On the July 22 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, while airing portions of an interview anchor Katie Couric conducted that day with Sen. John McCain, CBS News did not air McCain's response to a question in which he characterized the Iraq war as "the first major conflict since 9/11," apparently disregarding the war in Afghanistan, which Couric addressed in her question and which began in October 2001. As Media Matters for America and others documented, CBS News also did not air McCain's false assertion that the 2007 U.S. troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening" and instead aired spliced video of McCain's interview with Couric, expunging the false statement and tacking on a response he gave to a different question.

Couric asked: "Sen. [Barack] Obama also told me, Sen. McCain, that the money spent on those additional troops, on the surge, might have been more effective had it gone to Afghanistan or even to a better energy policy in the United States. What's your response?" McCain replied: "The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world." In fact, nearly a year and a half before the Iraq war, the United States initiated Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in order to "counter terrorism and bring security to Afghanistan." According to the Department of Defense, 554 Americans had lost their lives as a result of OEF and 2,257 had been wounded as of July 19.

In an entry on the Huffington Post website headlined "Another John McCain Gaffe -- Iraq Was the First Major Conflict After 9/11," Cenk Uygur wrote:

There is one more John McCain gaffe that the media missed from the now famous CBS interview with Katie Couric.

This is the same interview in which McCain claimed the surge led to the Anbar Awakening, which is demonstrably false.

[...]

Was Afghanistan not major enough for him?

From the transcript of Couric's interview with McCain posted on CBSNews.com:

Couric: Sen. Obama also told me, Sen. McCain, that the money spent on those additional troops, on the surge, might have been more effective had it gone to Afghanistan or even to a better energy policy in the United States. What's your response?

McCain: The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world.

Thanks to a great general, thanks to a lot of courage and bravery on the part of American men and women in the military, we succeeded. And we are on the path to an honorable withdrawal and ... victory. Not having to return, as Sen. Obama said we might have to, if his strategy of straight dates for withdrawal didn't succeed.

So, of course it's been enormous sacrifice. And Americans are all saddened by it. But the consequences of failure would have been devastating. And that would have been the result if we had done what Sen. Obama wanted to do. Which would have meant our troops were out by last March, much less anytime soon, according to an arbitrary date.

And, again, the future is bright for the people of Iraq. The future is bright for stability in the region, for strengthening our alliances and succeeding in Afghanistan. And it's gonna be long and hard and tough struggle. If we had done what Sen. Obama had wanted, we would have been defeated. Now, we have the chance and opportunity for a very bright future.

From the July 22 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, showing the full extent of Couric's interview with McCain that was actually aired:

[video clip]

COURIC: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni Awakening and the Shiite government going after militias and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCAIN: Senator Obama has indicated by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Thanks to General [David] Petraeus, our leadership and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda's not defeated. But the progress has been immense, and to not recognize that and why it happened and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

COURIC: A commentary on what?

McCAIN: That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face, and he did not understand the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make a judgment.

COURIC: Senator Obama describes Afghanistan as the central front in the war on terror. That is where, after all, Senator, 9-11 was plotted. Why do you believe Iraq is the central front in the war on terror?

McCAIN: Well, one reason is, is because that's what Osama bin Laden said that it was. He said, "Go to the country of the two rivers." That's what General Petraeus says, who I think is extremely knowledgeable, that it is the central battleground. And Afghanistan is very tough. And there's a number of great challenges there. And we have to employ the same strategy there that succeeded in Iraq. And we can succeed there. Now that we've succeeded in Iraq, obviously we will be freeing up troops to go to Afghanistan, and we will urge our NATO allies to send more troops and be more involved as well. We can succeed.

But, you see, Senator Obama doesn't understand -- it's not just troops; it's an overall strategy. It's not just two or three brigades. It's also increased engagement on the part of our NATO allies. But I guarantee you, if we had failed in Iraq and been defeated in Iraq, our challenges in Afghanistan would have been dramatically complicated and worsened.

COURIC: Senator McCain, you sound very frustrated with Senator Obama's perspective.

McCAIN: No, I'm not at all. I respect Senator Obama. I admire his success. He's just has been wrong and is wrong, and therefore, I strongly disagree, and I think the American people will make a judgment about who was right.

[end video clip]

COURIC: The numbers do indicate that Iraq became much safer during the surge. Civilian deaths are down from 2,000 last August to 490 this past June. Attacks against coalition forces, down from 1,500 a week in June of 2007 to about 200 a week now. That's an 80 percent drop. And fewer U.S. troops were killed in May and June in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

I'll be back in a little while with more from the Middle East, but first, here's Harry Smith back in New York. Harry.

SMITH: Thanks, Katie.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East ("Tokyo War Crimes Trial") the United States prosecuted individuals as war criminals for waterboarding civilian detainees and military prisoners of war. The ACLU released documents pertaining to torture of detainees obtained from the government today as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Openeness and transparency in...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

If you missed Senator Barack Obama's speech in front of 200,000 waving American flags, and chanting "Obama!" or want to watch it again -- check out this video!

None of the three broadcast networks' evening news programs -- ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, and NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams -- has reported on Sen. John McCain's recent misstatements regarding a nonexistent Iraq-Pakistan border and the timing of the Anbar Awakening. In contrast with the networks' ignoring McCain's misstatements in their nightly news broadcasts, both of which have been made during Sen. Barack Obama's trip abroad, media figures from each network warned of what they said would be the great impact of any "mistake," "gaffe," or "misstatement" by Obama during his trip.

For instance:

• In advance of Obama's trip, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos said during the July 18 edition of ABC News' Good Morning America that in his trip Obama has "got to show he can do the job. And above all ... not make any mistakes on this trip. A gaffe could be a killer for Obama." Stephanopoulos went on to say that the "McCain campaign is very frustrated by this" because "[a]ll three evening news anchors going over to -- on this foreign soil with Barack Obama." He added, "I think they will look to take quick hits every day and, of course, pounce on any mistake that Barack Obama makes. That would be the big opening for the McCain campaign."

• On the July 18 edition of the CBS Evening News, senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield said that the "saturation coverage" of Obama's trip "has already led the conservative blogosphere to offer blistering critiques of a liberal media slavishly treating Obama as a pop star, but of course, Katie [Couric], the sheer presence of media in no way guarantees favorable coverage. In some ways, it makes the possibility of a misstep that much more dangerous." In response to anchor Katie Couric's question, "What do you think is the biggest potential landmine for him," Greenfield responded: "You know, I think it's everything from an untoward photo opportunity -- [former Democratic presidential candidate Michael] Dukakis in a tank -- to a misstatement that makes it seem to critics that he really does not know the nature of the terrain that he's -- that he's talking about."

• NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that Obama ran the "risk of making a mistake in a very high-profile trip," during the July 18 broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe. David Gregory, NBC News chief White House correspondent and host of MSNBC's Race to the White House, teased a discussion on the July 17 edition of his MSNBC show by stating: "Next up, Obama studying the script for his world stage debut next week. He's expected to stick closely to campaign talking points to avoid a potential gaffe that, as we say, could be heard around the world."

Notwithstanding the importance they attached to any potential "gaffe" by Obama during his trip, the three networks have ignored two missatements by McCain in the same time period. None of the networks has reported during its evening news program that in an interview with Couric, McCain falsely claimed that the 2007 troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening." As Media Matters for America has documented, the Anbar Awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced. Indeed, as blogger Jed Lewison noted, in the March-April 2008 issue of Military Review, Col. Sean B. MacFarland -- who McCain said "was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks" -- and Maj. Niel Smith wrote: "The 'Anbar Awakening' of Sunni tribal leaders and their supporters that began in September 2006 near Ramadi seemed to come out of nowhere." President Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007, asserting in an address that he had "committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq."

In the case of CBS News, rather than airing McCain's falsehood in response to Couric's question on Obama's statements regarding "increased security in Iraq," CBS cut out the falsehood completely and instead aired comments by McCain that were spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview, one of which was in response to a different question. Couric gave no indication that these comments had been edited in any manner, nor did she otherwise note McCain's falsehood. In a statement reported in The Washington Post on July 24, CBS News acknowledged it erred, but maintained, falsely, that the video as aired did not misrepresent McCain's comments.

In addition, while being interviewed on the July 21 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, McCain referred to "the Iraq-Pakistan border" -- which does not exist -- while discussing the ongoing war in Afghanistan. As Media Matters noted, host Diane Sawyer did not correct McCain's statement or otherwise point out that Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. The ABC News political newsletter The Note stated of McCain's "Iraq-Pakistan border" comment: "[I]t was McCain who owns the first big gaffe of the trip," referring to Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe. But none of the three networks -- including ABC -- reported on the misstatement during its evening broadcast.

From July 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Let's talk about Barack Obama's trip overall.

MITCHELL: My pleasure.

BRZEZINSKI: What are the risks that he faces politically along the way here?

MITCHELL: Well, first of all, the risk of making a mistake in a very high-profile trip. Also, the risk of getting involved in Middle East diplomacy.

From the July 18 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

GREENFIELD: The second part of Obama's trip will be a campaign-funded visit to Europe and the Middle East. He'll meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, walking a fragile diplomatic tightrope.

JOE TRIPPI (CBS News political analyst) [video clip]: This is a high-stakes game for Obama. He doesn't want to make any mistakes. Certainly if he does make one, make a statement that causes a problem, it'll be a huge one.

GREENFIELD: But with voters concerned about the freshman senator's foreign policy and national security experience, Obama has little choice but to take the overseas gamble to shore up his credentials. For its part, the McCain camp was on the attack with a new ad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [video clip]: He hasn't been to Iraq in years. now Obama is changing to help himself become president.

GREENFIELD: There's little question that throughout this trip, Senator Obama will be walking a fine line.

TRIPPI [video clip]: You want to look presidential, but you don't want to look like you're president. That could be presumptuous and it could backfire here in -- here with the electorate.

GREENFIELD: This saturation coverage has already led the conservative blogosphere to offer blistering critiques of a liberal media slavishly treating Obama as a pop star, but of course, Katie, the sheer presence of media in no way guarantees favorable coverage. In some ways, it makes the possibility of a misstep that much more dangerous.

COURIC: Of course, he does, as you mention, have to walk some tightropes. What do you think is the biggest potential landmine for him?

GREENFIELD: You know, I think it's everything from a -- an untoward photo opportunity -- Dukakis in a tank -- to a misstatement that makes it seem to critics that he really does not know the nature of the terrain that he's -- that he's talking about.

COURIC: And while the political benefits are -- are many, i.e., you know, visuals of him appearing statesmanlike with a variety of world leaders, can a single trip wipe out the perception in the minds of some that he lacks the credentials in foreign policy?

GREENFIELD: Well, assuming he doesn't come back with a Mideast peace plan that all -- everybody signs on to, which is unlikely, no, but it can neutralize the fears. He doesn't have to equal McCain in that stature; he just has to make voters seem like he's OK, he knows what he's talking about.

From the July 18 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

ROBIN ROBERTS (news anchor): Well, how is he going to kind of change the perception out there? Because our latest poll shows that most Americans, even most Democrats, say that Senator John McCain would be a good commander-in-chief of the military. Fewer than half of those polled feel that way about Obama. So, what does he need to do on this trip to change that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: He's got to show he can do the job, and above all, Robin, not make any mistakes on this trip. A gaffe could be a killer for Barack Obama. In Iraq, he's got a special problem. As Martha hinted at just a couple of minutes ago, he is going to be talking to commanders who disagree with the timeline he's set out for Iraq.

And he -- somehow, he's got to find a way to show that he's listening to the commanders but is not giving up on his principles. That's going to be difficulty number one. Number two, in Israel, he'll face this tricky thicket of -- of questions about the Middle East peace process. Many presidential candidates have made mistakes on -- on that before. He's going to have to avoid that. In Europe, it's slightly different. In Europe, he -- he's -- he's facing a situation where he does have an advantage on foreign policy, improving America's image in the world. And somehow, he's got to express the aspirations for the United States, the aspirations of an Obama policy without appearing to criticize President Bush overseas.

ROBERTS: And finally, how does McCain counter all of this attention that Obama is going to be receiving on this trip?

STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign is very frustrated by this, as you know. All three evening news anchors going over to -- on this foreign soil with Barack Obama. They know he's gonna get a lot of attention. I think they will look to take quick hits every day and, of course, pounce on any mistake that Barack Obama makes. That would be the big opening for the McCain campaign.

ROBERTS: All right, George, thank you as always for "The Bottom Line," and have a good weekend.

From the July 17 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House:

DAVID GREGORY (host): All right. Next up, Obama studying the script for his world stage debut next week. He's expected to stick closely to campaign talking points to avoid a potential gaffe that, as we say, could be heard round the world. The big challenge is meeting with General Petraeus.

Last month, John McCain spoke in Ottawa, Canada, but this afternoon, he attacked Senator Barack Obama for delivering a speech in Berlin to 200,000 waving American flags and chanting "Obama!"

In his interview with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, which will air on NBC's Nightly News tonight, McCain questions whether Obama should have given a speech in Berlin before becoming president.

"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make."

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign. [emphasis added]

During the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 24 edition of MSNBC Live, host Alex Witt said that Sen. John McCain's campaign "is responding to reports that Barack Obama has already set up a White House transition team. A McCain spokesman says, quote, 'Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball.' " Witt did not challenge the McCain campaign's suggestion that it is unusual or inappropriate for presumptive nominees to plan for a presidential transition, as the Obama campaign is reportedly doing. Indeed, Clay Johnson, the executive director of the Bush-Cheney transition team, reportedly began working on the Bush-Cheney transition during the summer of 2000 after Bush agreed with Johnson's assertion that it would be "irresponsible not to be doing this." Nor did Witt raise the question during the segment of whether the McCain campaign would agree with Johnson that it would be "irresponsible not to be doing this."

In a subsequent segment during the noon hour of MSNBC Live, host Contessa Brewer read the McCain campaign's statement and asked National Journal / NBC reporter Adam Aigner-Treworgy: "Is this a theme that the McCain campaign is going to push, that Obama is getting ahead of himself?" Aigner-Treworgy replied:

John McCain just sat down with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell just an hour ago and she asked him about this transition team. And he said of course every campaign once you get to this stage, and you're on the verge of securing your party's nomination at the convention, you begin to think of how you transition to the presidency. John McCain said that he, himself, was already of course working on policy and then political proposals so that they could hit the ground running. He's spoken with his advisers about how exactly they would enact those proposals and enact the policies that are forwarded to him. Although he said that on a -- on a specific staff level and on an organizational level, they may not be -- be stepping up to the rate -- the place where Obama's stepping up. He said that the American people will have to decide whether that's presumptuous or not.

In a chapter from The Nerve Center: Lessons in Governing from the White House Chiefs of Staff (Texas A&M University Press, 2004), University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill associate professor Terry Sullivan wrote that then-Gov. George W. Bush approved Johnson's program for a White House transition in the summer of 2000. Sullivan sourced the information to a September 2002 interview with Johnson. From Sullivan's chapter:

Beginning in the spring of 1999, Governor Bush reorganized his staff, moving his then Chief of Staff Joe Albaugh into the campaign as director and Clay Johnson, III from Appointments Director to Chief of Staff. Governor Bush then charged Johnson to "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." A year later with the primary season behind him and the prospects of the general campaign settling in, Candidate Bush worried about their planning effort finding its way into the campaign coverage. Having thought through this problem for almost a year, Johnson responded by stressing the necessity of the task. "It has to happen," he recalls telling the Governor, "We just have to figure out the best way to spin it. It's irresponsible not to be doing this." Persuaded and committed to his earlier decision, Candidate Bush took Johnson's advice. Thus, the former Chiefs of Staff reached a second of their goals when, only a few days after the [June 2000, Washington] Forum [on the Role of the White House Chief of Staff] and bolstered by Johnson's own argument, the Bush for President senior campaign staff approved Clay Johnson's program, setting out eight goals for their presidential transition still five months in the future, if at all.

In a March 2002 paper in PS: Political Science and Politics, Johnson wrote:

In the spring of 1999, I was Gov. George W. Bush's appointments director. ... When the governor decided to run for president, he asked me to succeed his chief of staff, who was leaving to direct the campaign. He also asked me to develop a plan for setting up his new administration, or as he put it, "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." ... In the spring of 2000 I also began to visit with the likes of Jim Baker, George Shultz, and Ed Meese, who had been involved in setting up and guiding previous administrations at the highest levels.

During a December 11, 2001, discussion at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), then-White House senior adviser Karl Rove said the Bush-Cheney campaign wanted its transition program "to be very low visibility." Rove further stated: "Clay worked for months before anybody discovered him. And he was looking at how do you go about staffing up an administration? How do you organize a personnel shop? How do you organize a search for the subcabinet? What kind of procedures are there in place?"

From the AEI discussion:

THOMAS MANN (Brookings Institution senior fellow): Let's begin this way. There's a general sense that campaigns typically frustrate good government, rather than enable it. You've been with George Bush for a long time. Could you tell us when you began to think and plan for a Bush presidency as distinct from a Bush campaign?

MR. ROVE: I'm not certain that the distinction is -- that there is a distinction. I mean, Governor Bush -- Candidate Bush, when he ran for governor, talked about four big things he was going to run on for governor, and then proceeded in office to do them. I think his view of a campaign is that the campaign is a prelude to governing, that you talk about in a campaign what you would hope to govern about, and that you seek popular support and a mandate, if you will, to pursue those goals.

So I'm not certain at the distinction between campaigning and governing. When he talked about a tax cut in the campaign, he meant it. When he talked about, went and gave three speeches on education reform, he meant it. So for him there is no distinction between the two. So when he began thinking about running for President, he began to build a rather robust team of advisors on issues for exactly that reason. He believed that campaigning was a prelude to governing, and so he wanted to use the process of campaigning and the development of public policy during that campaign as an integral part of his governance.

MR. MANN: But oftentimes presidential candidates get themselves maneuvered into positions in a campaign that then kind of frustrate what they'd like to do afterwards, and they also end up being reluctant to engage in sort of nuts-and-bolts planning for the presidency because it seems presumptuous to think of aspects of governing while they're still candidates. Were those concerns or difficulties for you at all?

MR. ROVE: Well, there are two different parts of that. The second was a difficulty, I mean, because we did not want to look presumptuous, because this may surprise you, and it may surprise certain members of the audience seated over here, but the members of the press really like to do lots of process stories in campaigns. So they would like to jump on this idea of looking presumptuous. So a lot of what you would do, and to be necessarily prepared for any transition, if you style it as transition, they will cover it as transition, they will turn it into an entire process story. So this is why we were very sensitive about this.

But nonetheless, we recognized, when we began this policy planning process, that this was an integral part of governance, and have transition planning. We hired a policy director for the campaign before we hired a political director. We hired Josh Bolten before we hired a political director for the campaign. And we recognize that these teams of people that we would have in the policy apparatus, you know, people like Rich Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, and Larry Lindsey, would all -- Don Evans -- would necessarily find their -- there was a high likelihood of them finding their way into government -- Glenn Hubbard. We recognized that this was a prelude to transition, but we never called it transition.

MR. MANN: Now, what was the connection between Clay Johnson's operation on the sort of nuts and bolts early on and the broader campaign?

MR. ROVE: Well, it was separate and apart from it. We necessarily wanted it to be so. We also wanted it to be very low visibility, which it was. I mean, Clay worked for months before anybody discovered him. And he was looking at how do you go about staffing up an administration? How do you organize a personnel shop? How do you organize a search for the subcabinet? What kind of procedures are there in place? What kind of rules govern it? What kind of, really, paper flow there's going to be? And one of the early questions was paper flow, because this is an extraordinarily difficult thing to manage. You know, everybody wants to be in government, and how do you simply manage that process and cull out good names from bad and just handle the paper flow? But he began that work during the summer. He's speaking to you at lunch. He'll know exactly when. I was concerned about the Paducah media market at the time, and so I don't remember exactly where it was.

[Laughter.]

MR. ROVE: But he began the work during the summer, and did so, worked for months in stealth mode before he was discovered.

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live:

WITT: John McCain's campaign, everyone, is responding to reports that Barack Obama has already set up a White House transition team. A McCain spokesman says, quote, "Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball." Again, this is in response to reports in the media that Obama has already set up a White House transition team, though no confirmation on that yet by NBC News. But we wanted to put the McCain camp statement out there nonetheless.

From the noon hour of the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: And I know the McCain campaign is also responding to the news that Barack Obama has already set up a presidential transition team. The team that would go from one president to the next, and McCain's statement reads: "Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball."

Is this a theme that the -- the campaign is going to push, that Obama's getting ahead of himself?

AIGNER-TREWORGY: Well, that was actually -- the statement that you just read was from a spokesperson from the campaign. John McCain just sat down with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell just an hour ago and she asked him about this transition team. And he said of course every campaign once you get to this stage, and you're on the verge of securing your party's nomination at the convention, you begin to think of how you transition to the presidency. John McCain said that he, himself, was already of course working on policy and then political proposals so that they could hit the ground running. He's spoken with his advisers about how exactly they would enact those proposals and enact the policies that are forwarded to him. Although he said that on a -- on a specific staff level and on an organizational level, they may not be -- be stepping up to the rate -- the place where Obama's stepping up. He said that the American people will have to decide whether that's presumptuous or not.

All right, Adam, good to talk to you. Thanks.

AIGNER-TREWORGY: Thank you.

In a July 23 Wall Street Journal article, reporter Jesse Drucker wrote that Sen. Barack Obama has said he will "seek to raise" the capital gains tax to "at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher." In fact, Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax on individuals with income of less than $250,000 -- a fact noted by WSJ reporter Tom Herman in a July 20 "Ask Dow Jones" Q-and-A; Herman wrote, "Sen. Obama also proposes increasing taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends, but only for those people making more than $250,000."

In a videotaped interview with CNBC's John Harwood that aired on June 10, Obama said, "[K]eep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades."

Indeed, Obama's published tax proposal expressly states: "Barack Obama Will Only Raise Taxes for Those Earning Over $250,000 Per Year."

From Drucker's July 23 Wall Street Journal article:

The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.

Sen. John McCain has proposed extending the lower tax rates of 15% on long-term capital gains and dividends that apply to most taxpayers, while Sen. Barack Obama has said he will seek to raise them to at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher.

From Herman's July 20 Wall Street Journal "Ask Dow Jones" column:

Q: What are the federal income tax brackets and rates likely to be for tax year 2009? If it's too soon to have even somewhat reliable information, when might it be possible to make a prediction?

A.K., Rancho Murieta, Calif.

A: The Internal Revenue Service won't announce official income thresholds and other inflation-adjusted tax numbers, such as the standard deduction and personal exemption amounts, for tax year 2009 until late this year. However, I usually get reliable estimates, calculated by three respected private-sector tax experts, well before the IRS numbers are issued.

Last year, we published an early peek at the numbers for 2008 in late September.

The numbers came from three sources: the Tax & Accounting business of Thomson Reuters; CCH, a Wolters Kluwer business; and Northern Illinois University accountancy professor James Young.

As for tax rates: Under current law, federal income tax rates range from 10% to as high as 35%.

But nobody knows what will happen next year. Sen. John McCain wants to retain these rates. Sen. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year.

For example, Sen. Obama proposes raising the top ordinary income-tax rate of 35% to 39.6%. He also proposes raising Social Security taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year but hasn't given details, such as how much more those people would be required to pay.

Sen. Obama also proposes increasing taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends, but only for those people making more than $250,000.

Under current law, the top rate on stocks, mutual-fund shares and other securities typically is 15%.

How much higher does Sen. Obama want to make it? An adviser says the rate would be lower than the 28% rate that prevailed during the Reagan presidency and "perhaps as low as 20%."

But for people making less than $250,000, "dividends or capital-gains rates would remain where they are."

All the uncertainty makes tax planning unusually difficult this year.

From the June 10 broadcast of CNBC's Your Money, Your Vote:

OBAMA: I think that we've had an economy that's been out of balance for too long. So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.

To fully appreciate Bert Atkins' candidacy, first you have to know the backstory: In late April, Democratic Representative Bruce Darrough (HD75 in North St. Louis County) unexpectedly withdrew from the primary race for his district. The other person who had filed in the primary was Representative Juanita Head Walton's brother, Charles. Uh-oh. Head's brother-in-law, Elbert Walton, uses his Unity...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

While discussing MoveOn.org's "Petition Against Fox's Racist & Hate-Filled Smears" on the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said, "[Sen. Barack] Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and the Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component. These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan."

As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has previously called MoveOn.org and Media Matters for America "the most vicious element in our society today" and referred to the staff of both organizations as "assassins." On July 30, 2007, O'Reilly claimed that the Democratic presidential candidates were "afraid of the Daily Kos and MoveOn." O'Reilly has also repeatedly compared the Daily Kos website and its founder, Markos Moulitsas, to the Klan or white supremacist David Duke.

From the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now, in the beginning of this campaign, I told you that any media using the race card would be scrutinized by us, and that includes folks who may attack Senator Obama on that basis. But we have seen little of that.

Instead, the vile, far-left smear machines are trafficking in racial hate, and the MoveOn campaign is a vivid example of that.

To his credit, Barack Obama has not made race an issue and was embarrassed when Jesse Jackson did that a few days ago. But Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and the Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component.

These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan.

On the July 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted that there are certain groups of Democrats "that have a problem ... supporting Barack Obama" and asked Kevin Madden, former spokesman for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, "Aren't you working on those groups?" Madden responded by asserting that "McCain, whether he's talking about health care or whether he's talking about the environment or he's talking -- he's talking about what he really likes about Hillary Clinton, how he's worked well with her -- he's trying to hug those voters because he believes that his calculus for victory is right in the middle. It's not playing to the -- to the left." However, Matthews did not point out that, while talking about health care at a recent event, McCain derided Obama's plan as "HillaryCare." At the July 17 town hall, McCain asserted, "My friends, we've seen this movie before," and added, "It was called 'HillaryCare' back in 1993, and we're not going to do it again. We're not going to have the government take over the health care system in America."

From the July 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Kevin, let's go. Let's talk turkey here, right? Let's talk ethnic and gender politics. There's three groups of people, I'm sure there are tons of them, but I can think of three that are having a problem, who are Democrats, supporting Barack Obama. There are women voters who feel that Hillary Clinton was the best bet for a woman president in -- ever and that she didn't get the shot she should've gotten.

MADDEN: Right.

MATTHEWS: There are people who are very pro-Israeli, Jewish voters, right-wing Christian voters, some of them, who feel that Barack Obama is not their guy on the Middle East, right?

MADDEN: Right.

MATTHEWS: There are also a lot of rich Clinton supporters who built careers investing in the Clintons --

MADDEN: Well, you are --

MATTHEWS: -- who aren't too thrilled about having the wrong guy become the -- the next Democratic president. Aren't you guys out there trying to get all three of those groups?

MADDEN: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Aren't you working on those groups?

MADDEN: And -- and -- and --

MATTHEWS: Absolutely.

MADDEN: Lunch -- lunch-pail Democrats. I mean, that's essentially that -- where -- your representative of the big middle. And you see McCain, whether he's talking about health care or whether he's talking about the environment or he's talking -- he's talking about what he really likes about Hillary Clinton --

MATTHEWS: Right.

MADDEN: -- how he's worked well with her -- he's trying to hug those voters because he believes that his calculus for victory is right in the middle. It's not playing to the -- to the left.

MATTHEWS: But that thing today about the Holocaust, the second Holocaust. I think -- and saying that --

MADDEN: That's a big risk for him.

MATTHEWS: Barack Obama is willing to lose an elec -- a war so he can win an election. That's pretty raw stuff.

While John McCain's press office was blasting Senator Obama's preparation for the possibility of a transition to an Obama administration, John McCain was defending the move.

BREWER: And I know the McCain campaign is also responding to the news that Barack Obama has already set up a presidential transition team, the team that would go from one president to the next. And McCain’s statement reads “Before they’ve even crossed the 50-yard line the Obama campaign already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama’s poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball.” Is this a theme that the campaign is going to push, that Obama’s getting ahead of himself?

AIGNER: Well that was actually, the statement that you just read was from a spokesperson for the campaign. John McCain just sat down with NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell just an hour ago and she asked him about the transition team. And he said of course every campaign once you get to this stage, and you’re on the verge of securing your party’s nomination at the convention, you begin to think of how you transition to the presidency. McCain said that he, himself, was already of course working on policy and political proposals to they could hit the ground running. He’s spoken with his advisors about how exactly they would enact those proposals and enact the policies that are important to him. Although he said that on a specific staff level and on an organizational level, they might not be stepping up to the place where Obama’s stepping up. He said the American people will have to decide whether that’s presumptuous or not. [emphasis added]

John McCain says one thing, his campaign does another. Seems to be a pattern this election cycle.

In the now infamous interview between CBS' Katie Couric and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee apparently believes the war in Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attacks originated, is not a "major conflict."

Couric: Sen. Obama also told me, Sen. McCain, that the money spent on those additional troops, on the surge, might have been more effective had it gone to Afghanistan or even to a better energy policy in the United States. What's your response?

McCain: The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world. [emphasis added]

According to John McCain, the war in Afghanistan doesn't count as a "major conflict." That explains why the Bush/McCain policies of ignoring Afghanistan and diverting resources to Iraq have led to the major problems we currently see there after nearly seven years of war.

Senator Barack Obama, however, advocated for a stronger American commitment to Afghanistan. Additionally, in his speech in front of nearly a quarter million Berliners today, Senator Obama called on Europe to commit more to the fight in Afghanistan, the true central front in the war on terror.

Update: Here's the video:

CBS News now reportedly acknowledges that it erred in splicing video of an interview with Sen. John McCain, in which the network expunged a false statement made by McCain and included an answer he gave to a different question from the one he was purportedly answering. But, according to a July 24 Washington Post article, CBS News senior vice president Paul Friedman maintains, falsely, that the video as aired did not misrepresent what McCain said.

The Post reported that Friedman issued the following statement: "The report was edited under extreme time constraints and one piece of tape was put in the wrong order. Fortunately, this did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying."

CBS News' initial response to the controversy, as reported by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, included no such admission of error. According to Smith, CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Farley stated: "As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night's Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates' major differences."

But contrary to Friedman's assertion that the video compilation "did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying," the editing of the interview did, in fact, distort McCain's comments by expunging his false statement, as Media Matters for America has documented. On the CBS Evening News, Couric aired comments by McCain spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview -- one of which responded to a different question -- rather than airing McCain's direct reply to her question, which included McCain's false claim that the 2007 U.S. troop surge in Iraq "began the Anbar Awakening" -- an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations. In fact, the Anbar Awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced.

During the July 23 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Stuart Varney misrepresented the cost of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, falsely asserting that the "House, right now, [is] voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill." During the segment, on-air captions read "$300B Bailout Bill," and "House Voting On $300B Housing Bailout Bill." In fact, while the legislation authorizes the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, among several other provisions in the bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that, in total, the bill "would increase budget deficits (or reduce future surpluses) by about $24.9 billion over the 2008-2018 period."

As Media Matters for America documented, Your World has previously falsely asserted that a separate housing bill, the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act, which also authorized the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in loans, would cost $300 billion. On the May 7 edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto said of that bill: "[Congress is] about to spend a lot of capital -- try 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package virtually assured a thumbs up in Congress, and equally assured a thumbs down by President Bush." During the segment, an on-air graphic read, "House lawmakers set to pass $300B housing bill; bailout?" In fact, while the legislation would also have authorized the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, the CBO estimated that loans that would be insured under the new program would total about $85 billion, at an estimated cost to the government of $1.7 billion over the 2008-2013 period.

From the July 23 broadcast of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto:

VARNEY: And a live look at Capitol Hill. The House, right now, voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill. The president just saying he is gonna sign it. [Rep.] Ron Paul [R-TX] is furious and he's here.

[...]

VARNEY: A live look at Capitol Hill, House members inside right now voting on that $300 billion bailout bill. The president saying today will sign it even though Democrats tacked billions on to it. My next guest voting against it. Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. Congressman, good to have you with us, thanks for being here.

Earlier this week, John McCain grossly misstated the timeline of the Anbar awakening as having taken place because of the surge, despite the fact that it started almost four months before the surge was even announced.

Reporters peppered John McCain with questions about his factually incorrect timeline in the cheese aisle of a Pennsylvania supermarket. McCain attempted to explain that up is down, the sky is green, and he did not jumble the timeline of events.

In the New York Times, John McCain's home state of Arizona is not in his safe column.

But a variety of factors have made Mr. McCain’s chances in Arizona less assured than they ordinarily would seem, which his campaign has acknowledged.

The number of independent voters in Arizona has risen 12 percent since 2004, and those voters have helped send a Democrat to the governor’s mansion and given the party four of the state’s eight Congressional seats — including two in 2006, one in a historically Republican district.

At the same time, Arizona Democrats, like many of their counterparts around the country, have outpaced Republicans in voter registration, adding almost 20,000 voters to the rolls since March, compared with the Republican majority’s 8,600 new voters. The second-term Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, remains wildly popular.

And Democrats are not going to cede the state to McCain, either:

“John McCain has striking vulnerabilities here,” said Emily DeRose, spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party. “We are going to take him to the mat. We are not giving him a pass in Arizona.”

On the July 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, guest Ben Stein, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's plan to deliver his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination at Denver's Invesco Field, stated that he did not "like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people" because "[t]hat is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America." Stein continued: "Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past."

Host Beck responded that he has "been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever. ... I mean it's crazy." Stein then declared, "It's a scary situation. ... But 75,000 people screaming in an outdoor arena, that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily authoritarian." He continued: "It's like Juan Peron and Evita."

Stein is not the first guest on Glenn Beck to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler. On February 22, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said: "I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, 'I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me.' FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, 'All your problems can be solved.' "

From the July 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

STEIN: I want -- I'm glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don't like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America. We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past.

BECK: Well, yeah, you know what? I've been -- I've been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever.

STEIN: Well, I think --

BECK: I mean it's crazy.

STEIN: It's a scary situation. I mean, I think he has to recognize some bounds on his own ego. I understand politicians are politicians because they have ego deficit problems and they try to cure them by having lots of worship and adulation and adoration. But 75,000 people screaming at an outdoor arena, that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily authoritarian.

BECK: Ben --

STEIN: It's like Juan Peron --

BECK: It's not --

STEIN: -- and Evita.

BECK: It's not gonna make a difference.

Senator Barack Obama will deliver a speech in Berlin, Germany at the Siegessäule, or the Victory Column, in Tiergarten Park at 1pm Eastern.

In the meantime, check out these photos from Senator Obama's arrival in Berlin:

The fundamentals of our economy are strong, says John McCain. Reuters, however, has a different story:

The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped 34,000 last week, government data on Thursday showed, reflecting seasonal volatility typical at this time of year.

Initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 406,000 in the week ended July 19, from a revised 372,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the highest reading since late March.

So stop your whining.