On the December 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a report on Sen. Bill Nelson's (D-FL) recent visit to Syria, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier falsely suggested that only Democrats would defy the administration and meet with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "Nelson is the first in what could be a long line of Democratic lawmakers who travel to Damascus," Baier reported, specifically citing Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) as one of the Democratic lawmakers who "has already announced his intention to meet with Assad." Baier mentioned that various administration officials -- as well as "Nelson's Republican colleagues," including Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) -- were "clearly not pleased with Senator Nelson's effort." However, Baier did not mention, as several news reports have, that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) is also reportedly expected to visit Syria and meet with Assad.

For example, a December 14 Washington Post article reported: "The recommendation [of the Iraq Study Group that the United States open talks with Syria regarding Iraq] has begun a new wave of consultations with Damascus. Democratic senators John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) are tentatively scheduled to meet with Assad this month." A December 13 Associated Press report stated that Kerry, Dodd, and Specter are "[a]lso expected to visit Syria."

Indeed, National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson noted Specter's possible visit to Syria to meet with Assad while appearing on Special Report's "All-Star Panel," about 40 minutes after the end of Baier's report. "[L]ook," she told host and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume, "there's some more senators who are expected to go over there, including Arlen Specter ... who's a Republican, and Christopher Dodd, who's a Democrat."

From the December 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: Welcome to Washington. I'm Brit Hume. In a direct affront to the Bush administration, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today. The State Department and White House made no secret they had discouraged the visit, but Nelson went anyway. Chief White House correspondent Bret Baier reports.

[begin video clip]

BAIER: Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus for more than an hour and later told reporters the Syrian leader, quote, "took note" of Nelson's concerns that Syria needs to help stabilize Iraq and neighboring Lebanon. Senior Bush administration officials charged that Syria has continued to fully support Hezbollah inside Lebanon and has helped create more chaos in Iraq.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the administration was clearly not pleased with Senator Nelson's effort.

TONY SNOW (White House press secretary): It is a real stretch to think that the Syrians don't know where we stand or what we think. We don't think that members of Congress ought to be going there.

BAIER: Nelson's Republican colleagues also chimed in.

KYL: Each team has one quarterback. We elect a president to be our spokesman with foreign countries, and he does speak through the State Department and, certainly, elected senators are not supposed to be part of that diplomatic team.

BAIER: Senator Nelson is the first in what could be a long line of Democratic lawmakers who travel to Damascus. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has already announced his intention to meet with Assad, despite warnings and disapproval from the State Department and the White House. Meeting directly with Syria and Iran about Iraq is one of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Senior administration officials have been openly skeptical that any talks would be successful.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission also did not recommend adding more troops to Iraq, but senior aides tell Fox that's what President Bush talked about with top officials and commanders at the Pentagon this afternoon.

[...]

LIASSON: He's [Nelson] saying that there was a crack open to negotiate and that he obviously agreed with the Iraq Study Group.

HUME: Then who -- and who will do that negotiating?

LIASSON: Well, the administration would have to do the negotiating. He's not negotiating.

HUME: So, he's doing -- so, notably, he was going -- so, it was a diplomatic mission?

LIASSON: Well, no, I think it was a fact-finding mission for him. He doesn't speak for the administration. He wasn't negotiating anything. It's his view that they should negotiate and, look, there's some more senators who are expected to go over there, including Arlen Specter --

HUME: Yeah, that's right -- Arlen Specter. Dodd.

LIASSON: -- who's a Republican, and Christopher Dodd, who's a Democrat.

During a report on the December 13 broadcast of NBC's Today, National Review White House correspondent Byron York suggested that President Bush delayed his announcement of changes to the administration's Iraq war policy -- initially planned to be delivered before Christmas -- until January because of "public relations," adding: "[T]he president wants to come out with something new, something fresh, and something that will help change the debate at the same time that the Democratic Congress is taking office and getting a lot of attention in Washington." This comment drew no response from Today co-host Matt Lauer or NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, despite the daily toll of casualties in Iraq, including the deaths of nearly 50 U.S. troops in December alone. O'Donnell, who filed the report, introduced York's comments by simply noting that "observers also see a political benefit in waiting until the new year." Lauer ignored York's statement completely, even though conservative radio host William Bennett referred to York's comments during an interview following O'Donnell's report.

By contrast, Roger Simon, chief political columnist for The Politico, a political news website to be launched in January 2007, commented on the possible political considerations behind the delayed announcement on the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, saying: "The trouble is, people are dying and maybe that would be a reason to speed things up a little."

As Media Matters for America has documented, there have been several reported instances of the Bush administration manipulating the timing of announcements or actions in the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism for its own political benefit. As recently as October 24, CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported that a White House official told him, "[D]o not expect to see anything significant prior to Election Day" "as far as a significant change" in the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and then quoted the official as saying: "You're not going to see anything before November 8th. It would be political suicide, and Karl Rove would never allow it."

From O'Donnell's report on the December 13 broadcast of NBC's Today:

O'DONNELL: Another factor: giving the new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, a chance to visit Iraq. But observers also see a political benefit in waiting until the new year.

YORK: I think there's a public relations aspect to this, which is the president wants to come out with something new, something fresh, and something that will help change the debate at the same time that the Democratic Congress is taking office and getting a lot of attention in Washington.

O'DONNELL: But expectations are fading for improved management of the war. According to a new survey, 50 percent responded that Iraq will be another Vietnam, while 33 percent say the U.S. will accomplish its goals.

YORK: I think the biggest danger for Bush would be that he unrolls the plan and people say, "That's more of the same."

O'DONNELL: Aides say the president has narrowed what he wants to do and is, quote, "moving in a certain direction." And they also say this delay is not a sign of trouble.

Following O'Donnell's report, Lauer interviewed Bennett, who referred to York's comments. Bennett, however, instead of commenting on the administration's alleged politicization of the war, said: "I'm not sure there are a whole lot of new and fresh options." From Lauer's interview with Bennett:

LAUER: Let's talk about this listening tour. I mean, what do you make of this? Is this about changing the impression that the president is a guy who doesn't listen to others, doesn't take advice? Is it about lessening the impact of the Iraq Study Group report? Is it PR? What do you make of it?

BENNETT: Well, it's a little bit of that. Obviously, the president's been criticized for not listening, so he's listening. And notice he's being criticized for that, so that's the way Washington works. But I think it's also genuine, Matt. He heard what the Iraq Study Group had to say, didn't like it. He's going to go to the Pentagon today; he'll listen over there. My guess is that may be more to his liking. I don't know if there are really that many more options. I saw the piece -- Byron York said in that setup piece -- has to be new and fresh. I'm not sure there are a whole lot of new and fresh options. But --

LAUER: Let me talk about --

BENNETT: Yeah.

LAUER: -- let me talk about this study group report then. It's really created all kinds of controversy. Some people say, "Hey, these recommendations might help us extricate ourselves from Iraq." Other people, like [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ], say it's a formula for defeat. I haven't read many people who are as strongly against it as you were.

In contrast to Lauer, O'Donnell, and Bennett, Simon explained that "stagecraft" played into the decision to delay Bush's address and noted that the "trouble" with "stagecraft" is that "people are dying." From the December 13 edition of Hardball:

SIMON: Right, and the decider is not deciding. I mean, if the decider doesn't decide, he's dithering and you can call him a ditherer. I think there are two things slowing down President Bush's decision.

The main one is that he can't get his head around the fact that in order to change policy, he has to admit explicitly or implicitly that he made a tragic mistake starting this war. He doesn't like to admit any mistakes. I don't think he's about to admit this one.

And the second one is more minor, but it has to do with stagecraft. They don't want to do a major pitch speech at Christmastime. You know, they want the perfect speech in the perfect setting. They don't want people thinking about the holidays and football and spending time with their families. The trouble is, people are dying and maybe that would be a reason to speed things up a little.

During a one-on-one interview on the December 13 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto allowed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) to repeat the common GOP claim that Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections by running conservative candidates -- or, as DeLay put it, "Republican-lites." But as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), the Democratic candidates who, as of November 20, had won Republican-held seats in the November 7 midterm elections have all backed central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security. These new Democrats also largely agree on the most contentious social issues of the day. Indeed, all but two of the 29 newly elected Democrats (as of November 20) support embryonic stem cell research and only five describe themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion.

Since November 20, Ciro Rodriguez, the Democratic candidate for Texas' 23rd Congressional District seat, defeated incumbent Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla in a December 12 runoff election, increasing to 30 the number of House seats picked up by the Democrats this year. Rodriguez opposes efforts to privatize Social Security, supports raising the minimum wage, advocates changing course in Iraq, supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and supports "a woman's right to choose as established in the case of Roe v. Wade."

During the December 13 interview, Cavuto did not bring up Rodriguez's victory a day earlier, despite the fact that it was widely seen as another reversal in DeLay's controversial redistricting efforts in Texas in 2003. Rodriguez entered the race after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the redrawn 23rd District violated the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge panel then remapped the district to include a greater number of Hispanic voters and scheduled a November 7 special election. Because Bonilla, the leading vote-getter on November 7, received less than a majority of the vote, he faced Rodriguez -- who garnered the second highest number of votes -- in the December 12 runoff. From a December 14 Washington Post article headlined "House Win Adds Insult to Injury for DeLay":

Former congressman Ciro Rodriguez's victory in a House runoff election Tuesday in Texas not only allowed Democrats to pick up their 30th seat of the 2006 elections but served as a final rebuke to one of the architects of the Republican House majority: Tom DeLay.

The former congressman from Texas was the mastermind of a 2003 redrawing of congressional lines in the state that led to the removal of six House Democrats in the 2004 elections.

Two years later, DeLay's fortunes have suffered a near-total reversal, as the redistricting map that once seemed certain to cement his legacy and GOP majorities for years has instead led to the end of that career and may well be a building block for a reenergized Democratic Party in the state.

[...]

The Supreme Court struck another blow to DeLay when it ruled that portions of the map he devised were in violation of the Voting Rights Act. That decision forced the redrawing of Bonilla's district to include thousands more Hispanic voters.

Even so, Bonilla nearly avoided a runoff when he won 49 percent of the vote on Nov. 7. Six Democrats and an independent split the remainder, with Rodriguez, who had held the neighboring 28th District from 1996 until 2004, leading the pack with 20 percent.

From the December 13 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: All right. We hope, as well. Congressman, let me ask it a little bit about some -- speaking of politics -- news that you raised a couple of days ago, saying Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Were you taken out of context? Or did you mean that?

DeLAY: Well, the headlines didn't explain what I was talking about. What I was talking about was, there -- there's a reason why a minority party, the Democrat [sic] Party, with no agenda, with trying to hide that they're liberal, running as Republican-lites, won the majorities in the House and Senate this year.

And I -- one of the reasons is a very -- very important reason, and that is, the Clintonistas, the people that were the hit people in the White House for Bill Clinton -- Harold Ickes, Morton Halperin, Sidney Blumenthal, Cargill [sic: James Carville], [Paul] Begala -- and I could go on and on and on -- didn't go away. They left the White House, and they put together, over the last six years, one of the most massive coalitions that I have ever witnessed. And I congratulate them. It's -- it's -- it's a political -- an effective political machine that they have put together.

CAVUTO: Yeah, but then along comes this guy Barack Obama out of nowhere. How does that machine deal with him?

DeLAY: Well, he could be groomed by them to be vice president. But Barack Obama is a creation of the national media. He's the media's guy. And -- and, when you really look at how leftist he is, he won't last six months. The point is, is that Hillary Clinton has this massive organization that's capable of raising millions upon tens of millions of dollars to support her, and nobody else has it.

CAVUTO: Yeah, but, you know, normally -- and you're better at this political stuff than I'll ever be, Tom -- but I -- I always wonder, when a party trips over itself for a new name, that it's saying something about the names that are already out there.

DeLAY: No, I don't think so. I -- I'm -- I'm -- as you're right -- you're right, Neil. I am a great believer in organization and hard work and persistence and energy -- drive the politics in -- in America. But if you -- if you read the book Shadow Party by David Horowitz, or go to discoverthenetwork.org, you see how massive this organization is. And it's all connected, all very well coordinated.

And no one else has that, including the Republicans. And if the Republicans don't get up and start articulating a vision for the future and put together coalitions and bring people together and build something close to what the Clintons have, she'll be the next president.

CAVUTO: Yeah, but money and organization doesn't buy you a seat at the table. Your old colleague and friend [former Sen.] Phil Gramm [R-TX] had a lot of money running for president [in 1996] and all of that, and it didn't really -- didn't really do much for him. Another old friend of yours, [Former Texas Gov.] John Connally, years back, had the same thing.

DeLAY: All they had --

CAVUTO: Didn't do much for --

DeLAY: -- all they had was money, Neil. They had no organization. They had no groups. I'm talking about hundreds of organized groups and companies -- groups that have come together. When they needed something, like opposition research, they went out and created a new group. Americans Coming Together, for instance, has 1,400 full-time employees that are the people that are on the ground going door-to-door with their Palm Pilots.

CAVUTO: All right. So, they --

DeLAY: That's -- that's powerful stuff.

CAVUTO: -- she's got the organization. So, very, very quickly, tell your Republican colleagues and friends how they can stop that.

DeLAY: What they can stop that is, quit -- forget the election and let's go kick some butt. Let's start working together and quit pointing the finger at each other. We -- ideas are on our side. The American people on our side. Most Americans in this country are to the right of center. What we need are leaders, and leaders pulling people together to work together, and we will win. That's -- that's why we have been in the majority for the last 12 to 15 years.

CAVUTO: All right, Tom DeLay, thank you for addressing this and all the breaking news. Appreciate it, as always.

DeLAY: My pleasure.

On the December 14 edition of MSNBC News Live, rather than challenging first lady Laura Bush's assertion that the media have failed to cover "a lot of good things that are happening" in Iraq, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell prompted Laura Bush to elaborate on "some of those good things that people should know about." Beyond pointing out that "there are a lot of deaths every day," O'Donnell did not dispute Bush's assertion. In response, the first lady asserted that the media, for example, have not covered the "schools that are being built." At no point did O'Donnell point out that President Bush himself acknowledged, during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on December 7, that the United States needs a "new approach" because "[i]t's bad in Iraq." Further, in its final report, the Iraq Study Group found that "[t]he Iraqi government is not effectively providing its people with basic services: electricity, drinking water, sewage, health care, and education."

O'Donnell also allowed Laura Bush to accuse the media, as the website Think Progress noted, of lacking a "balanced view" of Iraq in emphasizing reports of violence instead of the "good things going on that people don't have the chance to see." O'Donnell did not point out the ISG's conclusion -- not that good news is being underreported, but that the administration is significantly "underreporting ... the violence in Iraq." O'Donnell's failure to challenge Laura Bush's accusation of the media was also noted by AMERICAblog.com.

Media Matters for America previously noted that on the May 14 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not rebut a claim by Laura Bush that, when President Bush's approval ratings were "really high, they weren't on the front page" of major newspapers. Similarly, during an interview with Laura Bush on the May 14 broadcast of ABC News' This Week, host George Stephanopoulos also did not correct the first lady when she repeated her claim that, "when poll numbers were good," the press did not put them "on the front page." Neither the Associated Press nor Reuters, both of which reported Laura Bush's claim, noted that it was false.

From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the December 14 edition of MSNBC News Live:

O'DONNELL: I know you read the newspapers. You know some of the discussion out there is that the president is going to dismiss the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and not take the fruit salad, as James Baker has called it, and pick and choose.

BUSH: Well, I don't know what that is but I'm sure that he will pick and choose because that -- it's important for him to do that, to pick the ones that are most effective, that the generals think are most effective, and he'll do that.

O'DONNELL: Let me ask you then, finally, just about public opinion when it comes to the Iraq war. NBC News -- we have a new poll out we sponsor with The Wall Street Journal, and the numbers showed two out of 10 Americans now approve of the president's handling on Iraq; seven out of 10 -- less confident that the war will be successful.

BUSH: Well, I, you know, I understand why those polls are like that, because of the coverage that we see every single day in Iraq, and it is not encouraging coverage, for instance -- for sure. There's no doubt about it. But I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening that aren't covered. And I think the drumbeat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what's happening unless they happen to have a loved one deployed there, is discouraging and you know -- I know that the facts are not as discouraging.

O'DONNELL: But there are a lot of deaths every day.

BUSH: Absolutely, there are, and people do know that and see that, but there are also good things going on that people don't have the chance to see.

O'DONNELL: What are some of those good things that people should know about?

BUSH: Schools that are being built; parts of the country that are peaceful; and people are trying to rebuild their lives in a large part of Iraq. And we hear that, we hear that from friends, we hear that from Iraqis, we hear it from our troops who are there, and -- so, I'd like to see the media get a little bit more balanced view of it.

O'DONNELL: And we do know that our men and women over there do want support over there and we do --

BUSH: Sure, absolutely. And I know the American people support our troops, and that's what I hope our troops also see when they see the coverage of it, the way the American people support them. And I know they'll see it over the holidays, because many, many Americans will be reaching out to our deployed troops in a lot of different ways: by sending Christmas presents, by sending Christmas cards, by letting our troops know that we are with them. And I hope our troops get that message over the holidays.

On the December 14 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS national security correspondent David Martin reported that the commander of American forces in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, "has already said the military is not big enough to sustain even a modest buildup of 20,000 troops" in Iraq and that "influential Republican Senators John McCain [AZ] and Lindsey Graham [SC] were in Baghdad today, warning it will take more than that to save Iraq." Martin, however, left out Abizaid's assessment that a troop increase such as the one McCain and Graham are promoting would likely not improve the situation in Iraq.

From the December 14 broadcast of the CBS Evening News:

MARTIN: The commander of American forces in the Middle East has already said the military is not big enough to sustain even a modest buildup of 20,000 troops.

But influential Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were in Baghdad today, warning it will take more than that to save Iraq.

GRAHAM: We need an overwhelming troop presence in the short term to level out the violence, so people can work out their political solutions.

MARTIN: And increasing the size of the Army won't help any time soon. It would take a full year to recruit and train just 6,000 more troops.

As Media Matters for America has noted, there are serious questions as to whether McCain's plan to significantly increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is feasible, given that McCain himself has asserted that the fate of the U.S. effort in Iraq will be decided in a matter of months, and yet he has acknowledged that sending 20,000 more soldiers into the region would require increasing the number of active forces by 100,000. While Martin reported that "[i]t would take a full year to recruit and train just 6,000 more troops," he failed to note that Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15, "I've met with every divisional commander. General [George] Casey, the corps commander, [Lt.] General [Martin] Dempsey -- we all talked together. And I said, 'In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more."

On the December 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, discussing Iran's December 11 conference, a gathering of Holocaust deniers purportedly to "debate" the existence of the Holocaust, Glenn Beck said: "[W]hen I saw [former Ku Klux Klan leader] David Duke there, I thought, 'Gee, the only one that wasn't there was Jimmy Carter.' "

But in 1979, then-President Carter signed the executive order to establish the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. The order defined the Holocaust as "the systematic and State-sponsored extermination of six million Jews and some five million other peoples by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II." During the conversation with Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes, Beck added that "maybe [Iran President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad just didn't want to invite Jimmy Carter, because he was like, 'Oh, well, he'll discredit the whole conference. That guy's always wrong.' "

As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck has previously referred to Carter as a "waste of skin."

From the December 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BROOKES: He had a speech earlier this week at a local university in Iran, and there were students who spoke up. They're very unhappy with the situation in Iran, and they were arrested and dragged away. I mean, there were people who would be put in jail; people would be beaten, I mean, all of this sort of stuff; and it's just the height of hypocrisy -- beyond disgrace -- it's the height of hypocrisy, as well.

BECK: So, I, actually -- when I saw David Duke there, I thought, "Gee, the only one that wasn't there was Jimmy Carter."

But, maybe -- maybe, Ahmadinejad just didn't want to invite Jimmy Carter, because he was like, "Oh, well, he'll discredit the whole conference. That guy's always wrong."

During the December 11 edition of his Focus on the Family broadcast, FOF founder and chairman James Dobson hosted syndicated conservative radio host Michael Medved to discuss the film Happy Feet (Warner Bros., November 2006), an animated feature about penguins living in Antarctica during a period of environmental upheaval. Medved claimed that the film contains a "subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality," prompting Dobson to wonder whether the filmmakers are "getting at the idea that homosexuality is genetic."

As Media Matters for America has noted, in a November 17 entry, titled "Don't Be Misled By Crappy Feet," on his Townhall.com weblog, Medved called the animated movie, "the darkest, most disturbing feature length animated film ever offered by a major studio." He further alleged that the film contains "a bizarre anti-religious bias" and "a subtext that appears to plead for endorsement of gay identity." Medved also attacked Happy Feet in a November 29 op-ed in USA Today for its purported "pro-environmental" propaganda, as Media Matters also documented.

During the December 11 Focus on the Family broadcast, Medved repeated his warning of Happy Feet's purported pro-gay propaganda:

DOBSON: There is a movie that's out now, called Happy Feet. It's about penguins. It's obviously designed to pull children in and yet, you don't like it. I've read some of the things you've said about it. I haven't seen it and don't plan to see it but from what I've heard, I don't like it either. Explain why.

MEDVED: Because it's depressing and it's dark.

[...]

MEDVED: And then there's this whole subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality. Not that the penguins are gay -- they're not gay -- but the one penguin hero doesn't fit in and the religious authorities -- the so-called religious right in the penguin world -- are very judgmental. They say, "You are not a penguin. You're not a real penguin." And then he makes this heartfelt plea, he says, "Dad, you have to accept me as I am. I can't change." And --

DOBSON: Are they getting at the idea that homosexuality is genetic? Is that what the subtle implication is?

MEDVED: Well, how many times do we hear that in the media? That it's not a matter of choice, it's not a matter of change, and my problem with that -- as I understand, that there are some people, who -- for whom that may be true, but they're other people -- and you and I know them -- who have changed their lives and have turned around their lives.

On the December 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly dismissed scientific research on same-sex parenting to assert that "[n]ature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum" form of child-rearing. O'Reilly asked "why," if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?" O'Reilly declared that by arguing in favor of same-sex couples' right to raise children, "you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.

Additionally, O'Reilly, presumably referring to Media Matters, claimed that following a December 6 O'Reilly Factor segment on Mary Cheney's pregnancy, "[t]he loony websites cranked up their propaganda, accusing me of demeaning Miss Cheney and gay parents in general." Continuing, O'Reilly stated: "Well, that nonsense was picked up by two far-left columnists at the very liberal, very liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The secular-progressive pipeline strikes again." O'Reilly appeared to be referring to a December 11 Post-Intelligencer column by Joel Connelly and a December 13 column by Susan Paynter. Connelly wrote in his column, as Media Matters had noted, that during his October 6 television show, O'Reilly "criticized Sen. John Kerry as not being 'respectful' of Mary Cheney's 'private life' when Kerry mentioned her sexual orientation in a TV debate," yet now hosted a "segment" on "Cheney's pregnancy and same-sex parenting." Paynter stated in her column: "Of course, that 'think tank' and brain trusts such as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly could be counted on to feign concern for the supposedly perilous futures of such kids. Of course, they'd spew specious statistics about risks and propensities. It's what they do."

On the December 13 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "if you disagree" that "there's no difference between gays raising kids and a mom-dad situation ... the S-P [secular progressive] press will try to hurt you," and later dismissed scientific research showing that being raised by same-sex parents does not appear to harm children's psychosocial development. During a discussion with Family Pride executive director Jennifer Chrisler, O'Reilly claimed that it was merely Chrisler's "story" that, in Chrisler's words, "[c]hildren do equally as well when" they are raised by same-sex parents and concluded that "[n]ature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum, does it not?"

In fact, the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the Child Welfare League of America, among others, have all noted that credible scientific data shows that children suffer no harm from being reared by same-sex parents.

For instance, as Colorado Media Matters has noted (here and here), the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

In a March 11 Boston Herald opinion column, NASW Executive Director Carol J. Trust wrote in support of same-sex parenting, noting:

Anyone who wishes to examine the 20 years of peer-reviewed studies on the emotional, cognitive and behavioral outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents will find not one shred of evidence that children are harmed by their parents' sexual orientation.

The empirical and clinical evidence suggesting same-sex parents are equivalent to heterosexual parents in their ability to care for children and provide loving homes is so compelling that there is a growing consensus among legal and child welfare experts that there is no rational basis to deny adoption to gay and lesbian couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Additionally, Child Welfare League of America President and CEO Shay Bilchik noted the organizations' support of gay and lesbian couples' adopting children in the forward to "Too High a Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting":

It has now been established by the research that gay people are just as capable of being good parents as heterosexual or "straight" people, and that their children are just as likely to be healthy and well-adjusted. Not a single reputable study has found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents have been harmed because of their parents' sexual orientation in any way.

Because of this research and because exclusions based on traits other than one's ability to be a good parent are contrary to good child welfare policy and practice, the Child Welfare League of America has issued a public statement supporting the parenting of children by lesbians and gay men, and condemning attempts to restrict competent, caring adults from serving as foster and/or adoptive parents.

As Media Matters noted, in 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the psychosocial development of children raised by same-sex parents. The report noted that a "growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

From the December 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. What do Mary Cheney and illegal immigrants have in common? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

Last week, we did a segment on Miss Cheney's pregnancy and her desire to raise a child in a lesbian household. The segment was respectful, even mild. We discussed the role that fathers play in the lives of children and what the lack of a dad might mean.

Well, there was immediate outrage on the far left. The loony websites cranked up their propaganda, accusing me of demeaning Miss Cheney and gay parents in general.

Well, that nonsense was picked up by two far-left columnists at the very liberal, very liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The secular-progressive pipeline strikes again.

Now, the strategy here is to intimidate any discussion about gay parenting, no matter how benign. If you question anything, you're homophobic -- a bad person.

The S-Ps believe there's no difference between gays raising kids and a mom-dad situation. The S-Ps also believe there's no difference between gay marriage and straight marriage, and if you disagree, the S-P press will try to hurt you.

[...]

CHRISLER: Yeah. You know, look, the reality is -- is that research's been done, and -- and there is 30 years of that research, and it's incontrovertible. There is no deficit.

Children do equally as well when they have two moms and two dads, or whether they have a mom and a dad, and if you're really concerned --

O'REILLY: Well, that's your story, but you know the Family Research Council and all the other have all the other data that says that is not the case, that there is a -- something missing in the emotional realm, but I don't even want to get into that. Nature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum, does it not?

CHRISLER: No, because the reality is they're bad dads and bad moms, and they're are --

O'REILLY: The nature doesn't dictate that.

CHRISLER: You know --

O'REILLY: So what you're saying to me is that a lesbian couple and a gay-guy couple are just as equipped to raise a child as heterosexual parents? That's what you're saying?

CHRISLER: Absolutely. Yeah, without a doubt --

O'REILLY: No difference.

CHRISLER: -- because love --

O'REILLY: No difference.

CHRISLER: -- stability, commitment, kindness, caring, values, morals, discipline, guidance, that's what really makes good parents, and if we want to be worried about what we're going to talk about here, we should talk about what are the qualities of a parent that really make a difference for a child, and that's what it is.

O'REILLY: All right, well, I disagree with you. I'm going with nature. I'm going with -- [free-lance journalist] Miss [Norah] Vincent, I'm going with -- I'm throwing in with Mother Nature here and I'm going best-case scenario, dad and a mom. Am I a bigot?

VINCENT: No, you're not a bigot for saying that, but nature is procreation, and we're talking about something cultural called parenting.

O'REILLY: No, I'm talking about raising kids. I'm talking about -- I know there are bad parents --

VINCENT: Well, there's nothing inherent in biology --

O'REILLY: -- and I know there are good gay parents. Absolutely, all right?

VINCENT: OK.

O'REILLY: But I'm talking optimum, best for the kid, having a mom and a dad. Are you going to call me a bigot for that?

VINCENT: Not at all, no. It's a legitimate preference.

O'REILLY: Are you going to, Miss Chrisler, call me a bigot for that?

CHRISLER: Nope, I'm just going to call you wrong --

O'REILLY: Wrong.

CHRISLER: -- which you are. So --

O'REILLY: You know, why wouldn't -- why wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake? You know? You know, you just throw --

CHRISLER: Well, we'd have --

O'REILLY: You take Mother Nature.

CHRISLER: We'd have a lot of people, wouldn't we?

O'REILLY: You know the old commercial -- don't fool around with Mother Nature? What you're doing is you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy. I really do. And that's not based on religion or morals or -- Annie [sic], you're a good person, Norah's a good person. All right? But it's just that you say, "Hell with nature -- the hell with it. We're going to do what we want. It's just as good. And you guys are crazy." And that's what you're saying.

On the December 10 edition of ABC's This Week, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) explained to host George Stephanopoulos his emotional statement on the floor of the Senate, in which he denounced the Iraq war as the result of "turning on the news" on December 6 and "hearing that yet another 10 of our soldiers died the same way that several thousands have ... through roadside bombs." Similarly, on the December 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Smith told host Wolf Blitzer that he had changed his mind because he had believed that the war was about "taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy" but had now turned the United States into "street cops in a sectarian civil war." Asked why he had changed his position, Smith referred to "a number of books" he had recently read that "got me thinking and stirred up" and cited again "the news that 10 more of our fighting men and maybe -- a woman" who "were killed, again in another roadside bomb." Neither Stephanopoulos nor Blitzer challenged Smith to explain why he waited until after the November 7 midterm elections to denounce the war.

Additionally, neither asked Smith about the assertion by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) before the election that two Republican senators had told him that they planned to denounce the war after the election.

As Media Matters for America has documented, most of the media ignored ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper's October 6 weblog post, in which Tapper wrote that, according to Biden, "two other Senate Republicans" in addition to Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will "break with the White House Iraq strategy," but only after the election when "the need to protect the president will be nonexistent." Stephanopoulos was one of the few media figures who actually did take note of Biden's reported claim, mentioning it on the October 8 edition of ABC's This Week. On the November 5 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, Biden repeated the claim, saying that "[b]efore we left for the election cycle, two of my senior Republican colleagues contacted me, and said when we get back they wanted to join me in coming up with a bipartisan plan."

On December 7, Smith gave a Senate floor speech, in which he declared: "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day."

But notwithstanding Stephanopoulos' recognition of Biden's statement, and notwithstanding the fact that more than 2,900 U.S. service members had already died in Iraq when Smith heard about the 10 on December 6, Stephanopoulos did not challenge Smith on the timing of his statement. He did not ask if Smith was one of those Republicans who reportedly decided before the election to denounce the war after November 7. While Stephanopoulos did say that "[c]ertainly, a lot of Republicans following the election feel more free to oppose President Bush," he also characterized Smith's reversal as "deeply personal" and reflecting "a dramatic change of heart."

From the December 10 edition of ABC's This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was clearly a deeply personal speech, and it showed a dramatic change of heart. What triggered it?

SMITH: Waking up the other morning and turning on the news, and hearing that yet another 10 of our soldiers died the same way that several thousands have --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Wednesday.

SMITH: --Wednesday, through roadside bombs -- and I went from steamed to boiled. And I felt I had to speak out because if we're going to be there, let's win; if we're not, let's -- let's at least fight the war on terror in a way that makes sense.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said in that speech the current policy may be criminal.

[...]

STEPHANOPOULOS: You think it's time to leave?

SMITH: I believe that we have an ongoing interest in -- in the war on terror, and Iraq is one of the battlefields. But I believe we need to reposition ourselves in a way that allows us to take on the murderers and the weapons of war that come across the borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Ultimately, we want the Iraqis to make the political decisions that will ultimately allow a government to emerge.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Biden, this seems like a watershed moment.

BIDEN: It is. Look, George, two incredible things happened: one, the election on November 7th; two, the Baker commission -- my friend here and others in the Republican Party, as well as Democratic Party. And what they're saying when you cut through it all: "Either figure out how we're going to have traded a dictator for stability or leave." And that's a gigantic shift.

Everyone from [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ], who says it a different way, to Joe Biden, to -- across the board, is saying: "We have one last shot to figure out how to deal with the chaos in Iraq." If we can't, you better get out. And my view is, if you can't deal with the chaos -- and I have a formula how I would propose doing that, it's not apart from the study group's recommendations -- but if you can't, you better disengage and contain.

[...]

FAREED ZAKARIA: The whole history of these troop surges, and we have done them, we did one in Baghdad three months ago, is that you suppress the violence. The bad guys go into hiding. The minute you leave, they come out again because the fundamental cause of the violence is the political discord between the Sunnis and Shias over who controls Iraq.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's the point that Senator Smith made, as well. Cokie -- the politics of this. Certainly, a lot of Republicans following the election feel more free to oppose President Bush. You heard Senator Smith have a position somewhat like Senator McCain's. What it makes me wonder is: Is Senator McCain going to be driven by the logic of his argument in one month, two month, three months, four months to be for getting out?

From the December 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Senator, a powerful emotional statement, I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about-face?

SMITH: Well, Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States, and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up, and I felt duty-bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another -- from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.

BLITZER: So, you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?

[...]

BLITZER: Was there one issue, one thing that happened that pushed you over to deliver this remarkable address on the Senate floor?

SMITH: Well, I've read a number of books recently that got me thinking and stirred up, and then I woke up Wednesday -- I believe it was -- to the news that 10 more of our fighting men and maybe -- a woman, I don't know -- but they were killed, again in another roadside bomb, and I -- I just simply hit the -- the end of the rope, if you will, and I felt I had to speak up because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice, and this is not.

BLITZER: You used the word "criminal" in that statement -- a very sharp, pointed word. If, in fact, some of the actions committed by the U.S. were criminal, who should be held accountable?

On the December 9 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, panelists discussed a letter that Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sent to ExxonMobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson in October. In the letter, Snowe and Rockefeller requested that the company "end its dangerous support of global warming deniers." However, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Bret Stephens claimed that Snowe and Rockefeller's "real objection" "is to a relatively small, very effective think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI]," an organization that "has been consistently pointing out the flaws in some of the political conclusions that have been reached." Contrary to Stephens' assertion about the quality of CEI's work, Media Matters for America has documented that two of its 60-second television ads contained misleading statements about global warming and that those statements have been echoed by Wall Street Journal columnist Pete Du Pont and radio host Rush Limbaugh.

As Media Matters noted, CEI's ad titled "Energy" suggested that environmentalists have falsely labeled carbon dioxide a pollutant, when, in fact, it is "essential to life." But the ad distorts the argument made by scientists: C02 is not inherently harmful; excessive discharges of the gas harm the atmosphere. Echoing this ad, Du Pont asserted in his May 23 column that carbon dioxide "is not a pollutant -- indeed it is vital for plant growth," as Media Matters noted.

The second CEI ad, "Glaciers," claimed that recent scientific studies have proven that "Greenland's glaciers are growing" and that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." But as the weblog Think Progress noted, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers. Further, the author of the study on Antarctica issued a public statement accusing CEI of a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." Nevertheless, Limbaugh echoed the ad on the May 22 broadcast of his radio show, declaring the "Antarctica ice is actually increasing," as Media Matters noted.

CEI has received substantial funding from the fossil-fuel industry, including more than $2 million from ExxonMobil since 1998, as Stephens acknowledged, and as Media Matters has noted. Think Progress has reported that ExxonMobil "stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute" in 2006. In addition, CEI has been funded by right-wing financiers and organizations such as Richard Mellon Scaife, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, as noted by Media Matters.

From a panel discussion on the December 9 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, featuring Stephens, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor Daniel Henninger, and Wall Street Journal senior editorial board member Kim Strassel:

PAUL GIGOT: Two United States Senators have been caught trying to bully ExxonMobil into toeing their line on global warming. In a letter to CEO Rex Tillerson, Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine and Democrat John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia urged the company to, quote, "end its dangerous support of global warming deniers," end quote.

The senators also write: "We are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics and those skeptics' access to, and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy."

The letter concludes by urging ExxonMobil to, quote, "publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it." Kim, I've been in Washington a long time --

[laughter]

GIGOT: -- and I can't remember seeing a letter this blunt and, frankly, threatening.

STRASSEL: Scary?

GIGOT: What are they trying to accomplish, Snowe and Rockefeller?

STRASSEL: Well, no, I mean, look, these people, they've made up their mind about global warming, and they're going to make sure nobody else disagrees with them anymore. ExxonMobil has been a big thorn in their side because they've been funding groups that have been asking probing questions about global warming. You'd think we'd like that down in Washington, but not the senators.

Now, what's scary about this is these are people who have the ability to institute windfall profits tax on oil companies, hold hearings and drag these people, public companies with share prices, in and embarrass them. So, I mean, there's some ethical issues about what they've been doing here, too.

GIGOT: I should add that we did call the senators and ask for comment. And they did not return our phone calls.

[laughter]

GIGOT: Bret, what does this tell us about the state of the global warming debate, that they're so concerned about these few skeptics?

BRET STEPHENS: Well, that's one of the very interesting things here. Because one of the things that people like Snowe and Rockefeller will say is that there is a consensus here. So anyone who rejects it isn't simply a skeptic -- is a denier -- as if they're Holocaust deniers, or in some kind of category like that.

[laughter]

But there's clearly a sense of real insecurity. Because the letter -- the real objection is to a relatively small, very effective think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been one of the very few voices which has been consistently pointing out the flaws in some of the political conclusions that have been reached here.

If there were such a consensus and, if it were only CEI that was rejecting it, why would they have to be bullying ExxonMobil? Why would they be so afraid of what little CEI has to say?

STRASSEL: And one things here -- you've got to remember the stakes. The environmental community, for decades, has been trying to get all these things accomplished -- smaller cars, phasing out power plants, all these things done. And they've never been able to convince the American public to get on board.

Now, you say you've got this huge thing that's going to blow up the world. We've got to act immediately. And behind it, you can accomplish all these other things they've wanted to. So this is a very important issue for a lot of people. And they want to use it. They don't want any debate on this.

HENNINGER: That's right. I mean, they've turned global warming into essentially a fundamentalist religion. They're the ones who worry about evangelicals. But this has become the same thing on the left.

And you know what? I have -- I know scientists on the margin of this who are beginning to become very concerned about the credibility of science as they get drawn deeper into these political fights. Science is becoming extremely politicized. And I think it's posing dangers to the credibility of science with the American public.

GIGOT: Well, Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at MIT, has said that there is a climate of creeping political correctness here. And if you're a young scientist who wants to get tenure, wants to make advances in his career, wants money for research, you pretty much have to toe the line on global warming. Otherwise, you're going to run the risk that you won't get those kinds of resources.

STRASSEL: Well, I mean, you, you just -- one of the words you just used is most important -- money. You know, sure, there's a consensus of climate scientists out there who say there's global warming. Because if they were to say otherwise, they wouldn't have a job. You know, I mean, this is increasingly becoming about funding. This is one of the biggest scientific areas for money at the moment. And you lose all that if you say that there is a possibility it's not happening.

GIGOT: How much consensus is there on global warming? There does seem -- most people seem to agree the earth has warmed by about one degree over the last century or so. And most people agree that carbon amounts have played some kind of role in that. How much consensus is there really beyond that?

STEPHENS: Well, the issue is, and the important issue politically, is how responsible human activity is for that, what we've seen, that relatively slight warming? Or is what has happened simply a matter of natural fluctuations that have happened for centuries and eons? And they're relatively large questions.

Was there a little Ice Age in the past millennium? Was there a warm period about 1,000 years ago? Those are issues that are still very much in contention. And there, there isn't such consensus about the degree to which human activity actually contributes to [unintelligible].

STRASSEL: We also need some debate too on how much is this going to cost. How bad would it actually be? Are there other things that are more important to take care of at the moment? Those are the things that Exxon's been asking some of think tanks to look at. And we should be having debates on it.

On the December 10 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert failed to challenge former Reagan adviser and Defense Policy Board member Ken Adelman's claim that "no one knew" that intelligence indicating Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "wasn't true" prior to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly shown here, here, and here, members of the intelligence community, including former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller, challenged the accuracy of the intelligence indicating Iraq had such weapons.

Adelman, who asserted in February 2002 that "demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk," and that "President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as 'coalition partners' to convince the Washington establishment that we're right," made his comment during a panel discussion that included Thomas E. Ricks, a military correspondent for The Washington Post; Eliot Cohen, a professor at The Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a signatory of the Project for the New American Century's organizing statement, who has criticized the Iraq Study Group as "fatuous" and its creation as "no way to win" a war; and Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously an adviser to former Secretary of State Colin Powell and special assistant to President George H.W. Bush, who has called the situation in Iraq "not winnable" and the war itself one "of choice that proved to be much more difficult and expensive than Americans bargained for." While Haass did say on Meet the Press that he "had doubts about the war from the get-go," he has not repudiated Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

During the discussion, Russert asked Adelman: "How will [the Iraq war] be described in history?" Adelman replied: "I think it was the right thing to do. I think that, after 9-11, with the 'evidence' ... that we had with weapons of mass destruction -- and that turned out not to be true, but no one knew it wasn't true then and, certainly, Saddam [Hussein] didn't act like it wasn't true ... with all those factors, I think it was a courageous thing for President Bush to do."

From the December 10 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Will the war in Iraq go down as, what? How will it be described in history?

ADELMAN: I tell you, my view on this is a little different from -- probably from everybody's. I think it was the right thing to do. I think that, after 9-11, with the "evidence," quote-unquote, that we had with weapons of mass destruction -- and that turned out not to be true, but no one knew it wasn't true then and, certainly, Saddam didn't act like it wasn't true -- and with the intelligence during the first Gulf War that the nuclear program of Saddam Hussein was further along than we suspected at the time -- with all those factors, I think it was a courageous thing for President Bush to do. I think that part of it was wonderful.

I think that the MBA part, the master of business administration and the competence that Eliot, who was talking about, in just implementing it, I think it was a shameful exercise. So, I think it's a good idea gone terribly bad by terrible implementation on that.

And for a year from now, I think that it's going to be close to what Richard and Eliot says and Tom, but I want something a little different -- and I think we all want that: a feeling that somehow the Iraqi government has bottomed out, that they're going to be OK, that if you're putting your smart money on things, you're going to go with those guys rather than the sectarian groups, rather than the insurgents, because, eventually, they're going to win -- and I hope to God, for the sake of our troops, as I say, that that is the case.

RUSSERT: We just have 20 seconds. Tom Ricks -- the military spent two decades learning about Vietnam. What will the military take from Iraq?

RICKS: It's too early to tell, but it's going to be a series of, I think, very bad and worrisome and ugly lessons that derive from this, probably being the most profligate and worst decision in the history of American foreign policy.

RUSSERT: Tom Ricks, Ken Adelman, Eliot Cohen, Richard Haass, thank you very much for a very important discussion. We'll be right back.

On the December 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume falsely characterized the Iraq Study Group's report as a "stay-the-course document" that "did not reject the president's policy on Iraq," and said its only recommendations for change were "at the margins." In fact, the report issued by the ISG specifically states that "[c]urrent U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation," and adds that "[m]aking no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost."

Additionally, as Media Matters for America has noted, the ISG's recommendations run counter to President Bush's policies and assumptions regarding U.S. troop presence in Iraq. When asked at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the report's recommendation that most U.S. combat divisions be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2008, President Bush claimed that "the report said" that withdrawal would be "depending upon conditions" and added that "commanders will be making recommendations based upon whether or not we're achieving our stated objective." Indeed, while the ISG report does include the qualification that its proposals are "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground," it also clearly recommends that "[i]f the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government." The Bush administration's policy has assumed that U.S. support, including troop presence, will continue until conditions improve, but the ISG report, on the contrary, recommends that U.S. "political, military, or economic support" should be reduced unless conditions improve.

From the December 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

CHRIS WALLACE (host): Well, the president has set himself quite a deadline. He's got the Iraq Study Group report right here. He's going to hear from the Pentagon and the State Department this week. He plans to address the nation some time next week and announce his new strategy for Iraq. Brit, from your reporting, what do you expect him to say?

HUME: Well, it's not clear what he will say, but let's just pause for a moment to reflect on what the Iraq Study Group said and did not say.

For one thing, contrary to some pretty wild misreporting this week, it did not reject the president's policy on Iraq. And in fact, it accepted, with no change, his goals there. And these recommendations taken as a whole and looked at in any context -- this is a stay-the-course document. These recommendations are at the margins -- acceleration of the training. Well, everybody's been trying to do that for two years. This recommends one way possibly to do that.

Everyone in this whole administration has said for the longest time that as the Iraqis stand up, we stand down. The problem has been to get them to stand up and to take on a role that some, like Senator [John] McCain [R-AZ], believe at this point can only be served by U.S. troops.

That's the real debate here, and they have left that debate alone. They really didn't engage in it. They didn't take seriously really, in any way, the recommendation that there be a bigger American force to suppress the insurgency and perhaps then set the terms for all these other objectives that we're trying to achieve there. And having --

WALLACE: So you're also saying that they didn't take seriously the idea of pulling troops out.

HUME: Well, that's true, they didn't -- immediately. But the document is all about how to get troops out. Now, it is not inconsistent with what the administration has said, but there's a real debate to be had here. They simply didn't take part in it.

Since Media Matters for America's December 8 round-up on conservative criticism of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), conservatives have continued to publicly attack both the ISG report and its members.

• On the December 10 broadcast of the Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol likened the idea that the ISG might provide President Bush with political cover to withdraw from Iraq to the idea that a similar group could have protected then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain from criticism before World War II when he agreed to let Adolf Hitler's Germany take possession of the Sudetenland from then-Czechoslovakia. "I don't think [Bush] should kid himself ... that this Iraq Study Group gives him any cover," Kristol said. "It's as if Neville Chamberlain had had a Czechoslovak study group in 1938 -- bipartisan, conservatives, liberals, and labor advising him. He was still blamed for the disgraceful failure to assist Britain's Czech allies at that time."
  
  Kristol has, as Media Matters noted, previously called the ISG report "an evasion" and "not a serious document." Further, Kristol's reference to Chamberlain and the British failure to protect Czechoslovakia in 1938 echoes an August 29 statement from then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who reportedly compared critics of the Iraq war to Nazi appeasers, a comparison that was subsequently cited with approval by Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) as Media Matters documented.

• A December 11 Washington Times editorial opined that the ISG report was "incoherent," reflected "[t]he childlike innocence of the panel members," and "read like a 'wish list' put together by a high-school social studies class learning about the Middle East for the first time, without any regard for history or geopolitical realities."

• According to a December 10 Washington Post article, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Michael Rubin said that "the report, as a strategy document, was a 'Cliff Notes high school paper.' "

• A December 9 New York Post editorial on the death of former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick opined that ISG co-chairman James Baker III "just called on President Bush to turn tail and run from Iraq." As Media Matters previously noted, the cover of the December 7 New York Post depicted the heads of Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), the ISG co-chair, placed on the bodies of monkeys, with the headline, "Surrender Monkeys -- Iraq panel urges U.S. to give up."

From the December 10 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: What makes you think if we put 20,000 more or 50,000 more that that's going to work?

KRISTOL: Well, the military planners are looking at that, and I'm -- serious military planners, from General [Jack] Keane, the former vice chief [of staff] of the Army, down through colonels.

There's a group of retired colonels meeting this weekend looking at it, and they believe that an addition of troops would help create a decent security environment, so, then -- which would allow us to continue training the Iraqi army and allow us to achieve, ultimately, our objectives in Iraq.

We will have to stay a while. The president's going to have to make this decision, and it's a tough decision, but he has to really decide: victory or withdrawal. And I don't think he should kid himself -- and I don't think he is, incidentally -- that this Iraq Study Group gives him any cover.

It's as if Neville Chamberlain had had a Czechoslovak study group in 1938 -- bipartisan, conservatives, liberals, and labor advising him. He was still blamed for the disgraceful failure to assist Britain's Czech allies at that time.

And if we lose in Iraq, it will be a national -- I mean, it's so depressing -- I don't even want to think about it -- but it will be a disgrace. It will be a disgrace. It will be our failure. It won't be the failure of Maliki. It will be our failure to have the patience and the ability to do what it takes to win this war.

From the December 11 Washington Times editorial titled, "Foreign policy ingenues":

The more one looks at the report produced by Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton and the rest of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), the more incoherent it appears. The childlike innocence of the panel members is pervasive in the ISG recommendations, which read like a "wish list" put together by a high-school social studies class learning about the Middle East for the first time, without any regard for history or geopolitical realities.

From the December 10 Washington Post article headlined, "Hawks Bolster Skeptical President":

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide who resigned in protest from an Iraq Study Group expert panel, said he believes Baker's assessment is unrealistic. He said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gains strength from positioning himself as a rejectionist and foe of the United States, so it is wrong to believe that Syria would think it would gain from an alliance with Washington.

"Sometimes realists have to deal with reality," said Rubin, now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have."

He said the report, as a strategy document, was a "Cliff Notes high school paper."

From the December 9 New York Post editorial titled, "Jeane Kirkpatrick, 1926-2006":

Chief among the Kirkpatrick bashers: James Baker, then the White House chief of staff, who planted news stories about her "impulsiveness" and "temperament" in a bid to isolate her politically.

Baker, of course, is also back in the news, having just called on President Bush to turn tail and run from Iraq. Jeane Kirkpatrick, we strongly suspect, would have eloquently demolished the Baker-Hamilton commission's prescriptions.

While criticizing Mary Cheney's pregnancy in a December 10 Time magazine guest column titled "Two Mommies is One Too Many," Focus on the Family founder and chairman James Dobson baselessly claimed that "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." Dobson asserted that "love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development" of a child and that "[t]he two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy." Dobson also declared that "birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples" and "[t]hat's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, and here), studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.

Despite Dobson's claim that "the majority ... of social-science evidence indicates children do best" if they have married, heterosexual parents, "the majority" of social research has not found that children raised by homosexual parents are at any disadvantage. For instance, the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

Also, in 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the psychosocial development of children raised by same-sex parents. The report noted:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

The report concluded: "[P]arents' sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children's development."

In June 2004, the APA announced its opposition to "legislation proposed at the federal and state levels that would amend the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, respectively, to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples." In doing so, the APA noted:

Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children. Lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing. Nor do lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women detract from their ability to care for their children (the limited data on the children of gay fathers suggests similar findings). Recent evidence suggests that gay and lesbian couples with children tend to divide child care and household responsibilities evenly and to report satisfaction with their relationship.

[...]

Studies of various aspects of child development reveal few differences among children of lesbian mothers and heterosexual parents in such areas as personality, self-concept, behavior, and sexual identity. Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.

Additionally, Dobson cited Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (Random House, 2001), by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School, to argue against same-sex child-rearing by asserting that children need a father because "[a] father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate." Pruett has reportedly criticized people for "distorting his work" to advance their political agenda. Specifically referring to the Defense of Marriage Coalition's use of Fatherneed to argue for "a measure to ban same-sex marriage in Oregon," according to an October 22, 2004, article in The Oregonian, Pruett stated: "I was quite surprised, even dumbfounded, to see my name listed as if it were a scientific support or consultant to this amendment. ... It couldn't be further than either my personal or professional position." Pruett stated that he does not conclude "either scientifically or psychologically" that children are best served if reared by two heterosexual parents, and added: "There is to date no credible research that says children raised by gay and lesbian couples are at risk." According to The Oregonian, Pruett concluded that "children generally fare better with two parents than one, even if the parents are of the same gender."

Dobson has previously made dubious assertions about gay and lesbian parenting, as he did in his book Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle (Multnomah, June 2004), in which he asserted that "[m]ore than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers" (Page 54). As Media Matters noted, the footnote in Marriage Under Fire for this particular claim states that "[m]any of these studies are either presented or represented in the following," subsequently listing a number of books and articles. Dobson did not provide any evidence documenting all 10,000 studies, but titles he did cite include: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard University Press, October 1994), Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (University Press of America, March 1988), "Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce and Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood," and "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems." These examples suggest that many of Dobson's purported "ten thousand studies" did not examine parenting by gay and lesbian individuals or couples at all but, rather, addressed child development in a single-parent home versus a two-parent home.

From Dobson's December 10 Time column "Two Mommies is One Too Many":

With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.

The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.

[...]

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

A December 9 New York Times article uncritically reported House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) statement that the House ethics committee's investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley's (R-AZ) conduct toward congressional pages "found no evidence that anyone knew about the sexually charged instant messages that led to Mr. Foley's resignation." Hastert's statement is technically true -- the committee's report did not find any evidence that House members or staff knew of the sexually explicit IMs Foley allegedly sent a former page in 2003 and that ABC News obtained in late September, leading Foley to resign. But while the Times reported Hastert's statement about the lack of awareness regarding the 2003 IMs, the article ignored evidence separately found by the committee that, in 2001, a former page provided Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) with sexually explicit IMs allegedly written by Foley.

In its "narrative summary" of the Foley scandal, the ethics committee found that, prior to ABC News' September 29 and 30 reports, no one on Capitol Hill had known of the sexually explicit messages Foley had allegedly sent several former pages in 2003. From the report:

ABC News included a "tip line" on its website, and on the evening of September 28 a former page ("Former Page X") contacted ABC News and reported that he had information regarding Rep. Foley's interaction with former pages.²⁵⁰ In 2003, Former Page X had received copies of multiple sexually explicit IM conversations from Rep. Foley to two other former pages. ... Former Page X did not forward the IMs to anyone or take any other action when he first received them in 2003, but he stored the IMs on his computer where they remained until September 28, 2006.

[...]

On the evening of September 28, Former Page X was alerted to the ABC story by another former page, and he remembered the IMs that he had received in 2003. ... Former Page X contacted ABC through the tip line, and he forwarded the IMs on the evening of September 28 and the morning of September 29.

[...]

Prior to September 28 and 29, 2006 the IMs were apparently known to a number of pages and close friends of the IM recipients.

[...]

The Investigative Subcommittee uncovered no evidence that the IMs were provided to, or were possessed by, any House Member, officer or employee, the press, or any political organization prior to September 28 and 29, 2006.

In his December 8 statement responding to the ethics committee's report, Hastert quoted the section bolded above, noting that the committee had "confirmed" what he had "said at the time" of the controversy:

I asked the Committee to do this tough job promptly, and they have. I want to thank them for their diligent and hard work in preparing a thorough and final report. My staff and I voluntarily and fully cooperated with this investigation. I am glad the Committee made clear that there was no violation of any House Rules by any Member or staff. As I said at the time -- and the Committee has now confirmed --.

"The Investigative Subcommittee uncovered no evidence that the IMs were provided to, or were possessed by, any House member, officer, or employee, the press, or any political organization prior to September 28 and 29, 2006." (Report, page 63)

In its December 9 article, the Times reported the content of Hastert's statement:

In a written statement on Friday, Mr. Hastert noted that the investigation found no evidence that anyone knew about the sexually charged instant messages that led to Mr. Foley's resignation. "I am glad the committee made clear that there was no violation of any House rules by any member or staff," he added.

But while the Times highlighted Hastert's statement -- which referred to the part of the ethics committee report that focused specifically on the 2003 messages published by ABC News -- the article ignored that the committee also uncovered evidence that a former page had provided Kolbe with a separate set of sexually explicit IMs allegedly written by Foley in 2001.

Indeed, the committee found that, in late 2001, one of Kolbe's former pages received an IM allegedly written by Foley that "made reference to the size of his penis." According to the former page's testimony, the page subsequently sent Kolbe an email about the "inappropriate" message and "forwarded Foley's IM as an attachment." From the report:

In approximately October 2001, while he was a freshman in college, the former Kolbe page told Rep. Foley in an IM conversation that his girlfriend was coming to visit him. While the former page cannot recall the precise wording of the IM he received in response, he recalls that Rep. Foley made reference to the size of his penis.⁷⁴ According to the former Kolbe page, after consulting with his parents, he forwarded Foley's IM as an attachment to an e-mail directly to Rep. Kolbe through Rep. Kolbe's personal e-mail account. In his e-mail to Rep. Kolbe, the former Kolbe page explained that Rep. Foley had said something inappropriate to him and asked Rep. Kolbe to "take care of it." The former Kolbe page did not request any particular resolution, believing that such a request would be "presumptuous."

In his testimony before the committee, Kolbe disputed having received such an IM. The committee reported that Kolbe "recalls having been contacted by his former page about Rep. Foley, but denies having seen the actual IM."

Furthermore, the former page testified that after ABC News reported on the 2003 IMs, Kolbe tried to convince the former page to keep quiet about the sexually explicit messages he had received in 2001, as a December 9 Washington Post article noted:

[A]fter the Foley matter exploded in the media, the former page contacted Kolbe again to ask whether he should divulge the instant message. He testified that Kolbe responded: "It is best that you don't even bring this up with anybody. ... There is no good that can come from it if you actually talk about this."

A December 11 New York Times article described as "muscular" Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) push for "an immediate increase in American forces [in Iraq] to try to bring order to Baghdad and crush the insurgency" and stated that McCain rejected the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) recommendations "because they did not present a strategy for victory." The article also quoted Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who described McCain's position as "articulating the strategy for victory in Iraq." But like many other recent news reports, the article did not discuss the feasibility of the senator's proposed strategy or the possible political benefit to McCain of pushing a plan that he claims would bring "victory" but is unlikely to be put to the test.

By contrast, as Media Matters for America has noted, National Public Radio senior news analyst Cokie Roberts stated on the November 20 edition of NPR's Morning Edition that the military is unlikely to adopt McCain's proposal to send thousands more U.S. troops to Iraq because, she said, referring to a comment by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the "Army is so depleted." For that reason, she stated, McCain's plan is "a somewhat convenient position, because he can always say, 'No one tried to win the war the way that I suggested to win it.' " Roberts added: "I think that this is a position that is useful for Senator McCain."

Media Matters has documented repeated examples of media figures who have promoted McCain's Iraq plan but have not mentioned any of the issues involved in actually carrying out his proposed strategy.

From the December 11 New York Times article headlined "Report on Iraq Exposes a Divide Within the G.O.P.":

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, rejected the major recommendations of the group because they did not present a formula for victory. Mr. McCain, hoping to claim the Republican mantle on national security issues, has staked out a muscular position on Iraq, calling for an immediate increase in American forces to try to bring order to Baghdad and crush the insurgency.

[...]

Bill Kristol, the neoconservative editor of The Weekly Standard and a leading advocate of the decision to invade Iraq, said: "In the real world, the [ISG co-chairman James] Baker report is now the vehicle for those Republicans who want to extricate themselves from Iraq, while McCain is articulating the strategy for victory in Iraq. Bush will have to choose, and the Republican Party will have to choose, in the very near future between Baker and McCain."

The choice Mr. Kristol is describing reflects a longstanding Republican schism over policy and culture between ideological neoconservatives and so-called realists. Through most of the Bush administration, the neoconservatives' idea of using American military power to advance democracy around the world prevailed, pushed along by Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld.

On the December 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry reported that, following the release of the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) final report, President Bush "won't be pinned down on details" regarding his strategy for the Iraq war, and that "[h]e's in listening mode right now." While "listening mode" might accurately describe how the White House is characterizing Bush's approach, Henry did not inform viewers that it apparently does not include asking questions of the 10 members of the ISG, as reportedly occurred when he met with them on December 6. Nor, apparently, does it include receptivity to some of the ISG's key recommendations.

From the December 8 edition of The Situation Room:

HENRY: Now, the White House explanation is the president doesn't want to be pinned down on details. He's in listening mode right now. He doesn't want to prejudge those separate reviews of Iraq policy being conducted by his administration, the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council. So, next week, he's going to continue some listening sessions.

Monday, he'll be at the State Department. Tuesday, a secure videoconference with military commanders in the field. Wednesday, he'll be at the Pentagon. Then there'll be some sort of a big speech. Aides say it could be before Christmas, where he'll announce changes to Iraq policy.

But the bottom line is -- and the big question is -- how big of a change will it really be?

Washington Post political reporter Dana Milbank, in his December 7 "Washington Sketch" column, noted that Lawrence Eagleburger, an ISG member and secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, said that he could not recall Bush asking any questions of the ISG when they met after the report was released on December 6:

Whatever else the "has-beens" accomplished, they made sure that any credibility questions will be directed not at them but at Bush. [ISG co-chairman and former Rep. Lee] Hamilton lectured: "You cannot look at this area of the world and pick and choose among the countries that you're going to deal with." [Clinton White House chief of staff] Leon Panetta counseled Bush to "look at the realities of what's taking place." Eagleburger said after the event that when the group met with Bush, "I don't recall, seriously, that he asked any questions." Even the loyal [ISG co-chairman and former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James] Baker had to advise his friend's son that "it is time to find a new way forward."

One of the ISG report's key recommendations was that the United States and its allies should form an Iraq "Support Group," and that the group "should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions." On December 7, during a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush rejected that course of action:

BUSH: We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years, and that is that if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their enrichment program. We've made our choice. Iran now has an opportunity to make its choice. I would hope they would make the choice that most of the free world wants them to make, which is there is no need to have a weapons program; there is no need to isolate your people; there's no need to continue this obstinance when it comes to your stated desires to have a nuclear weapon. It's not in your interest to do so.

And should they agree to verifiably suspend their enrichment, the United States will be at the table with our partners.

It's really interesting to talk about conversations with countries -- which is fine; I can understand why people speculate about it -- but there should be no mistake in anybody's mind, these countries understand our position. They know what's expected of them.

There is -- if we were to have a conversation, it would be this one, to Syria: Stop destabilizing the [Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad] Siniora government. We believe that the Siniora government should be supported, not weakened. Stop allowing money and arms to cross your border into Iraq. Don't provide safe haven for terrorist groups. We've made that position very clear.

And the truth of the matter is, is that these countries have now got the choice to make. If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy -- just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict.

On the December 11 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas characterized Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) proposal to increase troop levels in Baghdad for the purpose of gaining control of the security situation on the ground as "having the guts to send in ... more troops." Neither Thomas nor host Don Imus noted serious questions regarding the feasibility of McCain's proposal given the current strain on the U.S. military.

When CNN's Wolf Blitzer baselessly claimed that McCain's position was "a Profiles in Courage kind of statement," Media Matters for America noted that on the November 20 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, National Public Radio senior news analyst Cokie Roberts stated that McCain's plan is "a somewhat convenient position, because he can always say,