1. Wallace "Astonished" Wounded Vets Back Iraq War, Finds Contrarian
Appearing by phone on Friday's Imus in the Morning radio simulcast on MSNBC, to plug his then-upcoming Sunday night 60 Minutes report on the struggles and achievements of some military members severely wounded in Iraq, Mike Wallace admitted he was "astonished" at how "almost all of them support the war despite the fact that it's taken such a toll on them." He elaborated, "We asked them flat out: What about should we be there? And the ones that are the most severely hit believe yes, we should have been there. They are not angry at the President..." Indeed, in Sunday's 60 Minutes piece, Wallace gave four wounded vets a total of 45 seconds to express support for the war -- but then allocated twice as much time to a wounded vet to denounce the war. Over video of Tomas Young with Cindy Sheehan, Wallace note how he "has become an anti-war activist since he was paralyzed in Iraq." Young recalled how he heard President Bush "standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center with a megaphone saying that we were going find the people that did it and smoke them out of their caves and all that rah rah. And so I wanted to go to Afghanistan to seek some form of retribution on the people that did this to us." Instead of Afghanistan, Wallace pointed out, "he found himself in Iraq, which he considers the wrong war in the wrong place."

2. Olbermann's New Anti-War Signoff Mocks "Mission Accomplished"
After President Bush delivered his speech on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in April 2003 welcoming U.S. troops home from Iraq and declaring an end to major combat operations, the media for some time sought to embarrass Bush each time American soldiers were killed by recounting how many U.S. troops had died since that speech, and by referring to the "Mission Accomplished" sign displayed at the time. On Monday, February 6, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann used his Countdown show to resurrect references to that speech with a new addition to his regular sign-off, which he repeated each day last week, in the form of recounting the number of days it has been "since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq." For instance: "That is Countdown for this, the 1,012th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

3. Dem Intel Leader Charges NYTimes Eavesdropping Story "Inaccurate"
In an interview conducted in her office, Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told FNC's Jim Angle that the "very valuable" terrorist surveillance program "fits within" the FISA law. In the session excerpted on Friday's Special Report with Brit Hume, she deplored how leaks are hurting intelligence efforts and scolded the news media for "not extremely accurate" characterizations of the program. Zeroing in on the New York Times, which first revealed the program, Harman asserted their story was "inaccurate" because they reported it included a "domestic-to-domestic" surveillance effort. She also charged that "these leaks are compromising some core capability of the United States," regretting how "it's tragic that this whole thing is being aired in the newspapers."

4. ABC Uses Hunting Accident for Gratuitous Shot at Cheney On Scalia
In the midst of ABC's lead story Sunday night about how Vice President Dick Cheney had, on Saturday afternoon, accidentally hit hunting companion Harry Whittington with shotgun pellets while he was aiming at some quail, reporter John Yang resurrected a two-year-old media-created scandal which amounted to little at the time: How Cheney invited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia along on a hunting trip while the court was facing a decision on a lawsuit involving the Vice President's official duties. Yang brought up Cheney's affiliation with the NRA and then asserted: "His hunting made headlines in 2004. He took Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on a duck hunting trip to Louisiana on board Air Force Two, at a time when the court was considering a case filed against Mr. Cheney by environmental groups." The Supreme Court sided with the VP's office, which sent the case back to a federal appeals court which rejected, 8-0 in 2005, the Sierra Club's request to learn what advice industry experts gave Cheney's energy task force.

5. CBS Touts "Saint Jack" Danforth's Conservative-Bashing
Saturday's CBS Evening News devoted its "Weekend Journal" segment to, as anchor Russ Mitchell explained, "the Senate veteran who is known far and wide as 'Saint Jack.'" Bill Whitaker proceeded to relay, without any competing voices, the anti-Christian Right enmity of former moderate, at best, Missouri Republican Senator Jack Danforth who is on a crusade to rid the Republican Party of the influence of Christian conservatives. Whitaker bucked-up Danforth's authority: "This is no Republican-basher speaking. It's party stalwart John Danforth, a lifelong Republican with rock solid conservative credentials." After relating Danforth's contention that the involvement of religious conservatives "makes the party seem exclusive, and I think it makes American politics meaner" as well as his complaint that Republicans "pander" in "the conscious development of wedge issues in order to excite religious passion," Whitaker sighed: "But even he admits it works. The GOP now controls the White House, the Senate, the House. But at what cost?"

6. You Read It Here First: IBD Scolds CBS for Budget "Cut" Claims
You read it here first. A February 8 editorial in Investor's Business Daily scolded the media for false reports about "cuts" in President Bush's budget proposal: "Among the media, CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod was perhaps typical. Using five-year budget forecasts, he recited the following misleading litany: 'Education, cut 28%; Housing and Urban Development, cut 30%' and '$36 billion in Medicare cuts over the next five years.'" The February 7 CyberAlert had recounted how "new CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod cited "education, cut 28 percent; Housing and Urban Development, cut 30 percent" and "$36 billion in Medicare cuts over the next five years."

Correction: The February 7 CyberAlert item, "Nets Cite Imaginary 'Cuts' as Federal Budget Continues to Soar," quoted from CBS News reporter Jim Axelrod, but referred to him as both "David Axelrod" and "Jim Axelrod." His first name is Jim. http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040601.asp#1

Wallace "Astonished" Wounded Vets Back
Iraq War, Finds Contrarian

     Appearing by phone on Friday's Imus in the Morning radio simulcast on MSNBC, to plug his then-upcoming Sunday night 60 Minutes report on the struggles and achievements of some military members severely wounded in Iraq, Mike Wallace admitted he was "astonished" at how "almost all of them support the war despite the fact that it's taken such a toll on them." He elaborated, "We asked them flat out: What about should we be there? And the ones that are the most severely hit believe yes, we should have been there. They are not angry at the President..." Indeed, in Sunday's 60 Minutes piece, Wallace gave four wounded vets a total of 45 seconds to express support for the war -- but then allocated twice as much time to a wounded vet to denounce the war. Over video of Tomas Young with Cindy Sheehan, Wallace note how he "has become an anti-war activist since he was paralyzed in Iraq." Young recalled how he heard President Bush "standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center with a megaphone saying that we were going find the people that did it and smoke them out of their caves and all that rah rah. And so I wanted to go to Afghanistan to seek some form of retribution on the people that did this to us." Instead of Afghanistan, Wallace pointed out, "he found himself in Iraq, which he considers the wrong war in the wrong place."

     Wallace has previously made clear his disgust with the war. In late November on FNC, he contended that "Iraq is becoming a kind of Vietnam" and asserted that "we should never have gone into Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods." Back in 2004 at a Smithsonian forum, Wallace argued that "this is not, in my estimation, a good war" and declared that "it sure is not a noble enterprise."

     During the 8:30am EST half hour interview on the February 10 Imus in the Morning, Imus asked Wallace: "Did any of these kids get into the politics of the war?" Wallace replied, by phone:
     "Indeed they did. And I was astonished: Almost all of them, almost all of them are, support the war despite the fact that it's taken such a toll on them. We asked, we asked them flat out: What about should we be there? And the ones that are the most severely hit believe yes, we should have been there. They are not angry at the President, they're not angry at the establishment. I promise you you'll be astonished if you're up that late on Sunday night."

     Past Wallace remarks about Iraq:

     # On the November 28 O'Reilly Factor, as recounted in a NewsBusters posting, Wallace contended that "Iraq is becoming a kind of Vietnam" and asserted that "we should never have gone into Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods." Wallace, however, suggested Bush may not really have been in charge and thus may not be to blame: "Now, whether the President was sold a bill of goods or whether Dick Cheney was sitting in the chair at that time, I don't know." See: newsbusters.org

     # The June 1, 2004 MRC CyberAlert recounted, with an accompanying RealPlayer clip, how "Mike Wallace, at a Smithsonian Institution 'National World War II Reunion' event on Friday [May 28] shown later by C-SPAN, denounced the war in Iraq. 'This is not, in my estimation, a good war,' Wallace declared a panel event, on 'World War II veterans as journalists,' held in a tent on the Capitol end of Mall the afternoon before the dedication of the World War II Memorial. 'I don't know how we got into a position where our present Commander-in-Chief and the people around him,' the 60 Minutes correspondent lamented, 'had the guts to take our kids and send them on what seems to be -- it sure is not a noble enterprise.'" Go to: www.mediaresearch.org

     Wallace spent the first three-fourths of his February 12 60 Minutes story recounting the physical and mental struggles of four severely wounded in Iraq: Melissa Stockwell, who lost a leg; Brian Neuman, who lost his left arm; Edward Wade, who had his right arm blown off; and Jessica Clements, who suffered a head wound and brain injury.

     Wallace observed: "Despite the price they've paid, none of the vets you've just met question President Bush's decision to go into Iraq."
     Wallace to Edward Wade: "We should be in Iraq? Honest?"
     Wade: "Honestly, we should be there because the President has made that decision."
     Brian Neuman: "I firmly believe that we are doing a very good thing to help the Iraqi people."
     Jessica Clements: "We need to finish our job and to continue help stabilize the country."
     Melissa Stockwell: "Time is gonna tell if the war is right or wrong or if it was worth it. But in my mind, I think it was."
    
     Wallace then transitioned: "But you don't get that from everyone. Another vet told us he wants to keep more soldiers from getting wounded in the first place [video of him in wheelchair next to Cindy Sheehan at an out door media event.] Tomas Young has become an anti-war activist since he was paralyzed in Iraq, shot while riding through Baghdad in the back of a truck.
     Young: "I was shot underneath the left collarbone. The bullet exited severed my spinal cord at about the chest high level."
     Wallace: "What'd it felt like?"
     Young: "I remember going completely numb and dropping my M16. And I could remember seeing myself trying to move my hands. But at that at that moment in time, I couldn't move anything. I was just in shock. Then I figured I was probably going to be paralyzed. I so I spent the next few seconds trying to yell for anybody that was within earshot to take me out."
     Wallace: "When you say 'take me out'?"
     Young: "End it. Make it to where I wasn't going to be paralyzed for the rest of my life. But unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on how you look at it -- all that I could get out of my mouth was a very tiny hoarse whisper. And so nobody heard me."
     Wallace: "How paralyzed are you?"
     Young: "I'm paralyzed from the nipple level down."
     Wallace: "So you can move-"
     Young: "I can move my arms completely fine."
     Wallace: "Are you glad that you're still alive?"
     Young: "My body's not the most cooperative thing in the world to me anymore. But for the most part, yes, I'm glad I'm still alive. I have people around me who make me glad to be alive."
     Wallace: "Especially his wife, Brie."
     Wallace: "You married her after this happened?"
     Young: "More importantly, she married me after this happened."
     Wallace: "Why did you join the Army in the first place?"
     Young: "I called my recruiter on September 13th, 2001. Because I saw our President standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center with a megaphone saying that we were going find the people that did it and smoke them out of their caves and all that rah rah. And so I wanted to go to Afghanistan to seek some form of retribution on the people that did this to us."
     Wallace: "But instead of Afghanistan, he found himself in Iraq, which he considers the wrong war in the wrong place."
     Young: "I just don't think this war was necessary."
     Wallace: "Speaking out against the war, what does it do for you?"
     Young: "It really helps to give me an outlet to get that the anger I feel from the war out."
     Wallace: "So you don't think you're undermining our troops by saying what you're saying?"
     Young: "Well I have a brother who's over there right now. It bothers me to think that people, I guess, try to undermine my patriotism and what not when I have a brother who's over there that I really don't want to see anything bad happen to."
     Wallace: "Had you not been shot, paralyzed, is it conceivable do you think that you would have been speaking out against the war?"
     Young got the last word: "I have friends who died unnecessarily in this war. So I would still speak out, although I probably wouldn't have as firm a leg to stand on, or a chair to sit in, if I hadn't been shot."

     For the online version Wallace's story: www.cbsnews.com

Olbermann's New Anti-War Signoff Mocks
"Mission Accomplished"

     After President Bush delivered his speech on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in April 2003 welcoming U.S. troops home from Iraq and declaring an end to major combat operations, the media for some time sought to embarrass Bush each time American soldiers were killed by recounting how many U.S. troops had died since that speech, and by referring to the "Mission Accomplished" sign displayed at the time. On Monday, February 6, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann used his Countdown show to resurrect references to that speech with a new addition to his regular sign-off, which he repeated each day last week, in the form of recounting the number of days it has been "since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq." For instance: "That is Countdown for this, the 1,012th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

     Olbermann, who has long used his Countdown show to criticize President Bush regarding the Iraq War, has typically ended each night's show with words similar to, "That's Countdown for tonight. Keep your knees loose. Good night and good luck," before balling up a piece of paper and tossing it toward the camera. On the February 6 show, Olbermann first inserted words into his sign-off tallying the number of days since the display of the "Mission Accomplished" sign.

     [This item, by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth, was first posted Saturday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To add your comments: newsbusters.org ]

     Exact transcripts for each night's sign-off:

     From the February 6 show: "That is Countdown for this, the 1,012th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

     From the February 7 show: "That's Countdown for this, the 1,013th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

     From the February 8 show: "That's Countdown for this, the 1,014th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

     From the February 9 show: "Our MSNBC coverage continues next with Rita Cosby Live and Direct, and that's Countdown for this, the 1,015th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

     From the February 10 show: "That's Countdown for this, the 1,016th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. A reminder to join us again at midnight Eastern, 11PM Central, 9 Pacific for the late edition of Countdown. Until then, a special presentation of Lockup: Inside Louisiana is next. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

Dem Intel Leader Charges NYTimes Eavesdropping
Story "Inaccurate"

     In an interview conducted in her office, Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told FNC's Jim Angle that the "very valuable" terrorist surveillance program "fits within" the FISA law. In the session excerpted on Friday's Special Report with Brit Hume, she deplored how leaks are hurting intelligence efforts and scolded the news media for "not extremely accurate" characterizations of the program. Zeroing in on the New York Times, which first revealed the program, Harman asserted their story was "inaccurate" because they reported it included a "domestic-to-domestic" surveillance effort. She also charged that "these leaks are compromising some core capability of the United States," regretting how "it's tragic that this whole thing is being aired in the newspapers."

     As to who is the blame, however, she bore in on the Bush administration for how "this can't be handled in normal channels because this administration refuses to share the information with Congress."

     [This item was posted Friday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To share your comments, go to: newsbusters.org ]

     The relevant portion of the excerpt of the interview with Harman, who represents the coastal West side of the City of Los Angeles south from Marina del Ray to San Pedro, through the independent cities in between of El Segundo and Manhattan Beach, as aired on the February 10 Special Report with Brit Hume:

     Asked by Angle whether the law or the program needs to be changed, Harman replied: "We need to assess whether or not this program fits within FISA. I say it does. I have seen no reason why it doesn't. If it fits within FISA, the administration, in my view, has to follow the law. If it doesn't fit within FISA for some reason that I have not yet understood, then we need to consider whether we change the program or change the law. But bottom line here is this very valuable program -- and I insist, you know, I won't back off that for a minute, at least the one on which I was briefed, there may be something else out there -- but the valuable program on which I was briefed must comply with the law and can."
     Jim Angles: "To clarify here, you're saying that what you know about the program actually is legal under existing law?"
     Harman: "Would be legal under existing law. The administration has admitted it's not getting FISA warrants on U.S. persons who are part of the chain of-"
     Angle: "Who might be called by foreign terrorists."
     Harman: "Right. Of people involved in what they think is plots spearheaded by al-Qaeda to attack Americans. And let me be clear about this: If U.S. persons are part of those plots, I surely want to know what they're up to. I absolutely believe, however, there would be probable cause, through the FISA court and through the, you know, under FISA, to get court warrants. And the law applies and the law should be complied with and I have not heard any compelling arguments why we shouldn't use the law. "
     Angle: "The media reporting on this has talked about the program, there have been a lot of public discussion, more perhaps than about any other highly classified program in my memory."
     Harman: "Right."
     Angle: "How accurate is the public understanding? You actually know what the program is. How accurate is the public understanding?"
     Harman: "Not extremely accurate. The most early -- you know now it can be said, now that Attorney General Gonzalez has said this is not a domestic-to-domestic program. The early reports by the New York Times, to which this program, the facts of this program or the existence was leaked, were inaccurate because that's what they claimed it was. And, that is, according to our Attorney General, not what it was. So there's one."
     Angle: "And you're comfortable with that?"
     Harman: "I'm comfortable with that. As I've said, I support the foreign collection program on which I have been briefed and I don't want to amplify that comment, but I think you get the point of my comment. So I'm comfortable with that. But there are ongoing leaks and I felt then and I feel now that these leaks are compromising some core capability of the United States. It's tragic that this whole thing is being aired in the newspapers. Why is it happening? I think it relates in part to this notion that we cannot do congressional oversight. This can't be handled in normal channels because this administration refuses to share the information with Congress."

     Harman's Web site features a February 1 press release, "HARMAN: FISA WARRANTS CAN COVER ALL ACTIVITIES OF THE NSA PROGRAM: Letter to President Highlights Eight Specific Changes Made After 9/11 to Modernize FISA." See: www.house.gov

ABC Uses Hunting Accident for Gratuitous
Shot at Cheney On Scalia

     In the midst of ABC's lead story Sunday night about how Vice President Dick Cheney had, on Saturday afternoon, accidentally hit hunting companion Harry Whittington with shotgun pellets while he was aiming at some quail, reporter John Yang resurrected a two-year-old media-created scandal which amounted to little at the time: How Cheney invited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia along on a hunting trip while the court was facing a decision on a lawsuit involving the Vice President's official duties. Yang brought up Cheney's affiliation with the NRA and then asserted: "His hunting made headlines in 2004. He took Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on a duck hunting trip to Louisiana on board Air Force Two, at a time when the court was considering a case filed against Mr. Cheney by environmental groups." The Supreme Court sided with the VP's office, which sent the case back to a federal appeals court which rejected, 8-0 in 2005, the Sierra Club's request to learn what advice industry experts gave Cheney's energy task force.

     On Sunday's NBC Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell managed to deliver a longer story on the shooting, at a ranch in southeastern Texas, without making any mention of the discredited lawsuit. (Golf bumped the CBS Evening News in the Eastern and Central time zones.)

     [This item was posted Sunday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To share your thoughts, go to: newsbusters.org ]

     On the February 12 World News Tonight, over a picture of Cheney holding a rifle on stage at an NRA convention, followed by still pictures of Cheney hunting, of Antonin Scalia and of people standing next to Air Force Two, Yang asserted from the White House:
     "Vice President Cheney is an avid hunter and strong supporter of gun owners' rights and the National Rifle Association. His hunting made headlines in 2004. He took Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on a duck hunting trip to Louisiana on board Air Force Two, at a time when the court was considering a case filed against Mr. Cheney by environmental groups."

CBS Touts "Saint Jack" Danforth's
Conservative-Bashing

     Saturday's CBS Evening News devoted its "Weekend Journal" segment to, as anchor Russ Mitchell explained, "the Senate veteran who is known far and wide as 'Saint Jack.'" Bill Whitaker proceeded to relay, without any competing voices, the anti-Christian Right enmity of former moderate, at best, Missouri Republican Senator Jack Danforth who is on a crusade to rid the Republican Party of the influence of Christian conservatives. Whitaker began with a clip of Danforth declaring: "I am concerned about the Republican Party becoming, in essence, the party of the Christian conservatives." Whitaker then bucked-up Danforth's authority: "This is no Republican-basher speaking. It's party stalwart John Danforth, a lifelong Republican with rock solid conservative credentials." To support the ludicrous claim that Danforth holds "solid conservative credentials," Whitaker cited how he "led the bitter partisan battle to put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court" -- when that just reflected personal loyalty to Thomas who had worked on Danforth's staff when he was Missouri's Attorney General -- and how as "an episcopal priest, he presided over the funeral of Ronald Reagan," as if all those involved in the service were right-wingers.

     The Los Angeles-based Whitaker, who traveled to La Quinta, California to interview Danforth, trumpeted how "this faithful Republican is worried about the direction his party is taking." After relating Danforth's contention that the involvement of religious conservatives "makes the party seem exclusive, and I think it makes American politics meaner" as well as his complaint that Republicans "pander" in "the conscious development of wedge issues in order to excite religious passion," Whitaker sighed: "But even he admits it works. The GOP now controls the White House, the Senate, the House. But at what cost?" Danforth alleged: "If by winning an election we've caused such divisions in the country that we are unable to address the really big issues before us, then we've done more harm than good."

     [This item was posted Saturday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To share your comments, go to: newsbusters.org ]

     A NewsBusters posting last week by Tim Graham examined an admiring February 2 Washington Post "Style" section look at Danforth's rants against the Christian Right, "'St. Jack' and the Bullies in the Pulpit." See: newsbusters.org

     The transcript of the February 11 CBS Evening News story, as provided by the MRC's weekend warrior, Brad Wilmouth, who corrected the closed-captioning against the video:

     Anchor Russ Mitchell: "It appears sometimes that issues of faith and politics are dividing Americans more frequently than ever. And one senior figure with a foot in both camps believes it's no accident. For tonight's 'Weekend Journal,' Bill Whitaker talks to the Senate veteran who is known far and wide as 'St. Jack.'"

     Former Senator John Danforth (R-MO), to Whitaker as the two sat in what appeared to be an office: "I am concerned about the Republican Party becoming, in essence, the party of the Christian conservatives."
     Bill Whitaker: "This is no Republican-basher speaking. It's party stalwart John Danforth, a lifelong Republican with rock solid conservative credentials. The former three-term Missouri Senator led the bitter partisan battle to put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. An episcopal priest, he presided over the funeral of Ronald Reagan."
     Danforth, at Washington Cathedral service for Reagan: "Accept our prayers on behalf of thy servant, Ronald."
     Whitaker: "Now this faithful Republican is worried about the direction his party is taking."
     Danforth: "It makes the party seem exclusive, and I think it makes American politics meaner."
     Whitaker: "How did he come to this?"
     Danforth: "I was appalled by the Terri Schiavo case."
     Whitaker: "Seeing Republicans who traditionally had stood for keeping government off citizens' backs in this case pushing the federal government into such a personal affair."
     Danforth: "Most of the people who were trying to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube were Republicans. And to me it indicated an effort to placate or even appease the Christian right."
     Whitaker: "Pandering?"
     Danforth: "Pandering."
     Whitaker: "That's a strong word."
     Danforth: "I mean, how else do you explain it?"
     Whitaker: "Or other incendiary issues like gay marriage, the Ten Commandments, embryonic stem cell research."
     Danforth: "The conscious development of wedge issues in order to excite religious passion makes it much more difficult."
     Whitaker: "Poisoning the political atmosphere, he says."
     Danforth: "In a politician's view this as God's side versus the heathen, I mean that doesn't leave much room for trying to work things out politically."
     Whitaker: "Danforth's brother died of Lou Gehrig's disease, one of the many scientists believe stem cell research might cure. He's campaigning to convince Missouri to allow the research."
     Danforth in ad: "I want cures to be found."
     Danforth to Whitaker: "They would say that cells in a petri dish are morally equivalent to an 11-year-old child. It is a statement based solely on a religious point-of-view."
     Whitaker: "But even he admits it works. The GOP now controls the White House, the Senate, the House. But at what cost?"
     Danforth: "Because if by winning an election we've caused such divisions in the country that we are unable to address the really big issues before us, then we've done more harm than good."
     Whitaker: "He says he believes the GOP must and will change to survive."
     Danforth: "But I think that beyond the politics of all of this, the question is: Do we move forward as a country?"
     Whitaker: "And moving forward will be difficult, Danforth says, if the nation is divided along religious lines. Bill Whitaker, CBS News, La Quinta, California."

You Read It Here First: IBD Scolds CBS
for Budget "Cut" Claims

     You read it here first. A February 8 editorial in Investor's Business Daily scolded the media for false reports about "cuts" in President Bush's budget proposal: "Among the media, CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod was perhaps typical. Using five-year budget forecasts, he recited the following misleading litany: 'Education, cut 28%; Housing and Urban Development, cut 30%' and '$36 billion in Medicare cuts over the next five years.'" The February 7 CyberAlert had recounted how "new CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod cited "education, cut 28 percent; Housing and Urban Development, cut 30 percent" and "$36 billion in Medicare cuts over the next five years."

     For the February 7 CyberAlert article: www.mediaresearch.org

     An excerpt from the IBD editorial, "Cuts That Add Up":

Government Spending: Politicians, as we know, sometimes have trouble being honest. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in how they use the term "cuts" in discussing the federal budget.

As noted here Tuesday, President Bush's new budget slows the growth of spending, but doesn't reverse it. Yet, listening to media pundits and even members of Bush's own party, you'd think spending was being slashed. It's not.

Sen. Arlen Specter, for example, decried Bush's proposed reductions for education and health as "scandalous." Another Republican -- Maine's Olympia Snowe -- said she was "disappointed, even surprised" by "cuts" in Medicaid and Medicare.

Among the media, CBS correspondent David Axelrod was perhaps typical. Using five-year budget forecasts, he recited the following misleading litany: "Education, cut 28%; Housing and Urban Development, cut 30%" and "$36 billion in Medicare cuts over the next five years."

In the fevered swamp that is Washington, rhetoric rarely matches reality. It's fair to say this budget isn't quite what critics say.

Federal spending, in fact, will increase this year by 2.3% to $2.77 trillion -- capping a 43% surge since fiscal 2001. By 2011, the budget will be 20% bigger, at $3.24 trillion. Meanwhile, a lot of what some call "cuts" aren't cuts at all.

Take Medicare. Is Bush's request really $36 billion lower than this year's allocation? No. Under Bush's plan, Medicare will grow 66% from 2005's $294 billion to $489 billion in 2011.

As for those "cuts" in Medicaid, well, spending is set to climb 44% to $270 billion.

OK, you say, but what about education? Here, CBS' Axelrod has a point -- in a way. Education spending will go from $56.5 billion in the 2006 budget to $54.4 billion in 2007 -- a drop of 3.8%. It will also fall over the next five years.

Seems a little tightfisted until you realize that education spending in 2007, even after the 3.8% cut, will be nearly 36% higher than it was in 2001. That comes out to an average annual gain of 6% -- the biggest sustained rise in education spending in U.S. history....

     END of Excerpt

     For the IBD editorial in full: www.investors.com

-- Brent Baker