Wash. Post, USA Today obscured and misstated lawmakers' criticism of Dubai Ports deal

Wash. Post, USA Today obscured and misstated lawmakers' criticism of Dubai Ports deal: "In reporting on the Bush administration's decision to approve the takeover by Dubai Ports World (DPW) of a British company -- a deal that will transfer control of six U.S. ports to a state-owned company -- February 24 articles in USA Today and The Washington Post obscured or misrepresented lawmakers' objections to the deal. While both articles noted that DPW is controlled by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), neither made clear in their descriptions of opposition to the transaction by members of Congress that -- as many of these critics noted -- the law requires an additional 45-day review of such deals if the acquiring company is owned by a foreign government and the acquisition 'could affect the national security of the U.S.'

In The Washington Post article on the lobbying efforts of former Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS) on behalf of DPW, staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum correctly noted in the first paragraph that the company is 'Dubai-owned.' But he later reported as fact that members of Congress have 'threatened to scuttle the transaction' simply because the company is Middle Eastern:



Dubai Ports World beefed up its lobbying efforts, including on Capitol Hill, after lawmakers threatened this week to scuttle the transaction. The lawmakers said they feare"

NY Times, Boston Globe falsely reported that Menendez-Clinton bill would bar foreign companies from operating ports

NY Times, Boston Globe falsely reported that Menendez-Clinton bill would bar foreign companies from operating ports: "In a February 28 New York Times article about the concerns raised by the U.S. Coast Guard over the takeover of operations at six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World (DPW), staff writers Carl Hulse and David E. Sanger falsely reported that a bill introduced by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and other Democratic senators would bar 'any foreign-owned companies from controlling operations at United States ports.' Similarly, a February 28 Boston Globe article by Rick Klein reported that '[s]everal [Democrats] filed a bill yesterday to ban foreign ownership of US ports.' In fact, as noted by other media outlets, previous reporting by the Times, and Clinton's office, the bill would prohibit companies owned by foreign governments -- not all foreign-owned companies -- from controlling U.S. port operations. DPW is owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates.

Contrary to the Times' and the Globe's reports that Clinton and Menendez's bill would ban all foreign companies from controlling U.S. ports, the ban would actually apply only to companies owned by foreign governments. A February 27 Clinton press release -- titled 'Menendez, Clinton Introduce Bill to Ban Foreign Government Control of U.S. Ports' -- explained that t"

OK, if the port deal is so awsome what happens if..

OK, if the port deal is so awsome what happens if..: "Forum: America at War Posted By: Lord Dreadmore Post Time: February 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pm"

Arianna Huffington: Is Sean Hannity Addicted to Coulter Crack? - Yahoo! News

Arianna Huffington Wed Feb 22, 1:28 PM ET

Venturing into enemy territory, I was on "Hannity and Colmes" last night, along with Ann Coulter. We were ostensibly there to discuss the ongoing Muslim cartoon controversy and the media's reaction to the Cheney shooting story.
ADVERTISEMENT

But Sean Hannity only wanted to talk about one thing: Alec Baldwin's blog. Especially Alec Baldwin's assertion that "Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home."

Hannity was like a dog with a bone, chewing over that turn of phrase again and again and again, and repeatedly asking me if I was "proud" to have had such a statement on the Huffington Post.

He apparently had a hard time grasping the concept that I can be proud of the wide range of opinion we offer our readers without having to agree with every single sentiment expressed by our bloggers. But, for the record, as I told him last night, I don't think that
Dick Cheney is a terrorist. I think that Dick Cheney is an atrocious vice president who has inflamed terrorism, and whose policies have helped create far more terrorists than they have destroyed.

But Hannity just couldn't get over it. It was as if Baldwin's comment was the worst thing he'd ever heard. But here's what I love: the whole time Sean was obsessing about Baldwin's over-the-top rhetoric, he was sitting elbow to elbow with Ann Coulter, the reigning heavyweight champion of hyperbolic vitriol and over-the-top invective.

I mean, this is the woman who said that Democrats like Jack Murtha "long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle", that the Democratic Party "supports killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy," and that "a baseball bat is the most effective way [to talk to liberals] these days."

Coulter has also given us the following noxious bon mots (what I think of as a collection of Ann's Greatest Shits):

"Liberals hate America."
"Democrats actually hate working-class people"
"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."
"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist."
Islam is "a car-burning cult."
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

And Hannity wanted to take Baldwin to the woodshed? Irony clearly isn't his strong suit.

Sean loves to whip out statements made by others, then ask his guests whether they "condemn" or are "proud" of those statements. Does it all the time. But when I tried to ask him if, given the fact that Coulter has appeared on his show more than 20 times over the past two years, he wanted to distance himself from her extreme statements, he refused to answer, instead launching into a diatribe about
Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi,
Hillary Clinton,
Howard Dean, and what he called "the extreme left": "I think you're weak on terror. I think you have a pre-9/11 mentality. You've undermined the president. You've undermined the troops, and your hate-Bush mentality is not winning you any friends among the American people."

And it's not as if Hannity needed to have at his fingertips Coulter's past outrageous statements. She offered one -- a real doozy -- on last night's show, claiming that Democrats "have affection for these terrorists."

As "back up" for this inflammatory claim Coulter cited a New York Times op-ed by Robert Wright, author, former New Republic senior editor, and Mickey Kaus' sparring partner on bloggingheads.tv:

"The New York Times op-ed page on Friday has Robert Wright comparing these savages rioting over the cartoons to blacks rioting in response to segregation and having to sit on the back of the bus. They are saying that this is justified... This is affection for the people rioting and carrying on."



This "back up" is ludicrous on multiple levels. For starters, the op-ed in no way expressed "affection for the people rioting." But even if it did, how does the opinion of a freelance columnist back up a broad brush claim about Democrats having "affection for terrorists?" Wright is not a Democratic Party leader nor, in any way, a spokesman for the party. But Coulter made it sound like he just took over Howard Dean's job. Plus, there is the way she not-so-subtly implied that the entire New York Times endorsed the claims that Wright never actually made (this is a favorite trick of Coulter's, hilariously nailed by Al Franken in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them's "How to Lie with Footnotes" section as "Use the 'Any Words Written In a Newspaper Can Be Attributed to That Newspaper Technique.'")

(A quick note to whoever is putting together the transcripts for the Fox show: the op-ed Coulter cited was written by Robert Wright, not "Robert Reich." Who, I'm certain, also does not have "affection for terrorists," but who at least has a connection to the Democratic Party.)

But none of this mattered to Hannity, who let Coulter spew her venom unchallenged. Indeed, it seemed as if he couldn't get enough of the stuff. As if he were addicted to her toxic tirades.

That's when it hit me: Coulter is the right wing punditry's equivalent of crack or crystal meth. She's highly addictive -- giving users the delirious, giddy high of outrageousness. But then the buzz wears off and they come crashing down, their spirits shriveled, their souls poisoned. Her brand of way, way over-the-top rhetoric, trading on hatred, demonizing, and caricature is doing to the American body politic what a three-month meth bender does to crank junkies.

You've probably seen those horrifying "Faces of Meth" photos of people Before they start doing meth and After.

Sean Hannity needs to watch out. Or he could easily be the first subject in the "Faces of Coulter" series.

Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program, polling

Summary: NBC's Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program understates its scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split.

During the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program as limited to Al Qaeda communications significantly understates its reported scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split, even when respondents are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the program based on the administration's limited and disputed characterization. The most recent polls -- released before Mitchell's statement -- show that 51 percent of Americans do not approve of the program. In addition, a January 23 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping authorization, while 39 percent disagree.

Reporting on the Bush administration's effort, over the past week, to defend the NSA program, Mitchell said: "Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda."

However, according to The New York Times' initial report and its subsequent reporting on the surveillance program, government sources tell quite a different story from the one suggested by the administration and advanced by Mitchell, namely that the program involves only the surveillance of "those who talk to Al Qaeda" and that only international calls are monitored.

Contrary to the administration's characterization of the program as monitoring only international calls, a December 21 Times article reported that the NSA program captured "purely domestic" calls. Further, a January 17 Times report quoted FBI officials saying that the NSA program produced a high volume of leads but the vast majority led to individuals within the United States who had no connection to terrorism.

Moreover, surveillance is reportedly far from limited to "those who talk to Al Qaeda." Far from the certainty implied by Mitchell's statement that only those who are actually "talk[ing] to Al Qaeda" are surveillance targets, President Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have acknowledged that all the NSA requires is that it "reasonably suspect" someone of links to Al Qaeda to have that person's communications intercepted.

While no national polls have yet presented a description of the program broad enough to encompass what has been reported to be its scope -- none have asked respondents whether they support the surveillance of persons without proven links to Al Qaeda within the United States without first obtaining a warrant required by law -- public opinion has been split and is turning increasingly negative. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll presented the administration's limited characterization of the program as monitoring strictly international calls that involved individuals suspected of terrorism. Nevertheless, the poll found that 51 percent of respondents said that the Bush administration was wrong to "wiretap[ ] telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so." The poll also found that 58 percent support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Because Mitchell's comments were made before the releases of the January 27 New York Times/CBS News and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls, we have not cited them in the analysis of her comments, but they are consistent with our conclusions that polling shows Americans to be split on the question, with changes in approval percentages very much a function of the wording of questions.

From the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, which featured Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

MITCHELL: Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda.

KOHUT [clip]: The public is concerned about civil liberties but what they tell us in the polls is they're more concerned about whether the government is doing enough to -- to protect it from another terrorist attack.

MITCHELL: And tonight the president pledged to reauthorize the eavesdropping for as long as terrorists remain a threat. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

From the December 21 New York Times article:

A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact ''international.''

From the January 17 New York Times article:

More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

—R.M.

Interview With Sean Hannity Radio Show - Condi Rice

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Interview With Sean Hannity Radio Show

/noticias.info/ QUESTION: Anyway, joining us on our Newsmaker Line, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is with us. Madame Secretary, how are you?

SECRETARY RICE: I'm fine, Sean. How are you?

QUESTION: Well, I'm good. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, happy happy, and thanks for being with us.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, it's good to with you, and Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you, too.

QUESTION: By the way, you know, there was a book written by Dick Morris that said Condi versus Hillary, the next great Presidential race. Any desire to fulfill that dream?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I don't think so. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I don't know if you have an opportunity, but you're on the front cover of Drudge right now and the headline is "Bush Gives Rice Lead Role in War Zones."

SECRETARY RICE: Really?

QUESTION: Yeah, did you know that?

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.) I haven't sent the Drudge Report. I think it may be referring to the fact that we have a stabilization program that we are working out, whereby we want civilians to be able to relieve our military of a lot of the tasks of rebuilding countries once the war has been won. We've now had a series of experiences: Bosnia, and of course, in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. And eventually civilian authority has to be able to take over, and the State Department is trying to increase its capacity to do exactly that.

But I can just assure you that in a place like Iraq, you'll never see a closer, more integrated working relationship between the military and the Embassy than we have out there.

QUESTION: Am I wrong when I see, Secretary Rice, an analogy with the former Soviet Union, the evil empire, the Eastern Bloc, the wall coming tumbling down. Remember when President Reagan took office and he called them an evil empire and he pursued modernization of weaponry in Europe and he sought to develop strategic defense and he walked away from Reykjavik and he said, "tear down this wall." All along the way, he had his skeptics, his critics, those who were against him. And I don't think anybody would have imagined what the result of confronting that empire could be, and we saw what happened.

Similarly, if you put it in the context or the prism of history, are we going to look back on the situation of Iraq and see that this was just the beginning, in your view?

SECRETARY RICE: I think that's how we're going to look back on it, Sean. I know it's difficult sometimes, you know, with the violence and being inside it, but nobody ever thought the Soviet Union would collapse. And, frankly, back in the 1940s, nobody thought we would have a Europe in which Germany and France never fought again.

And so, sometimes, you have to be able to imagine a very different future. And what this President shares with Ronald Reagan is his ability to imagine a different future and then to set the United States on a course of leadership to achieve that different future.

QUESTION: Yeah. Now, the President said he doesn't expect this to be without difficulties tomorrow. What do you anticipate? And how widespread do you believe Sunni participation will be?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think all indications are that Sunni participation will be very widespread, and we've gotten some good statements out of even some of the most hard-line Sunni leaders encouraging people to vote. But I want to caution that, of course, the terrorists know that every time there is a successful election in Iraq, their cause gets much harder and much weaker. So I'm quite certain that they're going to try to disrupt the elections. They are threatening people. I'm sure there will be violence. But the Iraqi people have demonstrated that they are determined to have a democratic future, and that's why it is so important that we support them and believe in them and that we stay until this job is finished.

QUESTION: When the White House and the President formally today giving you this authority to take the lead in the planning and reconstruction efforts in the conflict areas in Iraq, what does that mean?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, this is really a future-oriented-looking document that when we have these kinds of situations in the future, we want the civilian side to have the capacity to really rebuild and reconstruct countries after our military has done the job of defeating the bad guys. And we are putting together some new institutions --

(Break.)

QUESTION: Anyway, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back. How are you?

SECRETARY RICE: I'm fine.

QUESTION: Now, you spent the whole day with the President and then you've got to, you know, mess around with the phones with me. That's awful.

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.) There's something wrong with our phones. I'm sorry about that. I thought America's technology was prime.

QUESTION: Now that -- listen, you're gracious to spend more time with us, and we appreciate it.

Can I ask -- I'm not going to ask you a lot of political questions; I know you don't want to answer them, and I know that you probably shouldn't. But when you hear the head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, say that we're not going to win the war in Iraq or John Kerry says we're terrorizing women and children in the dark of night, what impact do you think that has on this war, and especially on the eve of these historic elections?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think the important thing is that we, as a country, support the efforts that --not that just our troops are making, that's obviously very important because they're making great sacrifice. But we also need to give the Iraqis some credit for what they're doing. And I think that expressing a -- not just a commitment to them, but also belief in them is extremely important. It's important to our effort, it's important to their effort.

QUESTION: But do you think their comments hurt morale? Does it give justification -- are you there?

SECRETARY RICE: I am.

QUESTION: Yeah. In other words, the comments of -- these are the leaders of the opposition party in our country.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think there is no doubt that we can strongly disagree with those statements, and we can make very clear that we believe that the Iraqis are going to succeed and that we will win. We have to win. So my own view is no, it's not helpful, but you know it's a democratic country; people can say whatever they wish.

QUESTION: Let me ask about Iran for just a minute here. I mean, first of all, this Iranian President saying that they're going to wipe Israel off the map. Now comments have been made dismissing the Holocaust as a myth, saying that the Jewish state should be moved as far away as Alaska. There is also talk about, well, we can engage in some type of nuclear strike against Israel and yet they will not survive, but we will.

SECRETARY RICE: No. He's -- he obviously is saying things that are just completely outrageous. I think it's having the effect though, Sean, of just further isolating the Iranian regime. Nobody thinks that a -- the president of any civilized country should talk this way, and I can't imagine that Iranians want to hear their President talk this way.

He is sharpening the contradictions, if you will, between Iranian behavior and Iranian views and the civilized world.

QUESTION: You know, does it put Israel in the position that they now must think about a potential confrontation with Iran? I know that the Prime Minister, Sharon, he had some very tough words to say that Israel has this capability and if necessary would use it. Do you foresee the potential of this type of -- these types of statements are made over and over again that Israel might find themselves in a position of striking some of the nuclear facilities in Iran like they did in Iraq in the early '80s?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I can't speculate on how this might all play out. I think our goal has to be, as a civilized international community, to just condemn this and to take it as a warning about the Iranian regime and about its policies, and to make certain that they are not going to get a nuclear weapon.

I remember what the Russian Foreign Minister said when one of the first of these came out. He said that this has given a lot of ammunition to people who want to take this issue to the Security Council. Well, absolutely. If Iran keeps behaving in this way, we're not going to have any choice and they aren't demonstrating any willingness to actually negotiate.

I think the fact is Iran is just getting more and more isolated, and we're going to have to act on that sooner or later.

QUESTION: Well, we keep hearing reports. The International Atomic Energy -- IAEA made the statement that they may be closer to nuclear weapons than anybody imagined. How dangerous would nuclear weapons in Iran be to the entire world?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, it would be enormously dangerous, in that region, with the volatility in the Middle East, and with an Iran that has the policies that Iran has. Of course it would be extremely dangerous. And that's why I think you're going to find that there's more and more understanding of that and more support for a policy that simply will not permit the Iranians to go down that road.

QUESTION: So how do you like the new job?

SECRETARY RICE: I'm having a great time, Sean. It's -- I have found a lot of wonderful people to work with here at the State Department. I think it's sometimes not really understood. We see what our military forces are doing in Iraq. We see what our military forces are doing in Afghanistan, and it's terrific and they're sacrificing. If you go out there, though, and you meet with the men and women of our diplomatic corps, they're serving under difficult circumstances and dangerous circumstances and they're totally committed to this cause. And so it's just -- it's great to here, and I'm even not minding the travel very much.

QUESTION: Yeah, I actually think this prepares you very well to be the next Commissioner of the NFL.

SECRETARY RICE: I'm with you on that one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: All right. Well, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as always, thank you for being with us and sorry about the phone trouble. And thanks for being so gracious.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Sean, it's great to be with you, and very happy holidays to you.

QUESTION: All right, you, too.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

QUESTION: All the best to you and your family. And, you know, we really appreciate it.

The Sean Hannity Blog

December 16, 2005
Sanctimonious Sean Hannity In A Frenzy Against Torture Ban

It figures that a bully like Sean Hannity would not be happy that John McCain's anti-torture provisions are about to become law. Who else would introduce a discussion by asking if a ban on torture would "help or hurt the war on terror?"

A further clue to Hannity's thinking was found in his opening question, since torture is already illegal, isn’t the new legislation “redundant?”

Avi Cover, from Human Rights First, said the amendment also banned cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

Hannity's gotcha question of the night was whether shooting a gun in the air and scaring someone to death, which Hannity claimed was an interrogation technique that saved lives, should be banned. When Cover said he thought so, Hannity not-so-politely disagreed.

In fact, the scenario Hannity was referring to came from an editorial in USA Today in which the interrogator, Army Lt. Col. Allen West, fired his revolver (the article doesn't say it was fired in the air) to frighten a suspect. According to the article, West was "accused of torture, charged with assault and drummed out of the military." If West's actions were already illegal, then the McCain amendment would have no effect on the kind of behavior Hannity was advocating. This also rendered moot Hannity's attacks against the McCain Amendment and, later, against Cover, on those grounds. But logic and truth have never been Hannity's strong suit.

Alan Colmes pointed out that Bush flip-flopped to accept the ban because he didn't have public support or support in Congress for his threatened veto. Colmes said that while harsh interrogations might work sometimes, "overall, they don't work for the most part."

Hannity rudely interrupted. "Who says?"

Actually, Sean, a group of 33 retired intelligence officers says. In a December 9 letter to Senator McCain, they wrote,

As retired professional intelligence experts and interrogators, we understand how vital accurate intelligence is to US efforts to combat terrorist violence by groups like Al Qaeda. We have seen first-hand the central role that human intelligence gathering has played in countering the threats posed by these radical groups operating in the Middle East, South Asia, and other regions, as well as here at home.

We are proud to have served our country, and we remain deeply committed to supporting efforts to confront the serious terrorist threats facing the nation. In our view, the use of torture and other cruelty against those in US custody undermines this fight. Such tactics fail to produce reliable information, risk corrupting the institutions that employ them, and forfeit the ideals that attract others to our nation’s cause.

Hannity pooh-poohed the idea that terrorists were going to be good to US soldiers as the result of a ban on torture. Cover replied, "Criminals don't obey the laws of the United States but what do we do with them?"

A seething Hannity could barely get the words out. Banging his hand on the desk as he spoke, Hannity said, "Aggressive interrogation will save lives and you don't have the courage to stand up and aggressively (sic) these guys on the battlefield. They have information that will save our troops' lives. We must extract that information. Legally. But extract it."

Cover agreed that aggresive interrogation saves lives but must not be cruel, inhuman or degrading.

Hannity agreed with that but said he worked with a different set of definitions (Comment: Probably the same set as Alberto "if a vital organ isn't threatened, it's not torture" Gonzales uses, I presume.)

Cover said McCain agreed with his definitions.

"Doesn't mean he's always right."

Note: All opinions are welcome but any comments insulting me, the blog, Democrats or our regular readers will be deleted without explanation. If you can't be polite and respectful, don't bother to say it here.
Reported by Ellen at December 16, 2005 12:46 AM

Murtha Ammendment

Sean Hannity got himself in a bit of hot water perhaps, when he falsely referred to Republican resolution as the "Murtha amendment"
Here is the text of an article I read:

On both his television and radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity referred to a congressional resolution calling for the immediate termination of U.S. troop deployment in Iraq as the "Murtha amendment." But the resolution in question was not sponsored by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA). While Murtha had introduced a detailed measure that called for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date," his resolution bore little resemblance to the Republican-sponsored measure Hannity was discussing. This one-sentence resolution -- described in news reports as a "political trap" and "aimed at embarrassing war critics" -- simply ordered "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Further, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely wrote that the House of Representatives had voted "on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq." In fact, only the GOP measure, sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), reached a vote in the House.

On November 17, Murtha announced House Joint Resolution 73, a measure that, if approved, would force the president to withdraw American troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." He explained the measure at a press conference that day:

MURTHA: My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Murtha's resolution also set out facts on the cost of the war, the number of American casualties and polling data regarding Iraqi sentiment toward the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Murtha's proposal immediately triggered heated responses from the White House and Republican lawmakers. On November 18, Hunter responded with the introduction of House Resolution 571, which simply read:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

An Associated Press article published November 18 described the difference between the two measures:

Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

But House Republicans planned to put to a vote -- and reject -- their own symbolic alternative resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

With stinging rhetoric, Democrats criticized the GOP alternative. They said House Republican leaders killed Murtha's thoughtful approach.

On the November 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) criticized the Republican resolution as a departure from Murtha's "thoughtful approach":

FILNER: But, you know, Alan [Colmes, co-host], I think you know and you have called for a real debate in Congress on what is going on in Iraq on this failed policy, on the lies that got us into Iraq, on what has been going on since. And, you know, has this all this thing been worth the 2,000 American lives, the very best and bravest of us? We need this debate.

But what the Republicans have done is a phony debate, a cynical debate, a divisive debate. They had the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, draw up a one-line resolution, saying we want the immediate deployment -- immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, a resolution by the way, [Rep.] J.D. [Hayworth (R-AZ)], that went all over the world on the Internet that probably did more harms to our troops than anything else.

They prostituted Mr. Murtha's very thoughtful approach to the end of the deployment of American troops. So this debate is needed. But on the terms that the Republicans did it, is a disgrace to the American troops. It is a disgrace to this Congress.

In a floor statement prior to the vote, Murtha said of Hunter's proposal, "This resolution is not what I envisioned, not what I introduced."

Nonetheless, Hannity proceeded to refer to the measure as "Murtha's amendment":

HANNITY: And we are awaiting momentarily now, a vote in Congress over the latest battle in Iraq and whether or not Democrats support the Murtha amendment, which is to bring the troops home.

Earlier that day, during an interview with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) on ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity also described the resolution as the "Murtha amendment":

HANNITY: The Iranian President, Congressman Rangel, said he wanted to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and defeat Anglo-Saxons. Will he perceive a vote, if the Murtha amendment passes, as weakness? As surrender? The House ultimately defeated Hunter's resolution 403-3.

Taranto similarly obscured the differences between Murtha and Hunter's separate proposals. His November 21 "Best of the Web" column included the headline: "Murtha balks at his own proposal." In the section that followed, Taranto made no distinction between Murtha's resolution, which never reached a vote in the House, and Hunter's measure, which did:

Late Friday night the House took a vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The vote was 403-3 against, with Murtha among the 403. The only congressmen favoring Murtha's idea were three far-left Democrats: Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York and Robert Wexler of Florida. Six Dems voted "present": Michael Capuano (Mass.), William Clay (Mo.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Major Owens (N.Y.).

Some Republicans have labeled Murtha a "coward," which strikes us as unduly personal. But he does seem to lack the courage of his convictions.

— J.K.

Sean Hannity full of himself?

I can't help but wonder if Sean can get any fuller of himself. It seems like every guest he has on, he is either way up their butt or down their throat!