Olympia Snowe

Latest news on olympia snowe

Globe 's Kranish uncritically reported McCain statement that Obama didn't vote to condemn MoveOn for ad

In a July 21 post to the Boston Globe blog Political Intelligence, staff writer Michael Kranish reported that Sen. John McCain "criticized [Sen. Barack] Obama for not voting for a resolution condemning the antiwar group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad calling the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, 'General Betray Us.' " But Kranish did not note that, while Obama was not present for the vote on an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org," Obama did vote for a separate amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces. Kranish also did not note that McCain voted against the Boxer amendment. As Media Matters for America documented, the Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." The amendment stated of the MoveOn.org ad: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States." It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) military service, as well as attacks on Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). Fifty senators, including Obama, voted in support of the measure, while 47, including McCain, voted against. As Media Matters noted, under an agreement reached by the Senate leadership, a cloture vote and a vote on final passage were combined for this and other Iraq-related amendments, meaning that the amendment needed 60 votes to pass. From Kranish's July 21 Political Intelligence post: Campaigning in Portland this afternoon with Senators Susan Collins Olympia Snowe, McCain pledged to end US dependence on foreign oil, saying it is a national security issue because some of the billions spent on oil ends up in the hands of terrorists. He criticized Obama for not voting for a resolution condemning the antiwar group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad calling the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, "General Betray Us." And McCain continued assaulting Obama's record of not supporting the surge of additional troops to Iraq, a strategy that McCain championed and that observers say has helped drive down violence. "I'm proud that I was right," McCain said. "....That's what judgment is all about. That's why I'm qualified to lead."

CNN, Fox News falsely suggested Senate report finding Bush administration "misled Americans" about Iraq-Al Qaeda link was approved only by Dems

In June 5 reports on CNN's The Situation Room and Fox News' Special Report, CNN correspondent Carol Costello, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, and Special Report host Brit Hume falsely suggested that only the Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved the committee's June 5 "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information." In fact, the report had bipartisan support: Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel (NE) and Olympia Snowe (ME) endorsed the report and stated that it "accomplished its primary objective." As Costello noted, the report concluded that "the Bush administration misused intelligence to build its case [for war in Iraq] in 2003 and misled Americans about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda." On The Situation Room, Costello reported that "Republicans dismiss the report as partisan gamesmanship." In a later Situation Room report, Henry reported that "[t]he Senate report released by Democrats rapped the president for proclaiming Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction to hand them off to terrorists when the intelligence did not back that up." Henry also asserted that "Republicans mocked the report for rehashing old ground" and said that Republicans "noted top Democrats used the same intelligence to make ominous statements." Similarly, on Special Report, Hume reported that "Republicans called the report a partisan exercise, and they say [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld's comments had -- were distorted." At no point did Costello, Henry, or Hume mention that the report had bipartisan support. Republican Sens. Christopher S. Bond (MO), the vice chairman of the committee, Saxby Chambliss (GA), Orrin Hatch (UT), and Richard Burr (NC) signed a "Minority View[]" opposing the conclusions of the full committee's report, which they referred to as a "majority-only written report." But in a document appended to the report, titled "Additional Views of Senators Hagel and Snowe," Hagel and Snowe asserted of the report, and a second report in which the committee detailed secret meetings Pentagon officials held with Iranian dissidents: "We endorse the reports as the final chapter of the Committee's inquiry into prewar intelligence with regard to Iraq." In the "Additional Views" document, Hagel and Snowe also asserted: "The report accomplished its primary objective, unanimously agreed to by the committee: to evaluate 'whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.' " Further, in his own "Additional Views" document, Rockefeller wrote: "On April 1, 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved on a bipartisan vote of 10-5 the remaining two reports of its investigation into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and related matters." Eight Democrats serve on the committee, meaning that two Republican members also approved the reports' release. According to a June 6 McClatchy Newspapers report, Hagel and Snowe were the Republicans who voted to release the report. Regarding the Bush administration's statements linking Saddam's Iraq to Al Qaeda, the committee concluded: (U) Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qa'ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR [State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported the claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qa'ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind the claim that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned by DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from a prior report that "assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida." (U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa'ida. Regarding the Bush administration's statements indicating that Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States, the committee concluded: (U) Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks [sic] the US using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at that time, in part because he feared doing so would give the US a stronger case for war with Iraq. This judgment was echoed by both earlier and later intelligence community assessments. All of these assessments noted that gauging Saddam's intentions was quite difficult, and most suggested that he would be more likely to initiate hostilities if he felt that a US invasion was imminent. From the report's "Additional Views of Senators Hagel and Snowe": We also believe that the process by which the Committee drafted and approved the reports could have been significantly improved. The Committee took more than four years to review information of great import. The process was marked by partisan quarrels; however, we believe that every member had sufficient time to review and comment on the respective reports. In fact, of the 165 amendments filed, over 50% were resolved or withdrawn. Unfortunately, members never had an opportunity to vote up or down on the remaining amendments. We endorse the reports as the final chapter of the Committee's inquiry into prewar intelligence with regard to Iraq. However, given the opportunity to vote, we also would have likely supported some of the amendments that had been filed, which would have improved the final product. On balance, these reports contain critical information that should unequivocally be publicly released, enabling the public to formulate their own conclusions. These reports in no way preclude the committee from undertaking additional inquiries into the prewar intelligence with regard to Iraq. These reports simply bring closure to the Committee's review. [...] The report accomplished it's primary objective, unanimously agreed to by the committee: to evaluate "whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information." From the June 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room: BLITZER: Carol Costello is monitoring some other important stories incoming to The Situation Room right now. Carol, what's going on? COSTELLO: Well, Wolf, on the heels of Scott McClellan's critical book about the run-up to the Iraq war, a Senate report says the Bush administration misused intelligence to build its case in 2003 and misled Americans about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John Rockefeller says the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was, quote, "unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent." Republicans dismiss the report as partisan gamesmanship. [...] BLITZER: Fresh on the heels of a scathing tell-all book by a former press secretary, the White House is being slammed once again right now over the run-up to the war in Iraq, this time, a brand-new report just out by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. Let's go to our White House correspondent, Ed Henry -- Ed. HENRY: Wolf, this long-awaited report could have landed with a thud. But Scott McClellan's book is giving Democrats new ammunition to charge the White House misled the nation into war. [begin video clip] HENRY: What's troublesome for the president is the new report goes beyond just saying the intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq was wrong. It concludes the White House left out contradictory evidence and exaggerated intelligence to make the threat from Saddam Hussein sound more ominous. ROCKEFELLER: It is entirely possible that the administration had not presented these facts, that if they had not done that as facts to the American people in making the case for it, we might have avoided this catastrophe. HENRY: The Senate report released by Democrats rapped the president proclaiming Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction to hand them off to terrorists when the intelligence did not back that up. Ditto for Vice President Cheney suggesting 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. CHENEY: We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. HENRY: Republicans mocked the report for rehashing old ground. BOND: The attempt by my friends on the other side of the aisle to score election year points. HENRY: They noted top Democrats used the same intelligence to make ominous statements, such as Rockefeller saying in 2002 -- ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. HENRY: The new report comes just a week after former White House press secretary Scott McClellan came forward to allege the administration used propaganda to sell the war. McCLELLAN: What happened was that the case was packaged together, overstated, and oversold to the American people. HENRY: White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, however, insisted the administration did not intentionally mislead the nation. PERINO: No one lied. And I think that's sort of the point of all this. These issues have been looked at many times. [end video clip] HENRY: But Senator Rockefeller said this is not about rehashing history. It's about trying to learn a lesson so the same mistakes are not repeated -- Wolf. From the June 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report: HUME: A new Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence reiterates earlier conclusions that the Bush administration exaggerated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts about Iraq's arms program. Senator -- Democratic Senator Ron Wyden [OR] is now calling for an investigation of congressional testimony from then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Republicans called the report a partisan exercise, and they say Rumsfeld's comments had -- were distorted.

NY Times , AP, Fox's Doocy report McCain's "most liberal senator" claim of Obama, but not McCain's voting record or subjectivity of National Journal study

In uncritically quoting Sen. John McCain's labeling of Sen. Barack Obama as "the most liberal" senator, the Associated Press and The New York Times both failed to report that, according to the National Journal, whose results McCain was referring to, McCain himself "did not vote frequently enough" to receive a rating. Nor did they report that the National Journal ranking was based on votes selected by National Journal staff, or that a separate study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that was based on all 388 non-unanimous Senate votes during 2007 produced a different result. In a June 2 article, AP writer Liz Sidoti uncritically quoted McCain as saying: "I think it's clear I have a record of working across the aisle. Senator Obama does not. I think it's my record of reform and efforts to change the way we do business in Washington. He has the most liberal voting record of any senator in the U.S. Senate." Similarly, a June 4 New York Times article quoted McCain as saying Obama had "accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate." The AP also left unchallenged McCain's assertion that he has "a record of working across the aisle" to "change the way we do business in Washington." In fact, in a January 13 article (accessed via the Nexis database) in Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan publication that tracks legislators' votes, found that McCain was the Bush administration's most reliable vote in 2007: "Repeated votes on immigration and the Iraq War also helped elevate Republican John McCain of Arizona, one of Bush's chief adversaries in the Senate in 2005, to be one of his biggest supporters in 2007. McCain's 95 percent support score for last year was the highest in the chamber." Also, on the June 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy repeated the "most liberal" claim about Obama, and further mischaracterized McCain's record, stating: "We've looked at the studies that suggest that Barack Obama could be the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate, and meanwhile, John McCain, more in the middle." Doocy's characterization is also contradicted by the American Conservative Union, which gave McCain a score of 80 out of 100 on the basis of his votes in 2007, and a lifetime score of 82.16. By way of comparison, in 2007 Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- generally considered to be moderate Republicans -- scored 28 and 36, respectively. From the January 13 Congressional Quarterly Weekly article: On a few occasions, Republicans defected wholesale from the president's side. In the Senate, they twice blocked action on bills to overhaul immigration policy, combining enhanced border security with temporary-worker programs and a path to citizenship for people already in the United States illegally. Repeated votes on immigration and the Iraq War also helped elevate Republican John McCain of Arizona, one of Bush's chief adversaries in the Senate in 2005, to be one of his biggest supporters in 2007. McCain's 95 percent support score for last year was the highest in the chamber. From the June 4 New York Times article: In an advance version of a speech he was to deliver Tuesday night in St. Paul, Mr. Obama said that "while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign." He said Mr. McCain stood with Mr. Bush 95 percent of the time in the Senate last year. Mr. McCain took square aim at Mr. Obama, proclaiming that he had "accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate," mocking him for belief in diplomacy with enemy nations and even criticizing him for voting for Mr. Bush's energy bill, which Mr. McCain opposed. "You know, I have a few years on my opponent," said Mr. McCain, 71, "so I am surprised that a young man has bought into so many failed ideas." From the June 2 AP article: Previewing his remarks, McCain told reporters on his campaign bus in Nashville, Tenn.: "The message is change. It's real change. I think it's clear I have a record of working across the aisle. Senator Obama does not. I think it's my record of reform and efforts to change the way we do business in Washington. He has the most liberal voting record of any senator in the U.S. Senate." An Obama spokesman responded by arguing that despite McCain's "occasional independence" from the GOP, he has embraced most of President Bush's agenda. "No matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise, that kind of record is simply not the change the American people are looking for or deserve," Bill Burton said. For weeks now, Obama has been portraying McCain as a Washington insider who offers nothing more than a third term of Bush and a continuation of partisan politics that turns off people. From the June 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends: MIKE DUNCAN (RNC chairman): Our candidate believes in growing the economy, believes in protecting America, reforming our government, and their candidate believes more of the liberal same of the past. So, after tonight, I think people in Minneapolis-St. Paul are going to have a better idea about Barack Obama. DOOCY: And, in fact, there's going to be a real choice because, you know, we've looked at the studies that suggest that Barack Obama could be the most liberal senator in the U.S. senator -- in the U.S. Senate, and meanwhile, John McCain, more in the middle. Would you rather have a guy more to the right or more in the middle right now? DUNCAN: Well, John McCain is the right candidate for the Republican Party at this time in history. John McCain is getting about 9 out of 10 Republican voters and he's appealing to Democrat voters. If you look at exit polls from Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, you'll see that he's reaching across the aisle and he's bringing a lot of the old Reagan Democrats back to the Republican Party, and we're pleased with that. DOOCY: All right, very good. RNC chair Mike Duncan, we thank you very much for joining us today from D.C.