack doesn't need evidence -- he has question marks!" Remarkably, even though some conservatives quickly distanced themselves from the accusation, many others did not. The story was soon getting attention on Fox News and The Fox Nation, on the blog Hot Air, at RedState.com, from Michelle Malkin, from Hannity and Beck, and on the Drudge Report, among others.

And of course, since the right-wing media issue the marching orders for the movement these days, on the March 3 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called for an investigation.

Even though plenty of countervailing evidence was soon produced -- indeed, even McCormack, the claim's originator, may have begun to walk it back -- the smear continued (especially on Fox & Friends, which must assume its early-morning viewers are too groggy to understand what they're being told).

Politico also helped hype the story, publishing an article headlined "Some Republicans criticize judge pick." But the paper could only come up with one such Republican: Bachmann. By contrast, Politico cited two Republicans who praised the nomination, including one who directly refuted the conspiracy theory. Finally, in a last-ditch effort to keep the "story" alive, media conservatives began arguing that it may now be illegal for Jim Matheson to vote in favor of health care reform legislation due to his brother's appointment. Predictably, this, too, was baseless.

As the story continues to fall apart, it's worth remembering how often the right invents scandals to tarnish Democrats. No question mark needed there.

This Week's Media Columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert discusses Andrew Breitbart's confirmation that he was duped by O'Keefe and the ACORN pimp hoax; and Jamison Foser looks at how media covered the GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation -- they didn't.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to take part in the discussion.

Media Matters Minute now on YouTube

For some time now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (YouTube / iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast, hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

Special thanks to John Santore, who contributed to the production of this week's wrap-up.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

The New York Times published an op-ed by former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak falsely claiming that "proponents of allowing gays to serve openly have largely avoided discussion of unit cohesion." In fact, numerous studies have considered and debunked the unit cohesion myth and the Times itself has reported on a prominent study that found that allowing gays to serve openly "does not undermine unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, morale, or overall combat effectiveness."

NY Times publishes McPeak's "unit cohesion" falsehood

McPeak: "Advocates for gays in the service have by and large avoided a discussion of unit cohesion." From the March 4 New York Times Palm Center, a research group at theUniversity of California, Santa Barbara.

The Palm Center has no official position on "don't ask, don't tell," the American law that bans openly gay service members, but the group has become a leading force among advocates for repeal. 

[...]

The report concludes that in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass "comings out." The report found that "there were no instances of increased harassment" as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.

Numerous studies have shown openly gay service does not undermine cohesion

Study cited by NY Times "showed that openly gay service does not undermine unit cohesion." From the February 2010 Palm Center report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied four countries that allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military -- Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden -- and found that military officials said "the presence of homosexuals has not created problems in the military because homosexuality is not an issue in the military or in society at large." It also found that "[m]ilitary officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale." GAO wrote that it chose those four countries to study because they "generally reflect Western cultural values yet still provide a range of ethnic diversity" and have similarly sized militaries.

None of the 104 experts interviewed for study believed decisions to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in UK, Canada, Israel, or Australia undermined cohesion. In a 2003 article for Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Aaron Belkin wrote that CSSMM (now the Palm Center) had conducted a study of the impact of the decisions to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military in the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, and Australia, and found: "Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion."

Furthermore, the Palm Center stated that "research shows that the ban itself undermines cohesion and readiness." On March 5, the Palm Center responded to McPeak's op-ed in a press release, stating that "research shows that the ban itself undermines cohesion and readiness." The Palm Center press release cited a report conducted by the General/Flag Officers Study Group, which found that Don't Ask, Don't Tell "has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units."

In his forthcoming book, Fox News' Karl Rove writes that during his infamous July 2003 conversation with the late Robert Novak, Rove "agreed with Novak's assessment" that Joe Wilson was "pompous, self-centered, egotistical, and 'an asshole.' "

In Courage and Consequence -- which Media Matters for America obtained in advance of its March 9 release date -- Rove writes that shortly after agreeing with Novak that Wilson was "an asshole," Rove confirmed that he had "heard" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Days later, Novak published a syndicated column outing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

From Page 328 of Karl Rove's Courage and Consequence:

But Novak had turned our conversation to Joe Wilson's op-ed after discussing Townsend. He'd met Wilson in the green room at Meet the Press the previous Sunday morning and said he found Wilson pompous, self-centered, egotistical, and "an asshole." Having watched Wilson on Meet the Press, I agreed with Novak's assessment.

Right-wing media figures have continued to attack President Obama's appointment of Scott Matheson to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, suggesting that the appointment was made to influence his brother, Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform. Those pushing the smear have cited no evidence to support their claims and have acknowledged Matheson's qualifications for the job; indeed, his appointment enjoys broad support and, according to Republican Sen. Bob Bennett, "has been in the works for a long time" and was not made in exchange "for votes on health care."

Despite no evidence, right-wing media continue attacking Matheson appointment

McCormack -- who started the smear -- said there was "probably not" an "explicit quid pro quo," continuing to advance the attack. In a March 3 post, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack started the rumor, writing, "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court." Without providing any evidence to support his allegation, McCormack asked if Scott Matheson's judicial nomination was "used to buy off his brother's vote." The following day, during an appearance on Fox News' Your World, McCormack said that "obviously" it is "hard to know" whether Matheson's appointment was made to influence his brother's vote. He went on to say, "I don't know when the initial discussions took place" on Matheson's appointment, adding, "Was there an explicit quid pro quo? Probably not." Nonetheless, McCormack claimed it is a "reasonable question to ask" if there was an "I scratch your back, you're going to scratch mine, on the nomination process."

Big Government: "Let the Bribes Begin: Obama Offering Judgeships to Secure Health Care Votes." In a March 3 Big Government post, SusanAnne Hiller claimed Obama was "offering judgeships to secure health care votes." Hiller suggested Matheson was unqualified for the position, claiming that it "seems that Matheson is hurdling a few career steps to become a judge. Wonder how his brother will vote now. After all, he did vote 'no' the first time around on health care and the House is just not that fond of the Senate bill." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, while Matheson voted against the House's health care bill, he has long made more favorable comments about the Senate's version of health care reform, of which Obama's proposal largely mirrors.

Hayes acknowledges Matheson's record but still claims his appointment "looks" and "smells funny." On the March 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report, McCormack's fellow Weekly Standard writer Steve Hayes admitted that Matheson has "an impressive record, nobody would deny that, nobody would dispute that" but claimed it "certainly smells funny; I mean, it looks funny, the timing of it looks funny." After guest host Chris Wallace pointed out that the White House said they were "vetting this for months," Hayes admitted, "That may in fact be true, that they were vetting it for months," but added that "the question is why the timing now, at this moment -- this crucial moment of the health care debate."

Fox & Friends: "Quid pro vote?" On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, after co-host Brian Kilmeade asked, "What could possibly win over Jim Matheson?" co-host Steve Doocy replied, "There's a very curious thing. Just as the White House is putting pressure on this particular fella and other Democrats to go their way, this guy's brother get's a lifetime job for the federal government." Co-host Gretchen Carlson noted that Matheson was "well-qualified, by the way, to become a judge," but after reporting that Obama had promised that there would be no more deals in health care, Kilmeade responded, "Maybe he had his fingers crossed." Doocy then asked whether this was "just a crazy coincidence" or a "quid pro vote."

Fox & Friends suggest Matheson nomination would make it illegal for his brother to vote yes on health care reform. On the March 5 edition of Fox & Friends, senior legal analyst Andrew Napolitano cited the Honest Services Act to suggest that Rep. Matheson would be breaking the law by voting yes on health care reform, because "you can't offer a member of Congress anything of value" in exchange for their votes. Carlson asked, "Does this almost put more pressure on the congressman, the brother, to vote no on health care, because now it's being exposed?" Doocy claimed the "White House may have inadvertently shot themselves in the foot," to which Napolitano replied, "It will depend on how intellectually honest Congressman Matheson is. If he does the right thing, they'll both have federal jobs. If he does the wrong thing, he'll be looking for a job."

Utah Republicans support Matheson, deny "vote buying"

Matheson has reportedly been in the running for the appointment since June 2009. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on June 9, 2009, that "Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered" for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals:

A slot -- expected to be filled by a Utahn -- will be available at the end of August, when Judge Michael McConnell, who teaches law at the University of Utah, officially will resign.

Naming a replacement won't happen fast. It may take President Barack Obama months to nominate someone. But Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered.

Sen. Bennett says Matheson appointment "has been in the works for a long time" and was "not" made to secure "votes on health care." According to Politico, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R-UT) spokeswoman, Tara DiJulio, released a statement regarding Scott Matheson's appointment on March 4, saying, "Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson's nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time."

Rep. Chaffetz is "very pleased that President Obama selected" Matheson. Utah's Deseret News reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) congratulated Obama on his selection. From a March 3 Deseret News article:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, also offered his "warm congratulations" upon hearing the news and also praised the president for selecting Matheson, saying "Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice."

"I'm very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench," Chaffetz continued. "His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean, and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States, make him an excellent nominee."

Salt Lake Tribune: Hatch "said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination." A March 5 Salt Lake Tribune article noted that "pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons" have "called the claim simply absurd" and cited several Utah Republicans who have disputed the claim that Matheson's nomination was made to secure his brother's vote. From reported on March 3 that "[t]he nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position":

The nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position.

"I'm pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the 10th Circuit," Hatch said. "I've known Scott a long time, and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott's nomination."

Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and "absurd." Noting that McCormack's "report raises the question but doesn't answer it," Politico's Chris Frates reported that Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guranteed [sic] Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said."

Glenn Beck played doctored audio of Sen. Harry Reid saying it is "good" news that the economy lost only 36,000 jobs in February -- an assessment many economists agree with. Beck criticized Reid's statement, but Beck's audio cut out Reid's accurate explanation that the "good" news was that unemployment and job losses were lower than economists had expected.

Reid's actual statement: "Good" news that unemployment rate and job losses are lower than expected

From Reid's March 5 floor speech:

REID: Unemployment compensation -- today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good. Unemployment rate around America has not changed. Prognosticators thought it would go up; it has not. So, we need to extend -- there are about 15 million people in America out of work. These extended unemployment benefits will help millions of those people.

Audio Beck played cropped and distorted Reid's comments. The audio Beck played appears to be from a seven-second YouTube video promoted by Andrew Breitbart and right-wing bloggers, which includes only the following portion of Reid's statement: "[T]oday is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." The video cuts out Reid's explanation that the "good" news is that unemployment and job losses were lower than expected.

Reid is correct: Economy "lost fewer jobs than expected" in February

NY Times: "American economy lost fewer jobs than expected last month." Reid's statement that the 36,000 jobs lost in February were fewer than expected is correct. As The New York Times reported on March 5, "The American economy lost fewer jobs than expected last month and the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.7 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday, bolstering hopes that a still-tenuous recovery may be starting to gain momentum."

Economists had expected more than twice as many jobs -- 75,000 -- to be lost in February. Dow Jones Newswires reported on March 5 that the jobs report was "better-than-expected," adding, "U.S. employers cut 36,000 jobs in February following a reduction of 26,000 in January. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires was 75,000 job losses in February."

Unemployment rate held steady despite expectations it would rise. Reid said: "Unemployment rate around America has not changed. Prognosticators thought it would go up; it has not." Reid was correct. Dow Jones reported: "The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.7%, lower than the forecast of 9.8%."

Dow Jones: Jobs numbers "came as a relief for many market participants." According to Dow Jones, "The jobs data came as a relief for many market participants as economists had expected a poor reading due to stormy weather on the East Coast last month, which the government said may have temporarily hit payrolls and work hours."

Economists agree with Reid: Jobs report is "good" news

Dean Baker: Jobs report is "strikingly good." The New York Times reported:

Yet compared to the monthly losses of more than 650,000 jobs a year ago, and against a backdrop of recent news that increased the possibility of a slide back into recession, most economists construed the report as a sign of improvement.

"It's strikingly good," said Dean Baker, a director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who has been notably skeptical of signs of recovery in recent months. "It's much better than it had been looking."

Stuart G. Hoffman: "We're finally going to reach the turning point." The Times reported:

"We're still losing jobs in the economy, but it's down to a trickle," said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. "We're finally going to reach the turning point where we go from job losses to job gains."

Alan Levenson: Economy "moving toward resumption of job growth." The Times reported:

Alan Levenson, chief economist for T. Rowe Price, an investment firm, said that "If you recognize it as one frame in a movie, it is one in which we are moving toward resumption of job growth."

Chris Rupkey: Jobs report is "good news." Dow Jones reported:

The jobs data came as a relief for many market participants as economists had expected a poor reading due to stormy weather on the East Coast last month, which the government said may have temporarily hit payrolls and work hours. Chris Rupkey, senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, said he expected a job gain of 70,000 for March, saying that the economic recovery is "tilted in the V-shaped direction after today's good news."

From the March 5 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Well, it is a good day. It is a good da-- it is a really good day in America. How do I know it's a good day? Well, I mean, I listen to Harry Reid. I listen to Harry -- I li-- for the love of [unintelligible]. I mean, how much do I pay you, Pat, just for the audio vault stuff? That is --

PAT GRAY (co-host): Dollar-fifty an hour.

BECK: Oh, well, you're doing a great job.

GRAY: Thank you.

BECK: Here we go. Good day, Harry Reid.

REID [audio clip]: Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.

GRAY: [laughter]

BECK: Very good. Oh, it's a very good day today.

GRAY: It's a great day.

BECK: Only 36,000 Americans lost their job.

GRAY: If you can get through a day in America where only 36,000 people lose their jobs?

BECK: It's very, very good.

GRAY: 'Cause usually it's, like, 3.6 million a day.

BECK: Right. That is very, very good. Play that again. I just --

REID [audio clip]: Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.

[clapping]

BECK: That is really --

GRAY: Really good.

BECK: Really --

GRAY: Really good. Thank you, Harry. Thank you, Barack.

Media outlets are listing Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) efforts to insert funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill -- dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase" by conservatives -- as an example of Democrats' "corrupt" practices. But the funds are urgently needed to fix the state's Medicaid problems, which are a result of Hurricane Katrina; moreover, many of the state's Republican lawmakers say the fix is necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing it in the bill.

AP, IBD, Fox News list "Louisiana Purchase" as an example of corruption

AP: Democrats' "rash of ethical lapses" includes "Louisiana Purchase." The Associated Press, in an article titled, "Democrats mired in swamp they vowed to drain," reported on a "rash of ethics lapses" from Democrats and listed Landrieu's deal as one of them:

A rash of ethics lapses has given Democrats an election-year headache: how to convince skeptical voters that they're any cleaner than Republicans they accused of fostering a "culture of corruption" in 2006.

[...]

Then there's the perception of payoffs to states represented by senators who hesitated on supporting the Senate's health care bill, part of the overhaul that Obama had named his top legislative priority.

Dubbed the "Cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase," the deals with Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana drew derision for the perception of sneakiness they created.

IBD: Landrieu deal is example of "corruption." In a March 4 editorial titled, "The Corruptocrats," Investor's Business Daily wrote, "There's a 900-pound elephant in the room in Washington named Corruption. The media don't seem to have noticed it's there -- because the pachyderm is actually a donkey." As an example of a Democratic "scandal," the editorial listed the " 'Louisiana Purchase' of $300 million in exclusive Medicaid funds for Louisiana to buy the support of a swing voter, Sen. Mary Landrieu, for health reform."

Cavuto hosts Bachmann to link "Louisiana Purchase" to Matheson smear. On Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto hosted Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to discuss her demand for an investigation over baseless claims that the White House was "selling" judgeships in exchange for a health care vote. During the segment, Bachmann said, "An independent investigation is timely and makes sense, because every aspect of the health care bill has been negotiated behind closed doors, whether it's the substance of the bill or whether it's been a certain amount of what you might call vote buying, whether it's the 'Cornhusker Kickback,' 'Louisiana Purchase,' the union loophole."

Matthews: Louisiana Purchase has been "exposed as corrupt." On the March 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said Democrats are "going to get rid" of the Louisiana deal because it's been "exposed as corrupt."

CNN contributor Bennett tied "Louisiana Purchase" to corruption. After noting instances of Republican corruption in the past, CNN contributor William Bennett said during the March 3 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, "Now you're looking at Rangel, and you're looking at Paterson. You're looking at a government that people distrust. You're looking at this Tea Party thing going on. And with the 'Cornhusker Kickback,' 'Louisiana Purchase,' and other indices, and then you pass this thing, over the express wishes of the American people, I think it is a political disaster."

But the deal was reportedly a necessary fix to a Katrina-caused Medicaid problem

Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "Landrieu secured a provision, which she priced at $300 million, to fix the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Louisiana. That was called 'the Louisiana Purchase,' though Landrieu insisted the measure was right on the merits, germane to the bill, and did not buy her vote." The article explained that the "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget. Landrieu's fix was, according to state officials, only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing." The article stated that Landrieu said "attaching the Medicaid provision to a health-care bill made sense, and there is no obvious and feasible legislative alternative."

Jindal: "If not corrected in Washington, D.C.," FMAP problem will cost $500 million a year. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal says that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most." The proposal also says that "[w]hile there is discussion in Washington about extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match rate for six months for all states, without a permanent fix to Louisiana's faulty FMAP calculation, combined with the loss of federal stimulus funding, Louisiana will still face a projected $1.7 billion shortfall for FY 12."

Lousiana state Health secretary had requested federal exemption to Medicaid financing formula because state's three-year per capita average "does not accurately reflect the financial status" of Louisiana. According to an April 10, 2009, Times-Picayune article, "State Health Secretary Alan Levine has asked the federal government to exempt Louisiana from a Medicaid financing formula that Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration says will force the state to make draconian cuts in health care services for the poor." The article reported: "At issue is how much Medicaid money the federal government allocates to Louisiana for each dollar the state spends from its own purse, with the ratio influenced by the three-year average of each state's per-capita income. In short, wealthier states have to spend more of their own money." According to the article, "Levine maintains that the three-year average, designed to account for temporary anomalies in a state's economy, does not accurately reflect the financial status in a state where everything from post-hurricane spending, higher labor costs, private insurance payouts and federal grants to individuals temporarily swelled personal incomes." Therefore, according to Levine, by January 2011, "Louisiana would have to begin absorbing the equivalent of a $700 million annual loss. He said state revenue projections make it impossible to assume that the state can make up the difference to maintain services at the current level for more than 1 million people." The article added:

The political irony to Levine's request is that it hinges on federal sympathy for the argument that Louisiana is being hurt by the billions of dollars the U.S. government has directed to the state since the 2005 hurricanes.

In his letter to Johnson, Levine called the changes in Louisiana's Medicaid match rates "an unintended consequence of the bold financial initiatives undertaken since 2005." Levine did say that the "billions ... infused into Louisiana's economy following the damage caused by the failure of the federal levee system" are "dollars for which we are grateful."

LA Republicans, including Jindal, support the fix but criticized Landrieu after she obtained it

Jindal staff urged Louisiana delegation to "solve" FMAP crisis. The Hill reported on February 4 that Landrieu said "she attached it to the healthcare bill" at Jindal's "request" and provided a September 2009 email from Julia Kenny, chief of staff for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, in which "Kenny urges the delegation to 'make our case' for an effort similar to one undertaken by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to secure Medicaid funds for Nevada." According to The Hill, the email also said:

"We will be working on a joint statement with Gov. Jindal and [HHS] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius to say they are working on the FMAP issue and asking Congress to solve it," Kenny wrote. "That's huge, if the commitment does lead to follow-through. Once there is agreement, then we will draft a statement for the delegation's consideration applauding the secretary and administration for recognizing the problem and working with Congress to solve it. Thank you."

The article also noted that Jindal issued a statement in response, saying in part, "I'm against the health care bill and always have been. You would have to live in a cave not to know that. I opposed it even with the FMAP language in it. I am glad the health care bill is dead."

The Associated Press itself reported that Jindal pushed for obtaining funds. The AP reported on February 5 that Jindal "was among those joining Landrieu in pushing for more money," but that "since then he's avoided most opportunities to defend her." From the AP article (accessed via Nexis):

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana stood to lose federal reimbursements for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor, because the state's post-hurricane economic surge temporarily boosted per-capita income that's used to measure Medicaid payments. Louisiana's Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, was among those joining Landrieu in pushing for more money but since then he's avoided most opportunities to defend her.

At a news conference in Baton Rouge, La., Jindal defended the need for the changes to the Medicaid formula, but said he opposed the Senate health care bill, even with the money included.

Asked whether Landrieu was wrong to put the money in the Senate bill, Jindal didn't respond directly and instead said, "I'm not a member of Congress. I'm not going to tell them what bills to draft and what bills to amend."

Times-Picayune noted that Jindal had "pushed" Landrieu to get funding, but did not defend her amid criticism. The Times-Picayune reported on February 4 that the "Jindal administration had pressed the congressional delegation last year to try to remedy the problem and, as the hour grew late, state Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine looked to Landrieu as the member of the delegation with the most clout to get it done." The article also reported that Jindal did not "defend [Landrieu's] decision to include the 'FMAP fix' in the Senate health overhaul bill," and "said he would have opposed the Senate bill with or without the measure." The article said Jindal had only issued "a single statement to CNN on Nov. 20 in which he said, 'the (health care) bill is awful, but it's unfair to criticize Sen. Landrieu or the rest of our delegation for fighting to correct this.' "

Other LA Republicans also say the funds are necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing them. The Times-Picayune also quoted several Louisiana Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter, Rep. John Fleming, Rep. Charles Boustany, and Rep. Steve Scalise, in a January 22 article as saying fixing FMAP is "legitimate and necessary," but criticized Landrieu for securing it in the health care bill. The article also quoted Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) as saying Landrieu "did what she was asked to do and then the governor didn't step up, Vitter criticized her, she was chastised by talk radio shows because she did what her governor asked her to do, it doesn't put a penny in her pocket."

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. misleadingly reported that the Senate health care reform bill "in certain cases" charges "a one-dollar-per-month, per-enrollee" abortion fee, revising Rep. Bart Stupak's false claim that the bill mandates this fee on all health insurance exchange enrollees. Johnson obscured the fact that the fee -- which is assessed to ensure that no federal funds are used for abortions -- applies only to people who affirmatively choose a health insurance plan that covers abortion over one that does not.

Johnson misleads: Senate bill "says that in certain cases there be a $1 per month, per enrollee" abortion fee

From the March 5 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

JOHNSON: Bart Stupak has pointed out, and you guys mentioned it earlier, that at certain pages of the Senate bill -- Pages 2,069 to Pages 2,078 -- it says in certain cases that there be a one-dollar-per-month, per-enrollee contribution to federal reproductive services, which includes abortion. That, in his view and in the view of at least a dozen Democrats, is a violation of the Hyde Amendment.

But fee, which comes from private funds, applies only to those who chose insurance with abortion coverage

ABC's Karl: "[Y]ou only pay the abortion fee if you choose a plan that covers abortion." On the March 4 broadcast of ABC's World News, correspondent Jonathan Karl fact-checked Stupak's claim, which Johnson cited on Fox & Friends, that the Senate health care bill mandated a one dollar abortion fee on each person purchasing insurance through the health exchange. Karl reported that Stupak was "wrong. In fact, you only pay the abortion fee if you choose a plan that covers abortion."

Slate's Noah: Fee is a "separate payment" made to ensure that no federal funds are used to cover abortion. In a March 4 Slate post, Timothy Noah also addressed Stupak's claims about federal funding for abortion in the Senate health care bill, including his claim about a mandatory abortion fee. Noah looked at the pages of the legislation Stupak cited to make this claim and found (emphasis in the original):

Let's go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 of the Senate-passed bill. It says, "If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage ... the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services." (This is on Page 2072.) That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions. (Except in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life-the same exceptions granted under current law.) If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage-the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so-then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won't be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy. (This is on Pages 2072-2074.)

Slate's Noah: "If an enrollee objects morally to spending one un-government-subsidized dollar to cover abortion," they can choose a plan that "doesn't cover abortions." Noah when on to note that "[i]f an enrollee objects morally to spending one un-government-subsidized dollar to cover abortion, then he or she can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn't cover abortions." Noah further noted that "[u]nder the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan." From Noah's Slate post:

Stupak is right that anyone who enrolls through the exchange in a health plan that covers abortions must pay a nominal sum (defined on Page 125 of the bill as not less than "$1 per enrollee, per month") into the specially segregated abortion fund. But Stupak is wrong to say this applies to "every enrollee." If an enrollee objects morally to spending one un-government-subsidized dollar to cover abortion, then he or she can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn't cover abortions. (Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan.)

Fox & Friends again attacked the Department of Justice for hiring lawyers who previously represented terror suspects or supported their legal arguments. But as a FoxNews.com article has noted, Bush administration lawyers also represented Guantánamo Bay detainees before working for the Justice Department, and several past Bush and Clinton DOJ officials have called these attacks "shameful" and "wrong."

Fox & Friends attacks DOJ lawyers who have defended terror suspects

Carlson: "It's almost like it was a job requirement to have defended" a terrorist. On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said of the Justice Department lawyers, "It's almost like it was a job requirement to have defended a" terrorist. She then asked, "Seriously, when somebody finally exposes this, this is trouble, is it not?"

Kilmeade: "What should we know when nine Department of Justice lawyers ... were involved in advocating for Al Qaeda terrorists?" During the March 5 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked guest Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online: "What should we know when nine Department of Justice lawyers are involved -- they're hired right now -- were involved in advocating for Al Qaeda terrorists when they were at Gitmo before they got this job, when President Bush was in the White House." McCarthy replied, in part: "Well, obviously I think the fact that they voluntarily represented America's enemies is something to be very concerned about if they're now in the position of making counterterrorism policy."

But as Fox has previously reported, Bush DOJ also hired lawyers who represented terror suspects

March 3 FoxNews.com article: "Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects." In a March 3 article about lawyers currently working for DOJ who previously represented terror suspects or supported their legal arguments, FoxNews.com reported that "[t]he Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects." From the FoxNews.com article:

A day after a conservative group released a video condemning the Justice Department for refusing to identify seven lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, Fox News has uncovered the identities of the seven lawyers.

The names were confirmed by a Justice Department spokesman, who said "politics has overtaken facts and reality" in a tug-of-war over the lawyers' identities.

[...]

The Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects.

Pratik Shah, an assistant to the Solicitor General hired by the Bush Administration, was part of the WilmerHale team that put together arguments for the Boumediene v. Bush case.

Trisha Anderson, an adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who was also hired by the Bush Administration, was previously an attorney at Attorney General Eric Holder's former firm, Covington & Burling, where she helped represent 13 Yemeni detainees.

Varda Hussain, an attorney hired in 2008 with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, was an associate with the Washington-based firm Venable when she helped represent three Egyptians being held at Guantanamo Bay.

"Varda has spent over 500 hours in the past year fighting to bring due process to our clients," a firm newsletter said in 2006.

Former Bush, Clinton officials criticize attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful," "wrong," "outrageous," "cheap shots"

Former head of OLC Walter Dellinger slams attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful." In a March 5 Washington Post op-ed, Walter Dellinger, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, wrote that "[t]he only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers -- and on the integrity of our legal system -- is shameful. Shameful." From Dellinger's op-ed:

It never occurred to me on the day that Defense Department lawyer Rebecca Snyder and Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler of the Navy appeared in my law firm's offices to ask for our assistance in carrying out their duties as military defense lawyers that the young lawyer who worked with me on that matter would be publicly attacked for having done so. And yet this week that lawyer and eight other Justice Department attorneys have been attacked in a video released by a group called Keep America Safe (whose board members include William Kristol and Elizabeth Cheney) for having provided legal assistance to detainees before joining the department. The video questions their loyalty to the United States, asking: "DOJ: Department of Jihad?" and "Who are these government officials? ... Whose values do they share?"

[...]

That those in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers -- and on the integrity of our legal system -- is shameful. Shameful.

Former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler reportedly says it's "wrong" to attack DOJ lawyers . The New York Times reported on March 4 that former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler, "who led the Bush administration's courtroom defense against lawsuits filed by Guantanamo detainees is denouncing attacks on Obama administration appointees who previously helped such prisoners challenge their indefinite detention without trial." The article further stated:

Peter D. Keisler, who was assistant attorney general for the civil division in the Bush administration, said in an interview that it was "wrong" to attack lawyers who volunteered to help such lawsuits before joining the Justice Department.

"There is a longstanding and very honorable tradition of lawyers representing unpopular or controversial clients," Mr. Keisler said. "The fact that someone has acted within that tradition, as many lawyers, civilian and military, have done with respect to people who are accused of terrorism -- that should never be a basis for suggesting that they are unfit in any way to serve in the Department of Justice."

Mr. Keisler spoke out one day after the Justice Department confirmed a Fox News report naming nine political appointees who had worked on detainee litigation before to joining the government. The department had declined to identify seven of those officials in response to a request by congressional Republicans.

Former Bush lawyer John Bellinger calls attacks "inappropriate" "cheap shots." On the March 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a report discussing the attacks on DOJ lawyers, former Bush administration lawyer John Bellinger said, "I think those sorts of cheap shots, suggesting that a lawyer who is simply defending a client somehow shares those views, are -- really are inappropriate." Bellinger also stated, "John Adams represented Tories who were accused of treason back in the revolution. This is the sort of work that we ought be applauding and not attacking."

Former military commissions prosecutor under Bush Col. Morris Davis reportedly calls attacks "outrageous." The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman reported on March 2 that Air Force Col. Morris Davis (Ret.), who served as a chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions during the Bush administration, called the attacks on the DOJ lawyers "absolutely outrageous." Referencing recent attacks on DOJ officials Neal Katyal and Jennifer Daskal, Morris reportedly said, "It is absolutely outrageous ... to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters." From Ackerman's Washington Independent post:

"Neal in particular was and is one of the sharpest and hardest-working attorneys I've known in the 27 years I've been practicing law," said Davis, who supervised prosecutions at Guantanamo from 2005 to 2007. "It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters. You don't hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial." Davis, of course, opposed Katyal on the famous case of Guantanamo Bay detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan's habeas corpus rights -- a case that Katyal won in the Supreme Court, striking down the first iteration of the military commissions. "He was the epitome of professionalism, and I can't say that about a lot of the folks involved" in the commissions, Davis continued.

"If you zealously represent a client, there's nothing shameful about that," said the retired Air Force colonel. "That's the American way."

Former Bush lawyer Reginald Brown calls attacks "beyond a cheap shot." According to a March 4 Washington Post article, former Bush lawyer Reginald Brown stated, "It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court."

Wash. Post, CNN legal analyst criticize attacks on DOJ

Washington Post: "Attacks are an effort to smear the Obama administration and the reputations of Justice Department lawyers." A March 5 Washington Post editorial called the attacks on the DOJ lawyers "an effort to smear the Obama administration and the reputations of Justice Department lawyers who, before joining the administration, acted in the best traditions of this country by volunteering to take on the cases of suspected terrorists." The editorial continued, "They now find themselves the target of a video demanding that they be identified, as if they had committed a crime or needed to be exposed for subverting national security."

CNN legal analyst Bloom: "We should not be conducting a witch hunt into what people as attorneys did before they came to the DOJ." During the March 5 edition of The Situation Room, CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom stated: "We shouldn't be conducting a witch hunt into what people as attorneys did before they came to the DOJ. If you want to ask them what their values are, whether they are loyal to the policies that they are working on, fine. But who they represented in their past lives as attorneys is entirely irrelevant."

Attorney assisted in detainee case at request of DOD

Dellinger: DOD official requested assistance in detainee case. In his March 5 Washington Post op-ed, Dellinger detailed "the story of one of those" DOJ lawyers who came to represent detainees at the request of Bush Department of Defense officials:

In June 2007, I was at a federal judicial conference when I received an urgent message to call the Defense Department. The caller was Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler, a uniformed Navy officer who had been detailed to the Office of Military Commissions. As part of his military duties, Kuebler had been assigned to represent Omar Khadr, a Guantanamo detainee who was to be tried before a military commission. Kuebler told me that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed that day to review the case of another detainee who had been a part of the same lower court proceeding as Khadr. Because Kuebler's client had not sought review at the Supreme Court, this situation raised some complex questions of court practice with which Kuebler was unfamiliar. Kuebler's military superior suggested he call me and ask whether I could assist him in analyzing the applicable Supreme Court rule.

It was a Friday night. I called Karl Thompson, a lawyer at my firm who had previously been a Supreme Court law clerk, and asked whether he could look into the question over the weekend. I told Thompson that the military lawyers assigned to these cases had a very burdensome workload and that it seemed that Kuebler could really use our help. Even though Thompson was extremely busy with other work at the firm, he said he would somehow find time for this as well.

Over the next several months, Thompson (in addition to his other firm work) provided assistance to Kuebler and his Defense Department colleague in their briefing before the Supreme Court and, in Khadr's case, the lower courts. Khadr's case raises important questions, including the legal status of juvenile detainees (he was 15 years old at the time of capture). In 2009, Thompson left our firm to join the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

Thompson's assistance to the military officers who had been assigned to Khadr's case seemed to me to be not only part of a lawyer's professional obligation but a small act of patriotism as well. The other Justice Department lawyers named in this week's attack came to provide assistance to detainees in a number of ways, but they all deserve our respect and gratitude for fulfilling the professional obligations of lawyers.

Fox & Friends has previously suggested DOJ lawyers sympathize with terrorists

Doocy wondered if DOJ lawyers are "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause." During the February 22 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated of the Justice Department lawyers, "And the argument continues, you know, if they represented these guys, are they sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?"

Malkin suggested DOJ has "jihadis' best interests ... at heart." During the February 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin stated, "It raises all sorts of conflicts of interest questions, and, more importantly, national security questions." She continued: "I think that the American people have a right to know whether the people who are working for them in the government are people who have the jihadis' best interests, and not our best interests, at heart." Doocy responded that the attorneys would probably say they are not sympathetic to the terrorism suspects.