Re: MRC Alert: ABC and NBC Resist Vindicating Cheney, But Hayes Finds Proof EIT's 'Effective'

[Belinda Realion]

--- On Wed, 8/26/09, Media Research Center <cyber...@mail.mediaresearch.org> wrote: From: Media Research Center <cyber...@mail.mediaresearch.org> Subject: MRC Alert: ABC and NBC Resist Vindicating Cheney, But Hayes Finds Proof EIT's 'Effective' To: belinda_...@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 10:19 AM   A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

 

Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Wednesday August 26, 2009 @ 10:18 AM EDT

1. ABC and NBC Resist Vindicating Cheney, But Hayes Finds Proof EIT's 'Effective'
ABC's Brian Ross and NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday night each listed some al Qaeda plots uncovered via CIA interrogations, but both balked when it came to vindicating former Vice President Dick Cheney on whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) led to information which prevented attacks. "Nowhere in the reports...does the CIA ever draw a direct connection between the valuable information and the specific use of harsh tactics," Ross declared on World News. On FNC, however, The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, quoting from the just-released 2004 report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, pointed out how even it noted regarding Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the terrorist behind the USS Cole attack, "following the use of EIT's, he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of the EIT's." Hayes asserted: "It doesn't get clearer than that. So we can debate the morality, we can debate whether this was torture. We can't debate any longer about whether this was effective."

2. MSNBC Cheerleads for 'Health Care Momentum Shift'; Could 'Tide' Be Turning?
MSNBC News Live hosts David Shuster and Tamron Hall on Tuesday embraced a contrarian notion that the tide is shifting in favor of liberal health care reform. Shuster tried to be optimistic: "...If the anti, sort-of, reform crowd on the right owned the early part of August, you almost get the sense that things are starting to pick up on the left, as far as the last couple of weeks in this month."

3. USA Today on Obama's Book List: 'Smart' Choices Display His 'Exquisite Taste'
USA Today reporter Richard Wolf's Tuesday news story on President Barack Obama's vacation book reading list flattered Obama for his “smart” and “exquisite” choice in the five books the White House announced Monday he had picked to read. "Taken together, they are a smart collection for 'someone who really appreciates the written word,' says Susan Mercier, manager of Edgartown Books here," Wolf wrote from Martha's Vineyard island. In the article in the August 25 newspaper which ran below a montage of the covers of the five books, Wolf also relayed more effusive praise: "Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said the list shows that Obama 'has exquisite taste. All five of his picks are classics.'"

4. On NBC, PBS Star Faults Obama for Moderation, Denounces Town Hall 'Hate'
The bosses at PBS must not mind their taxpayer-funded network being defined as liberal in the public mind, because on Sunday’s Meet the Press, NBC matched Joe Scarborough on the right with PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley on the left. Smiley slapped President Obama for trying to be the "collaborator in chief" instead of commander-in-chief on health care, and denounced protesters at town hall meetings as forces of "unadulterated hate."

5. ABC's George Stephanopoulos Pleads With McCain to Denounce Death Panel Claims
During an interview with John McCain on Sunday’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos practically begged with the Arizona senator to repudiate "death panel" claims by former Governor Sarah Palin. Speaking of the health care bill, Stephanopoulos attacked euthanasia worries and lobbied, "[Obama] called that an extraordinary lie. And he is right about that, isn't he?"

---

 

ABC and NBC Resist Vindicating Cheney, But Hayes Finds Proof EIT's 'Effective'

 

ABC's Brian Ross and NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday night each listed some al Qaeda plots uncovered via CIA interrogations, but both balked when it came to vindicating former Vice President Dick Cheney on whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) led to information which prevented attacks.

“Nowhere in the reports...does the CIA ever draw a direct connection between the valuable information and the specific use of harsh tactics,” Ross declared on World News in citing reports Cheney requested be released. NBC's Andrea Mitchell cited only Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and related how “administration officials say there is no way to know whether the same information could have be obtained from him without waterboarding or whether he would have given it up sooner had he been handled differently.”

On FNC, however, The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, quoting from the just-released 2004 report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, pointed out how even it noted regarding Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the terrorist behind the USS Cole attack, “following the use of EIT's, he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of the EIT's.” Hayes asserted: “I mean, it doesn't get clearer than that. So we can debate the morality, we can debate whether this was torture. We can't debate any longer about whether this was effective.”

Hayes, during the panel segment on FNC's Special Report with Bret Baier:

I think you can daw direct lines from the enhanced interrogation techniques used to the information that they provided, and forgive me, indulge me for reading one of these about al Nashiri, who was the plotter of the USS Cole attack. "Following the use of EIT's," these techniques, "he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of the EIT's." I mean, it doesn't get clearer than that. So we can debate the morality, we can debate whether this was torture. We can't debate any longer about whether this was effective.

Hayes, a Senior Writer at The Weekly Standard, provided more examples in a Tuesday (late Monday night) post on the magazine's blog on parts of the report which have eluded other journalists:

...And what about 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Shaykh Mohammad? More coincidence? From page 91:

On the other hand, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete. As a means of less active resistance, at the beginning of their interrogation, detainees routinely provide information that they know is already known. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad received 183 applications of the waterboard in March 2003.

The section immediately following this overview of KSM’s pre-waterboard disclosures is redacted. But flip back a few pages in the IG report, to page 87, and we learn the details of KSM’s post-waterboard intelligence. KSM provided so many leads to other terrorists and plots that the IG described him as “the most prolific” source of information among the detainees. So, what did he tell us?

He provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen who Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad’s information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio.

Let’s review. Abu Zubaydah gave up some information before the use of EITs. But “since the use of the waterboard…Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative,” and gave up even more intelligence. Al Nashiri provided mostly historical information in the short time before EITs were employed. “However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning…” And “accomplished resistor” Khalid Shaykh Muhammad provided mostly useless information before the application of EITs. Afterwards, he “provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists” – so much information, in fact, that he was regarded as the “most prolific” intelligence source.

Reasonable people can – and do – disagree about the morality of using EITs. But only the most accomplished resister could continue to claim that they were not effective.

From the Tuesday, August 25 World News on ABC:

BRIAN ROSS: ...It was clear today that the partisan battle lines have been drawn over the CIA, led on one side by the former Vice President, who has long been the chief defender of the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques. DICK CHENEY, FILE FOOTAGE: They were legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do.

ROSS: It was at Cheney's request that the CIA made public yesterday two top secret reports that said the detainee interrogations were pivotal. “Detainees have given us a wealth of useful information on al Qaeda,” the report says, “thwarting a number of al Qaeda operations,” including a proposed 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles, on London's Heathrow airport and the capture of a leading southeast Asia al Qaeda leader who reportedly had 70 operatives ready to carry out terrorist attacks in the West.

Nowhere in the reports, however, does the CIA ever draw a direct connection between the valuable information and the specific use of harsh tactics. So, Charlie, there's just enough for both sides to argue about, while CIA officers in the field are left to figure out just what is expected of them.

From the NBC Nightly News:

ANDREA MITCHELL: ...So who right? The new documents reveal that 30 of the detainees -- a third of those held in the CIA secret prisons -- were subjected to the questionable practices. Cheney says the tactics “saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks.” His proof -- in part, this memo, describing how 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was water boarded 183 times, admitted to a series of plots: One, in late in 2001, to crash a hijacked airliner into the tallest building on the U.S. west coast, another in early 2002 to send al Qaeda operative and U.S. citizen Jose Padilla to set off bombs in apartment buildings in an unspecified major U.S. city and a never before disclosed plan in 2003 “to employ a network of Pakistanis to target gas stations, railroad tracks and the Brooklyn bridge in New York.”

But administration officials say there is no way to know whether the same information could have be obtained from him without waterboarding or whether he would have given it up sooner had he been handled differently. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told the International Red Cross in 2006 he lied to fool his questioners.

TOM PARKER, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: He made stuff up to deliberately mislead his interrogators and make them stop and took pleasure in the fact that the United States had probably wasted money responding to these fabrications.

MITCHELL: An argument experts say that may never be resolved. But tonight, John McCain who opposed the Bush/Cheney interrogation policies, criticized the Attorney General's decision to investigate CIA interrogators, creating more political headaches for the White House.

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

MSNBC Cheerleads for 'Health Care Momentum Shift'; Could 'Tide' Be Turning?

 

MSNBC News Live hosts David Shuster and Tamron Hall on Tuesday embraced a contrarian notion that the tide is shifting in favor of liberal health care reform. Interviewing a Democratic strategist-turned-left-wing columnist, whose political affiliations went unidentified, Shuster tried to be optimistic: "...If the anti, sort-of, reform crowd on the right owned the early part of August, you almost get the sense that things are starting to pick up on the left, as far as the last couple of weeks in this month."

Shuster talked to David Sirota, whom he identified simply as a "syndicated columnist." The cable anchor left out the fact that Sirota is a former Democratic/far-left operative who previously worked for, among others, socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. One MSNBC graphic hopefully speculated that the country may be seeing a health care "momentum shift." Another touted, "Is Tide Beginning to Turn on Health Care Reform?"

A more reality-based analysis shows that public opinion has dramatically shifted against the President’s plan. MSNBC’s own August 18 poll found that only 41 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the issue. 47 percent disapprove.

MSNBC’s Hall appeared to view these opinions as examples of inaccurate GOP spin on health care. Citing a new University of Indiana poll that found that Americans believe the President’s plan will be too costly, she opined, "...It appears the public is still not getting accurate information about the public option and other possible health care reforms. A brand new poll out just today says a majority of Americans still believes some of what the White House has labeled myths about reform." So, something is a myth because the White House calls it so?

A transcript of the August 25 segment, which aired at 3:31pm EDT, follows:

TAMRON HALL: But, the big picture right now, of course, is health care reform, the focus of that town hall with Senator McCain. And Democrats are planning about 1,000 rallies between now and Labor Day when Congress returns from August recess. And former- reform supporters want lawmakers to see that Americans still support an overhaul of this system. And starting tomorrow, a Health Insurance Reform Now bus will actually travel across the country, holding events in 11 different cities. The cities, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Des Moines, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Charlotte, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis and Columbus. Quite a mix there. Plus the public option is now getting support from centrist Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, and a member of the so-called "Gang of Six," that, of course, being the group of senators negotiating health care reform. But, David, it appears the public is still not getting accurate information about the public option and other possible health care reforms. A brand new poll out just today says a majority of Americans still believes some of what the White House has labeled myths about reform. Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism research found 51 percent says that public option health care will increase costs instead of lowering them. And because of the difficulties in this battle over health care, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold says there- there probably won’t be a bill before the end of the year, perhaps not at all.

MSNBC GRAPHIC: Health Care Momentum Shift?

DAVID SHUSTER: And Tamron, now the bigger picture, despite the pessimism from Democrats like Feingold, is momentum for progressive health care reform starting to pick up, at least in the west and mountain states. As Tamron just mentioned, Max Baucus spoke about the support- his support for the public option in a conference call with Montana Democrats. That was intriguing. And now the Denver Post, one of the largest papers in the mountain region, is calling for a public option, saying it's the only real way to bring about real reform. Quote, "It's the best way to slow escalating health care costs and expand access to quality care. The country ultimately will lose if the public option vanishes because of the Democratic efforts effort to make health care a bipartisan effort." David Sirota is a syndicated columnist and author of The Uprising. He joins us from Denver. And, David, what was the impact of that newspaper endorsement and what’s going on with Max Baucus?

DAVID SIROTA (Syndicated columnist): Well, I think we'll feel the impact of that editorial. We have got a lot of congressional elections here that are going to be contested. Congressman John Salazar is up for a tough election. Congresswoman Becky Markey up for a tough election and I think you're going to see the Denver Post editorial piece is really going to impact that debate. Both of those members have said that they conceptually support a public option. But you never know what's going to happen in the negotiation. As it relates to Max Baucus, look, I think it’s pretty obvious what’s happening. A new poll came out showing that the Democrats in Montana, quite a small state are extremely unhappy with Baucus on the issue of health care and Baucus who had originally said in May that he strongly supports a public option, but has subsequently backed off that position, is coming back around. So, you're seeing a lot of movement there.

SHUSTER: Well, In fact, let's put up that poll. It's from the liberal blog Daily Kos. 34 percent of Montana Democrats approve of Senator Max Baucus's actions on health care. 55 percent disapprove. And, again, Max Baucus has been leading the effort to try to negotiate some sort of bipartisan compromise with Republicans despite no evidence that the Republicans are giving the Democrats anything in return. Does Max Baucus then- should we read into this, David, that he's signaling the Democrats in Montana, "If the Republicans don't come along, yes the public option will be there in what we try to get through?"

SIROTA: Well, I take a more cynical view. I think he's saying something to local folks that he's not saying to national folks and negotiators, and this is a typical Max Baucus thing. He says one thing at home and then he goes to Washington and says something else. The question will be at the end of the day, where he does go down. You know, he takes a huge amount of money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. But, he’s also saying something pretty crystal clear at home. So, it really matters, actually, how much pressure is put on him at home. Montana is a very small state. Max Baucus isn't up for election- re-election for a number of years, but he is always worried about losing a Democratic primary. If he does not deliver a public option, you can bet there'll be real pressure for a real primary.

HALL: And, David, this call for a public option, is it also meant to put pressure on the White House to be stronger? We have heard back and forth of whether a public option is back on the table, if it’s negotiable, as well. So, is it beyond a message to Mr. Baucus?

SIROTA: Absolutely. I think if a main stream conservative paper like the Denver Post which is a huge regional force in this region, it is coming out, saying the public option is absolutely necessary and as you'll notice, the message was necessary to keep costs down. That's a fiscal conservative message, if that's the message coming from a moderate conservative editorial board that's very big, I think it is a message from the White House that it's got to get back on the message.

MSNBC GRAPHIC: Is Tide Beginning to Turn on Health Care Reform?

SHUSTER: David Sirota, syndicated columnist and author of The Uprising, David, thanks for the update from Denver, we appreciate it. And Tamron, you know, if the anti, sort-of, reform crowd on the right owned the early part of August, you almost get the sense that things are starting to pick up on the left, as far as the last couple of weeks in this month and that could make it very intriguing.

HALL: I think this is going to be incredible. I think this is going to be very incredible. Those who think this debate is dead or that we have seen the best of the back and forth, I certainly think they're wrong after this recess.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

USA Today on Obama's Book List: 'Smart' Choices Display His 'Exquisite Taste'

 

USA Today reporter Richard Wolf's Tuesday news story on President Barack Obama's vacation book reading list flattered Obama for his “smart” and “exquisite” choice in the five books the White House announced Monday he had picked to read. “Taken together, they are a smart collection for 'someone who really appreciates the written word,' says Susan Mercier, manager of Edgartown Books here,” Wolf wrote from Martha's Vineyard island. “'I would not classify any of those as light fiction. They're pretty meaty works,' Mercier said. 'I hope he has time to sit and read them, because he's a busy guy.'”

In the article in the August 25 newspaper, “President's reading list a hefty one: From 'upscale thrillers' to a Pulitzer winner,” which ran below a montage of the covers of the five books, Wolf also relayed more effusive praise: “Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said the list shows that Obama 'has exquisite taste. All five of his picks are classics.'” 

On Monday night, a BiasAlert item recounted, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams trumpeted how “we also learned the President's reading list.” He proceeded to list the five books the White House said he brought “to read on vacation,” including New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded. “When you add it all up, that's 2,300 pages of reading,” Williams noted, but “then again, he does have ten days of vacation.”

The five books, as listed by USA Today:

- Hot, Flat, and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman, which urges a “green revolution.”

- John Adams, by David McCullough, which won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002.

- Lush Life, by Richard Price, a murder novel set in New York City.

- Plainsong, by Kent Haruf, a novel set in Colorado that became a TV special.

- The Way Home, a crime thriller set in Washington by George Pelecanos.

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

On NBC, PBS Star Faults Obama for Moderation, Denounces Town Hall 'Hate'

 

The bosses at PBS must not mind their taxpayer-funded network being defined as liberal in the public mind, because on Sunday’s Meet the Press, NBC matched Joe Scarborough on the right with PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley on the left. Smiley slapped President Obama for trying to be the "collaborator in chief" instead of commander-in-chief on health care, and denounced protesters at town hall meetings as forces of "unadulterated hate."

He also warned against what Martin Luther King called "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." The host of a nightly talk show based at Los Angeles PBS station KCET blamed Obama for being too moderate, not too radical:

SMILEY: The reason why he's in trouble right now on this bill is precisely because he's tried to be bipartisan rather than –

SCARBOROUGH: No, no.

SMILEY: – try and – hold on – rather than trying to lead by putting his plan out front. And to David's question, yes, he has backtracked on the public option. When you look at what he said last summer running for office, David, taxing the windfall profits of the insurers, out the window; single payer, out the window; buying medicine in bulk to keep cost down, especially where generic drugs are concerned, out the window. And now here we sit at the end of summer and we're debating whether or not the public option is still on the table? We have moved a long way from where we started.

Host David Gregory quoted Speaker Pelosi and radical Rep. Maxine Waters that a "public option" is mandatory, and it’s time for the brass knuckles:

GREGORY: Supporters of the president are saying, to Joe's point, "You own Washington. You campaigned hard on this thing. Knock some heads, get people in line to get behind you."

SMILEY: I think they're right about that. The only point I'm making here is had he not started by trying to be bipartisan, he'd be getting whipped up side the head for not trying to reach across the aisle, number one. Having said that, Congresswoman Waters and others are right about the fact that a public option, I think, ought to be essential here. The American people can't buy it if you can't sell it. He's the commander in chief, but he's tried to be the collaborator in chief. That doesn't work.

Next, Gregory ran videotape of Sen. Tom Coburn from the previous Sunday, suggesting that harsh anti-government talk outside town-hall meetings might be warranted by how massively the federal government is spending money, and asked Smiley:

GREGORY: Fear of loss of control over their own government. Is that what's out there?

SMILEY: No. This is not about angst, this is not about anger, this is about hate. There is a, there is, there's a set of folk in this country -- thankfully not, not, not everybody -- but there is a group in this country that does not, will not accept a legitimate Democratic presidency, Joe, under any condition.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Or, or Republican.

MR. SMILEY: They -- exactly. They will not accept a legitimate Democratic president. And as a result, the pushback on Obama is even worse than the pushback on Clinton. When you show up with these guns strapped to your waist and these comparisons to Hitler, that isn't anger about government taking control of your life.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Right.

MR. SMILEY: That is, that is unadulterated hate, and it's got to be called for what it is.

Smiley insisted that radical health "reform" is essential:

Back to the health care debate though, where this hate is spilling out in these rallies. I don't understand how we can even have a debate about the fact that health care's got to be reformed. That's the one thing I'm heartened by, that at least the leaders here in Washington seem to agree that the problem has got to get fixed. When you got 46 million people left out of a process, when those persons who think they are insured find out how underinsured they really are when a catastrophic illness hits. In the most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic America ever, we still have health disparities that we could have balanced those disparities out by the year 2000. Eighty-five thousands folk in the year 2000 alone would still be living. When 80 percent of the folk who are not insured, David , come from families that have part-time and full-time workers, the system is broken. It's got to be fixed.

Scarborough talked about how the leftists like Pelosi and Henry Waxman may ultimately find a passable bill by talking to more moderate legislators, but Smiley concluded the segment by warning against compromises:

The bottom line is that Dr. King warned years ago against taking the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. We're not going to reform health care doing it gradually. He's got to be bold about this. My granddad, David, said all the time, if you're going to stand, stand. If you're going to sit, sit. But don't wobble. The president is wobbling on this issue, and he can't do that if we're going to reform health care.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos Pleads With McCain to Denounce Death Panel Claims

 

During an interview with John McCain on Sunday’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos practically begged with the Arizona senator to repudiate "death panel" claims by former Governor Sarah Palin. Speaking of the health care bill, Stephanopoulos attacked euthanasia worries and lobbied, "[Obama] called that an extraordinary lie. And he is right about that, isn't he?"

The former top Clinton aide turned journalist reworked the same query four more times. After McCain referred to the fact that a Senate panel dropped a provision on end-of-life counseling, Stephanopoulos interrupted, "I don't think that's correct, Senator. The bill, all it said was that if a patient wanted to have a Medicare consultation about end of life issues, they could have it, at their request. And the doctor would get reimbursed for it. No panel."

The back and forth continued. McCain cited rationing and the This Week host retorted, "But that's not a death panel." Stephanopoulos was not to be deterred by this argument from the senator: "So what does that lead to? Doesn't that lead to a possibility, at least opens the door to a possibility of rationing and decisions made, such are made in other countries?" The ABC anchor complained, "Boy, every, single independent group that looked at it said it just wasn't true."

Politico reported in January that Stephanopoulos has daily phone conversations with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Stephanopoulos later denied this, but he certainly seemed to be echoing the White House on Sunday.

In an op-ed in the August 19 Washington Times, Robert W. Painter argued that, at the local level, having doctors counsel patients on end-of-life does lead to rationing. Painter, an attorney, cited Texas as an example:

The truth is, for many states, Mrs. Palin's assessment likely is dead-on, except the "death panels" would be hospital-run, not government-run. Consider Texas. The Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999 became law with support from a broad ideological spectrum, but one of its unintended consequences has been astounding. When a patient or family wants health care to continue but the attending physician does not, the Texas law allows a hospital committee to have the final say under the amorphous concept of "medical futility."

Texas law only requires the hospital to provide the patient and family with 48 hours' notice before a hospital "ethics" committee meets and makes a decision on terminating life support. There are few due-process safeguards in the law to protect patients during this committee proceeding.

Once the hospital ethics committee decides that further care is medically futile, the family is given just 10 days to find a facility that will accept the patient, or the hospital and doctors can end curative care with impunity. Virginia law is similar but gives the family 14 days.

Furthermore, if the statute is followed, the hospital and others involved are cloaked with complete criminal, civil and licensing immunity. In other words, even if the hospital's decision to pull life support was incorrect, it is immune from lawsuit or prosecution. All this sounds quite like a "death panel" to me. Under Texas law, the hospitals are not just allowed to try to persuade a family to "pull the plug" but are allowed to take the action themselves and end all curative care if the family disagrees.

A partial transcript of the August 23 This Week, which aired at 10:10am, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The President also says that the debate has been infected by falsehoods. And probably the most notorious one is the one made by your former running mate, Sarah Palin, who said that his bill would encourage death panels that would encourage euthanasia [sic]. He called that an extraordinary lie. And he is right about that, isn't he?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Well, I think that what we're talking about here, is are we going to have groups that actually advise people, as these decisions are made later in life?

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's not in the bill.

MCCAIN: But, it's been taken out. But, the way that it was written made it a little bit ambiguous. And another thing-

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think that's correct, Senator. The bill, all it said was that if a patient wanted to have a Medicare consultation about end of life issues, they could have it, at their request. And the doctor would get reimbursed for it. No panel.

MCCAIN: But there was a provision in the bill that talks about a board that would decide the most effective measures to provide health care for people. Okay? Now, we had amendments. We Republicans have said that in no way would that affect the decisions that the patients would made and their families. That was rejected by the Democrats and the health committee.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's not a death panel.

MCCAIN: So, what does it- so what does that lead to? Doesn't that lead to a possibility, at least opens the door to a possibility of rationing and decisions made, such are made in other countries?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, every, single independent group that looked at it said it just wasn't true.

MCCAIN: Well, then why did the Democrats turn down our amendments that clarified that none of the decisions that would be made by this board would in any way affect the depriving of needed treatments for patients? I don't know why they did that then.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you think Sarah Palin was right?

MCCAIN: Look, I don't think they were, "death panels." Don't get me wrong. I don't think that. But on the best treatment procedures part of the bill, they- it does open it up to decisions being made as far- that should be left - those choices left to the patient and the individual. That's what I think is pretty clear, which was a different section of the bill.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

 

---

# You are currently subscribed to cyber-html as: belinda_...@yahoo.com..

# Comments or subscription problems (email): CyberC...@mediaresearch.org

# To subscribe to this or other MRC newsletters: MRC newsletter subscriptions

# To unsubscribe from this or other MRC newsletters: Unsubscribe from MRC