In a July 20 guest column, regular Pueblo Chieftain contributor Don Bendell misrepresented reporting in a July 5 Associated Press article to claim the news service had documented that "concentrated uranium yellowcake and numerous devices to produce hundreds of nuclear bombs have just been discovered at Saddam Hussein's Tuwaitha nuclear complex." In fact, the AP article to which Bendell referred explicitly stated that the yellowcake recently removed from the site was part of the nuclear stockpile known to have been at Tuwaitha since 1991.

Bendell also stated that "liberals and many news media [have called] President Bush a liar" regarding claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and he asked, "[W]hy have we not heard any of the vociferous congressional leaders or liberal broadcasters publicly apologize to the president, who they so loudly slandered the past five years with the entire world listening, especially our enemies while we are at war?"

Contrary to Bendell's assertion that AP reported the yellowcake had "just been discovered" and his suggestion that its existence supported the administration's exaggerated prewar claims of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program, the AP article to which he referred reported that having been secured by United Nations inspectors, the yellowcake from Tuwaitha "had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War." The article also stated that, according to an official, "[t]here was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991." Moreover, the AP article reported that the recent removal of the yellowcake concluded a sale by the current Iraqi government to the Canadian uranium producer Cameco, a deal the AP reported "culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives -- kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way."

Although Bendell also claimed the AP article reported discovery of "more than 1.2 million pounds of concentrated uranium yellowcake and numerous devices to produce hundreds of nuclear bombs," the article itself actually noted that in addition to the yellowcake, the military earlier this year removed from the Tuwaitha site -- which it stated was "well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts" -- "four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official." The article did not mention any other "devices" associated with potential bomb making.

From Don Bendell's July 20 Pueblo Chieftain guest column, "Where is John Wayne's America? Times demand a man of character":

For years, I have listened to liberals and many news media call President Bush a liar, a scoundrel and many other vile names, stating that he lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.

Now, however, an Associated Press report on July 6 very clearly documented that more than 1.2 million pounds of concentrated uranium yellowcake and numerous devices to produce hundreds of nuclear bombs have just been discovered at Saddam Hussein's Tuwaitha nuclear complex only 12 miles south of Baghdad.

These recently were safely removed from Iraq and shipped to Canada for storage. This is not a hoped for conservative victory, or surmised claim by a rightwing Weblog, but a major news story by the AP, which picked it up from a foreign newspaper that broke the story.

Why have you not heard about it as the lead story on any of the major news networks? Why have you not read about it on the front page of every newspaper in our nation? Also, why have we not heard any of the vociferous congressional leaders or liberal broadcasters publicly apologize to the president, who they so loudly slandered the past five years with the entire world listening, especially our enemies while we are at war? Where are John Kerry, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and all the other slanderers now? Where are the apologies from the Hollywood elite who seem to feel they have all the answers for our nation, especially when they are plugging their latest movie releases or books?

From the July 5 AP article, "Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq":

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad -- using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

[...]

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

Secret mission

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives -- kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.

Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger -- and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims -- led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site -- surrounded by huge sand berms -- following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.

[...]

The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.

Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.

Calling Sen. Barack Obama a "pansy ass" on his July 21 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, "Gunny" Bob Newman once again distorted the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's foreign policy positions by repeating the claim that Obama once said he "think[s] we should bomb Pakistan." However, as Colorado Media Matters noted when Newman made a similar assertion on February 28, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, Obama actually stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama made any actions conditional and did not specify what actions he would take. Moreover, Newman failed to mention that, as Media Matters for America has noted, several media outlets, including The Washington Post, have reported that the United States in January used a CIA Predator aircraft to launch missile strikes at terrorist targets inside Pakistan and that "the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval" from the Pakistani government.

Further, as Media Matters has noted, in a July 15 foreign policy speech Obama echoed his earlier statements, saying: "We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like [Osama] bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Newman's statement echoed instances in which the national media have claimed Obama said he would "invade" Pakistan or uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false assertion that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan," as Media Matters for America has documented.

Also on his July 21 show, Newman asserted that Obama exhibits "a level of -- of naïveté and ignorance that makes him so extraordinarily dangerous," adding, "And this is why Muslim terrorists from Hamas to individual terrorists and other maniacs like, you know, Moammar Gadhafi and so on want him to be the president of the United States. Because they can exploit his arrogance, ignorance, and -- and extraordinary ability to be naïve at a mind-blowing level. That's why they want him. Because they know they can exploit him and kill more of us. And he's not going to do a damn thing about it because he's a pansy ass."

Contrary to Newman's assertion that Hamas wants Obama elected president, while Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the prime minister of Hamas, reportedly said in an April 13 interview with conservative radio host John Batchelor and WorldNetDaily.com Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein that he liked Obama and hoped he would win the election, a Hamas official responded to Obama's June 4 remarks to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) by saying, according to Reuters, "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."

In addition, Newman failed to note that Obama repeatedly has denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization, including in his AIPAC speech when Obama stated that "[w]e must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements." And, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, the Obama campaign reportedly responded to Yousef's April 13 statement by saying, "Senator Obama has repeatedly rejected and denounced the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many innocents that is dedicated to Israel's destruction. As president, Obama will work with Israel to isolate terrorist groups like Hamas, target their resources, and support Israel's right and capability to defend itself from any attack."

From the July 21 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

NEWMAN: You do not go to the Germans and say, "I want to use your most holy shrine for a campaign rally." It -- you don't do it. You don't go there. Under no circumstances do you do that.

CALLER: Mm-hmm.

NEWMAN: But him, because -- because of this elitist, holier-than-thou, you know, "I am American royalty" attitude that he has, it blew up in his face. And now he's got the chancellor of Germany and a hell of a lot of Germans in a high state of piss-off at him, and he's not even the president.

CALLER: No, he's one person.

NEWMAN: And of course, what did he do a year or so ago, approximately? He comes out and instead of saying something like this - "Well you know we've got -- we've got some terrorists Taliban and Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist organization hiding out in North Waziristan in the -- in the, you know, the tribal regions of Western Pakistan --

CALLER: Right.

NEWMAN: -- and they're running cross border operations against, you know, our forces and our allies in Afghanistan in what we must do is work with [Afghani] President [Hamid] Karzai to find a way to, you know, to get a hold of that situation through, you know, through diplomatic and economic and military pressures as a combination that" -- and that's how you would approach that. But what did Obama do? Obama says, "I think we should bomb Pakistan." Now,what does -- what does that do immediately with the Pakistanis?

CALLER Pisses them off.

NEWMAN: They're -- they're flipping us off. Like, what the hell are you talking about? But -- the -- the -- the -- It's one gaffe after another with this character.

[...]

NEWMAN: Yeah, and we-- we -- we've got all of our military -- so many of our military personnel and politicians saying, you know what? The Iranians are responsible for the murders of hundreds, likely thousands, of our military personnel in Iraq because they send their terrorists over to kill them and -- and -- and Obama doesn't have really that big of a problem with it. He has so little of a problem with it that he says "No, we -- we should not hold them accountable militarily. We should -- I'll just personally sit down with that terrorist regime and -- um -- I'll get them to change their ways." This is a level of -- of naïveté and ignorance that makes him so extraordinarily dangerous.

And this is why Muslim terrorists from Hamas to individual terrorists and other maniacs like, you know, Moammar Gadhafi and so on want him to be the president of the United States. Because they can exploit his arrogance, ignorance, and -- and extraordinary ability to be naïve at a mind-blowing level. That's why they want him. Because they know they can exploit him and kill more of us. And he's not going to do a damn thing about it because he's a pansy ass.

Echoing a misleading assertion made by President Bush in June and repeated by other Republicans since, the Rocky Mountain News uncritically reported in a July 23 article that the next item on the "to-do list" for U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) is "[b]ringing down gas prices by increasing off-shore drilling and drilling in the Alaskan [sic] National Wildlife Refuge." The News failed to mention that Energy Department researchers have concluded that such oil exploration would not yield any benefit for many years, as Media Matters for America has noted. Indeed, in its May 2008 Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade: "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018 [emphasis added]."

Moreover, in its Annual Energy Outlook for 2007, which considered the likely effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain offshore drilling to expire in 2012, the EIA stated: "The projections in the [Outer Continental Shelf] OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."

Media Matters noted that despite federal researchers' findings that challenge Bush's claims, MSNBC Live anchor Contessa Brewer on June 9 uncritically broadcast his assertion that drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore would "tak[e] pressure off gasoline for our hardworking Americans."

From the July 23 Rocky Mountain News article by Ed Sealover, "Doug Lamborn focuses on congressional work ":

Just 3 1/2 weeks before the primary election, Congressman Doug Lamborn spent much of his Friday at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on a congressional fact-finding trip rather than raising money or votes.

The day epitomizes the way the first-term Republican is approaching the three-man GOP primary that will determine his political future.

As his two opponents continue to jab at Lamborn and try to engage him in discussion, he has focused on his job, concentrating on trying to build influence and cast conservative votes.

Opponents accuse Lamborn -- who two years ago won a six-way primary for an open seat by 892 votes -- of ducking the issues. They say he lacks leadership or accomplishments in Congress.

The 54-year-old former state legislator responds by noting that he has yet to find policy differences between himself, businessman Jeff Crank and retired military officer Bentley Rayburn. Debates can only turn personal at this point, he said, and he is trying to keep a low profile so that the race does not become a series of personal attacks and so that the party can come back together after the primary.

[...]

Despite criticisms of overspending on constituent mailers -- he's spent more than any other House member from Colorado -- Lamborn maintains he is a true fiscal conservative.

He points to endorsements from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth to back him on this claim.

Next on his to-do list: Bringing down gas prices by increasing off-shore drilling and drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

In assessing the impact of hypothetical legislation that would allow drilling in ANWR, the EIA "assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years." The EIA stated, "The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather 'windows' for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window)." The EIA continued:

The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:

• 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
• 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
• 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
• 3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.
• The 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM's draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM's approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM's approval of a specific lease-development proposal.

Further, in assessing the likely impact of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf area if the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain offshore drilling were to expire in 2012, the EIA stated that "despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020." The EIA continued: "Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices."

In a July 20 article about the efforts of Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) energy office to gain power utilities' participation "in a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2020," The Denver Post quoted the criticism of Stan Lewandowski, general manager of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), that the Colorado Climate Action Plan represents "economic and quality-of-life suicide." However, the Post article did not mention Lewandowski's role in IREA's controversial funding of Patrick J. Michaels, a prominent critic of certain widely accepted scientific views on global warming, or Lewandowski's call in a July 17, 2006, memo for member utilities to "support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against" global warming "alarmists."

From the July 20 article in The Denver Post, "Power co-op calls Ritter's CO2 plan 'suicide,' " by Andy Vuong:

The governor's energy office reached out this month to the state's municipal and member-owned utilities with hopes of garnering participation in a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

The office laid out a six-month timeline that would start with a meeting in early August and wrap up with each of the utilities submitting carbon reduction proposals by the end of January.

While several utilities said they would participate, the state's largest power cooperative is giving Gov. Bill Ritter and his staff the cold shoulder.

"We've just told them that we don't want to go to your meeting and we don't want to participate in your process," said Stan Lewandowski, general manager of Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which serves 137,000 customers in 10 counties.

He calls Ritter's Climate Action Plan, announced in November 2007, "economic and quality-of-life suicide."

"With the current condition of our economy, now is not the time to experiment with costly steps taken to achieve an uncertain end," Lewandowski wrote in a response to Tom Plant, director of Ritter's energy office.

Utilities are shutting off more homes this year because of delinquent bills as souring energy and food prices strain household budgets.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted regarding reporting on IREA's opposition to House Bill 1281 -- renewable-energy legislation that Ritter signed on March 27, 2007 -- Lewandowski in his July 2006 memo stated that IREA "contributed $100,000" to Michaels. The Rocky Mountain News on August 3, 2006, reported that Lewandowski "is coming under fire from scientists and co-op members" because of Michaels' hiring, noting that some IREA members said Lewandowski "overstepped his authority."

Additionally, Colorado Media Matters previously noted that a January 3, 2007, report by the Union of Concerned Scientists identified Michaels as a climate change "contrarian" affiliated with groups funded by multinational petroleum giant ExxonMobil Corp. to "manufacture[] uncertainty" regarding global warming. According to the report's Executive Summary:

Many of these organizations have an overlapping -- sometimes identical -- collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors. By publishing and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople, ExxonMobil-funded organizations have propped up and amplified work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

In a July 17 article about prospects for natural gas development in Colorado, The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction uncritically quoted "Greg Schnacke of Americans for American Energy" (AAE) as declaring, "Every time I turn around, they (environmental groups) are launching lawsuits or administrative or legislative challenges across the West." But the article by Gary Harmon failed to identify Schnacke, who is president and CEO of AAE, as an energy industry lobbyist. Schnacke for 13 years headed the Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA) -- the industry's main trade association in the state -- and works for the lobbying firm that created AAE, as Colorado Media Matters repeatedly has noted.

The newspaper also stated flatly that "natural gas is considered a clean source of energy" without noting that like coal and oil, it is a fossil fuel that produces several of the greenhouse gases considered contributors to global warming and air pollution.

The Daily Sentinel article followed oilman T. Boone Pickens' July 8 announcement of a campaign to promote an energy plan that would use wind power for electricity generation and natural gas as substitute for gasoline and diesel fuel.

From the July 17 article in The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction, "Pickens' plan for gas could fire up drill fights," by Gary Harmon:

"At first glance, we're not opposed to T. Boone Pickens' plans," said Duke Cox, chairman of the natural gas committee of the Western Colorado Congress, which has been at the forefront of environmental fights over drilling in western Colorado.

Much of western Colorado is underlain by the natural gas reserves of the Piceance Basin, which are estimated at 200 trillion to 300 trillion cubic feet.

The Roan Plateau alone sits atop an estimated 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The size of the Piceance's reserves isn't lost on the congress, Cox said.

"It's never been an issue of whether or not to harvest it," Cox said. "It's how it's harvested and how and when it's harvested."

That didn't impress Greg Schnacke of Americans for American Energy, who said the importance of natural gas has been underestimated in the production of renewable-energy sources.

Even though natural gas is considered a clean source of energy, "Every time I turn around, they (environmental groups) are launching lawsuits or administrative or legislative challenges across the West," impeding development, Schnacke said.

The Daily Sentinel failed to disclose that Schnacke is vice president of the lobbying firm Policy Communications Inc., which founded AAE, according to its website. The firm's clients include "companies, associations, and organizations" associated with "[a]dvanced power generation/coal technologies," "[e]nergy services," and "[o]il & gas exploration, production and distribution." Moreover, an August 15, 2007, article in The Denver Post reported that AAE was formed "to advocate for increased energy development and less regulation," as Colorado Media Matters also pointed out. In an October 25, 2007, article (accessed through the Nexis database), the Post described AAE as "a front for the oil-and-gas industry."

Further, the Daily Sentinel did not substantiate its assertion that "natural gas is considered a clean source of energy." In fact, according to a background report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, natural gas produces significantly lower "global warming emissions" than do coal or oil, but it is considered a "greenhouse gas" and produces other harmful emissions considered contributors to global warming and air pollution. The backgrounder states:

Although natural gas is a fossil fuel and so is made up mostly of carbon, global warming emissions from gas are much less than coal or oil. Compared to coal, gas produces 43 percent fewer carbon emissions for each unit of energy produced, and 30 percent less than oil. Gas also produces no solid waste, unlike the massive amounts of ash from a coal plant, and very little sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions.

On the other hand, the combustion of gas still produces nitrogen oxides, a cause of smog and acid rain. And while carbon emissions are lower, natural gas itself is a powerful greenhouse gas. Natural gas (methane) is much more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, 58 times more effective on a pound-for-pound basis. Methane concentrations have increased eight times faster than carbon dioxide, doubling since the beginning of the industrial age. Natural gas use has accounted for about 10 percent of all global warming emissions.

Likewise, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, burning of fossil fuels such as natural gas emits nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, which were among the greenhouse gases cited in the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as among the anthropogenic contributors to global warming.

In a July 18 article about changes to rules governing the oil and gas industry proposed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Rocky Mountain News uncritically reported the claim made in an ad sponsored by two energy industry trade groups that as a result of the changes, "[a] total of 10,714 workers will go without paychecks for a good portion of the fall and winter months." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, the proposal includes alternatives to seasonal shutdowns of drilling operations -- a clarification that the commission's acting director, David Neslin, made in a June 18 News Speakout guest column headlined "Mandatory shutdown of drilling a red herring."

From the July 18 Rocky Mountain News article "Drilling rules now up to panel," by Gargi Chakrabarty:

Last year, Gov. Bill Ritter expanded the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to nine members from seven, adding conservationists and an industry critic to the panel.

The legislature soon after approved a bill that directed a rewrite of the rules. Commission Director David Neslin said the changes would "balance Colorado's increasing pace of drilling and development with protections for public health, the environment and wildlife."

But the industry warned the proposed changes would drive up the cost of operations, choke off new investment and force companies to leave Colorado.

The week before the hearings began, two influential industry groups -- the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and the Colorado Petroleum Association -- launched an advertising campaign, denouncing a proposal to restrict drilling at certain months near wildlife habitat areas.

"A total of 10,714 workers will go without paychecks for a good portion of the fall and winter months," the groups said. "How they will pay for groceries, their monthly health insurance, their utilities or make their house payment is anybody's guess."

Steve Torbit, regional director of the National Wildlife Federation, says the time is ripe to impose new regulations.

"Colorado is in a leadership position here, but the wind for change is blowing across the West," Torbit said. "Companies can either do business as they did in 1910, or they can do it in the 21st century."

The News failed to provide a response to the assertion by the trade groups, the Colorado Oil & Gas Association and the Colorado Petroleum Association, that "[a] total of 10,714 workers will go without paychecks" due to drilling restrictions. The News also did not mention that the proposed rule in question -- 1208. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat -- provides three methods by which "an operator shall protect Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from adverse impacts associated with proposed oil and gas locations," and offers the option of "demonstrat[ing] that the identified habitat is not in fact present" as alternatives to the "Timing Limitation on Drilling" provision for specified habitats. Rule 1208h states that the timing limitations described in 1208e "do not apply where the Colorado Division of Wildlife has previously approved in writing a wildlife mitigation plan for the area that includes the proposed oil and gas location and remains in effect":

1208. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT

An operator shall protect Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from adverse impacts associated with proposed oil and gas locations, except gathering lines, as follows:

a. Comprehensive Drilling Plan. Operators are encouraged to develop and obtain acceptance of a Comprehensive Drilling Plan that will minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources within Sensitive Wildlife Habitat, pursuant to Rule 216;

b. Consultation. Alternatively, an operator may consult with the Commission and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to agree on conditions of approval that will minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources within Sensitive Wildlife Habitat, pursuant to Rule 306.c;

c. Limited Surface Density. Alternatively, an operator may apply for and obtain a Commission order pursuant to Rule 503 providing that there will not be more than two (2) well sites per section, except in sage grouse areas where the limitation shall be one (1) well site per section;

d. Demonstrate Lack of Habitat. Alternatively, an operator may demonstrate that the identified habitat is not in fact present to support the identified species and use; or

e. Timing Limitation on Drilling. If an operator elects not to protect Sensitive Wildlife Habitat through a Comprehensive Drilling Plan, consultation, or limited surface density as provided in Rules 1208.a, 1208.b, and 1208.c, respectively, or cannot demonstrate that the habitat is not present to support the identified species or use as provided in Rule 1208.d, then it shall refrain from drilling activity on the proposed oil and gas location in the habitats and during the periods below:

(1) Mule deer critical winter range (West of Interstate 25, except in Las Animas County).

Development activity shall be restricted between January 1 and March 31.

(2) Elk winter concentration areas (West of Interstate 25, except in Las Animas County).

Development activity shall be restricted between January 1 and March 31.

(3) Pronghorn antelope winter concentration areas (West of Interstate 25). Development activity shall be restricted between January 1 and March 31.

(4) Bighorn sheep winter range. Development activity shall be restricted between December 1 and February 28.

(5) Elk production areas. Development activity shall be restricted between May 15 and June 15.

(6) Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, plains sharp-tailed Grouse production areas.

Development activity shall be restricted in areas within 1.25 miles of active lek sites between March 15 and June 15.

(7) Greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse production areas. Development activity shall be restricted in areas within 4 miles of active lek sites between March 15 and June 15.

(8) Lesser prairie chicken production areas. Development activity shall be restricted in areas within 2.2 miles of active lek sites between March 15 and June 15.

(9) Prairie dog (White-tailed, Gunnison's). Development activity shall be restricted in active colonies between March 15 and June 15, except those colonies within 1 mile of urban development areas.

(10) Black-footed ferret release areas. Development activity shall be restricted between April 15 and June 14 in Prairie Dog colonies where Black-Footed Ferrets have been released or documented since 2001.

(11) Raptors. Development activity shall be restricted within nest buffers or roost sites during the defined nesting or roosting dates for each species, as set out below:

A. Bald eagle nest sites. Development activity shall be restricted in areas within 1/2 mile of active bald eagle nest sites between March 1 and May 31.

B. Bald eagle winter night roost sites. Development activity shall be restricted in areas within 1/2 mile of a bald eagle winter night roost site where there is a direct line of sight to the roost or in areas within 1/4 mile where there is no direct line of sight to the roost between December 1 and February 28. Notwithstanding the foregoing, operators may conduct periodic visits for activities such as oil maintenance and monitoring work within the buffer zone after development, however such activities should be restricted to the period between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

C. Golden eagle nest sites. Development activity shall be restricted in areas within 1/4 mile of active nest sites between March 1 to May 31.

f. During the period of a Timing Limitation on Drilling in Rule 1208.e, ground disturbing activities are prohibited, including construction, drilling and completion, non-emergency workovers, and pipeline installation activity, except in the event of situations posing a risk to public health, safety, welfare, or the environment or to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources. During the period of the timing limitations, production, routine maintenance, emergency operations, reclamation activities, or habitat improvements are not prohibited.

g. Where the proposed oil and gas location is subject to multiple timing limitations on drilling under Rule 1202.e, then the Colorado Division of Wildlife shall determine which timing limitation or combination of timing limitations shall apply; provided, that such determination shall provide a window for drilling that is in all instances nine (9) continuous months or more, unless otherwise agreed to by the operator.

h. Exemption. The provisions of Rule 1208.e do not apply where the Colorado Division of Wildlife has previously approved in writing a wildlife mitigation plan for the area that includes the proposed oil and gas location and remains in effect [emphasis added].

In his News guest column, Neslin stated that when the new wildlife rules go into effect, "the energy companies will be given multiple options to avoid the 90-day drilling restrictions," adding, "Such restrictions would be the last resort for companies that choose not to work with the Division of Wildlife." Similarly, a June 23 online Denver Post article covering a local hearing on the proposed rule changes reported that Neslin "said there are several ways for operators to avoid having to shut down for 90 days, such as if they agree to work with the Division of Wildlife on a comprehensive mitigation plan."

In a conversation with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on his July 16 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Independence Institute President Jon Caldara misrepresented the state of energy development under Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, stating Ritter and lawmakers "will not allow drilling for natural gas for energy customers." Caldara failed to point out that, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's most recent Weekly & Monthly Oil & Gas Statistics report, the state is issuing drilling permits for oil and gas wells at a significantly greater pace now than in the two years before Ritter took office in 2007.

According to the commission, the number of new oil and gas well permits rose from 4,323 in 2005 and 5,904 in 2006 to 6,368 in 2007 -- the first year of Ritter's term -- and totaled 3,804 in 2008 through July 7. Therefore, the state issued 10,227 permits in the 24 months preceding Ritter's administration -- an average of about 426 permits per month -- and 10,172 permits in the just more than 18 months since he took office -- an average of about 565 per month.

Colorado Media Matters has noted numerous media distortions of issues related to oil and gas development in the state, including the May 29 broadcast of public television KBDI Channel 12's Independent Thinking in which Caldara allowed state Sen. Ted Harvey (R-Highlands Ranch) to assert that "the radical environmentalists ... have pretty much stopped any domestic development of natural resources here in the state of Colorado and through the West."

Later during his July 16 KOA broadcast, after Caldara asserted that liberals consider working people "disposable," Coulter added that they are "specifically the ones liberals want to die." Caldara and Coulter were discussing a July 16 Rocky Mountain News report about reactions by Ritter and state legislators to Xcel Energy's projected shut-offs of home electricity service.

From the July 16 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Jon Caldara Show:

CALDARA: All right, so check this out -- so, prices of electricity is going through the roof here in Colorado.

COULTER: Right.

CALDARA: It's just gonna get worse; here's the headline. "Governor Bill Ritter and lawmakers are discussing how to help the estimated 72,000 Xcel Energy customers projected to have their utilities shut off this year. Escalating energy prices, coupled with a steep jumps in food prices, and a record number of home foreclosures have strained pocketbooks." So, let me see if I got this: The lawmakers and the governor who will not allow drilling for natural gas for energy customers --

COULTER: Or nukes.

CALDARA: Or nukes, and also have doubled the renewable, are going to help save the people that can no longer afford to buy the energy they've just got up. It's -- it's poetry, really.

COULTER: I know. I know, I know. It drives a sane person mad.

CALDARA: And, what I love the best about this is, when it comes to working people -- you know, the people that liberals claim -- they don't care. They are disposable people.

COULTER: Exactly, that is specifically the ones liberals want to die. With, you know, their jet skis and their big ugly cars -- get them off the streets; there will be more parking for everyone. They can't conceive of what the world will look like without truck drivers and lathe operators, it just -- they don't understand. It is just like the cartoon I describe in my column this week, with one scientist showing the other scientist this formula, and there's a whole string of calculations and numbers and characters across the blackboard, and halfway through are the words "Then a miracle happens." [Caldara laughs] That's how liberals view energy. They flick a switch and, "Oh, it's a miracle; light came on." It doesn't occur to them what the world will look like when we can't afford to have, you know, transcontinental trucks bringing food to Manhattan. We're not gonna start a, you know, farm on Manhattan to grow our own food. People starve to death, and they're, you know, just as happy, because there will be less traffic.

In a July 15 online "Reality Check" of a recent campaign ad released by Sen. John McCain, KCNC CBS4's Raj Chohan stated, "McCain correctly points out that he's taken unpopular positions, and he has gone against conservative interests in his own party on campaign finance reform, global warming and immigration." However, the article omitted contrary evidence such as an analysis by The Arizona Republic of McCain's record on highly contested votes, which showed McCain "almost never thwarted his party's objectives," as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

The article also omitted that according to Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan publication that tracks legislators' votes, McCain was the Bush administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate in 2007, voting with the Republican president 95 percent of the time, as Media Matters for America has pointed out.

Additionally, the "Reality Check" article -- which the Rocky Mountain News published in shortened form on July 17 -- failed to point out that McCain switched his position on immigration reform to more closely conform to the views of the GOP base. For example, he stated in January that he "would not" vote for the immigration reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.

Further, in response to the ad's characterization of McCain as a "maverick" on "campaign reform, military reform, [and] spending reform," Chohan stated, "These claims are also true," adding in CBS4's version of the article that "[a]ccording to the campaign, the ad's claim about military reform refers to McCain's efforts to pressure the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

In fact, as Media Matters for America repeatedly has documented, McCain did not call for Rumsfeld's resignation. According to a February 16 Washington Post article, "[D]uring a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., aired on CNN, McCain said, 'I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go.' A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.' " The article also noted that "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post."

Moreover, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell issued a "clarification" after falsely claiming in March that McCain "called for Don Rumsfeld's resignation." While McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president."

Chohan's "Reality Check" began, "Republican presidential candidate John McCain has a political ad that reinforces his brand as a war hero and a man of experience." Chohan then commented on the veracity of claims in the ad, concluding that it was accurate and "an effective ad for John McCain." According to the CBS4 version:

Ad: A maverick, John McCain tackled campaign reform, military reform, spending reform.

These claims are also true. Senator McCain was a key sponsor of the 2002 law known as McCain-Feingold, aimed at getting soft money out of political campaigns. The unintended consequence has been the rise of the soft money monster known as the 527 group. McCain's critics in the GOP remain bitter about the senator's adventures into campaign finance reform. As for spending reform, the claim refers to McCain's work against congressional earmarks. According to the campaign, the ad's claim about military reform refers to McCain's efforts to pressure the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Ad: John McCain doesn't always tell us what we "hope" to hear.

McCain correctly points out that he's taken unpopular positions, and he has gone against conservative interests in his own party on campaign finance reform, global warming and immigration. But it's not the whole story. The reference to "hope" is clearly a knock on Barack Obama's campaign themes of hope and change.

Ad: Don't hope for a better life, vote for one, McCain.

Bottom line, it's an effective ad for John McCain. Experience and patriotism are among his biggest political strengths. This ad showcases both.

In saying that McCain "correctly" pointed out that he "has gone against conservative interests of his own party," Chohan failed to reference contrary evidence such as the Republic's conclusion from an analysis of McCain's voting record that "on the most divided issues in the past decade," McCain "almost never thwarted his party's objectives." The Republic further reported:

The presumptive Republican nominee arguably cast the decisive vote 14 times since 1999 to ensure Republicans got their way, and he had five other close cases where his vote may have made a difference, Senate records show. By comparison, McCain effectively handed Democrats a win on roll-call votes four times in the same period. On one of those occasions, Republicans could still have won if Vice President Dick Cheney had cast a tie-breaking vote.

The numbers are based on a review of Senate roll-call votes since 1999 that ended in a tie or were settled by one vote. The closest votes in that period included momentous, partisan-charged legislation, such as President Bush's tax cuts. More often, they were procedural votes on deal-breaking amendments to bills that would otherwise pass.

[...]

The voting pattern seems at odds with the popular narrative that McCain's maverick tendencies make him an unreliable conservative.

Additionally, in a sidebar to a February 5 article, The Washington Post listed as "Top McCain Flip-Flops" his shifts toward more conservative positions on such issues as taxes, the religious right, and immigration, which have more closely aligned him with the mainstream of the Republican Party.

On the July 15 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, co-hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman uncritically allowed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to distort the positions of his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, and U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar (D) regarding energy development on Colorado's Roan Plateau. Schaffer claimed that Udall and Salazar represented "the far left" that wanted "essentially no development" on the plateau, while describing his position as aligned with Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, who, according to Schaffer, "came right to where I usually end up on these kinds of issues, which is right in the center." However, Caplis and Silverman did not mention Udall and Salazar have introduced legislation that, according to Ritter, "substantially addresses the same goals reflected in the uniquely Colorado plan I proposed in December."

After Schaffer's appearance, Udall joined Caplis and Silverman for an interview, but neither host asked about his position regarding Roan Plateau drilling.

From the July 15 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

SILVERMAN: Well, there have been some news accounts that I'd like you to react to. One, [Rocky Mountain News reporter] Lynn Bartels wrote that you were praising Bill Ritter and his handling of the Roan Plateau.

SCHAFFER: Yeah.

SILVERMAN: Is that accurate?

SCHAFFER: Yeah, it is. I -- well, I did on that point. You know, it's -- Roan Plateau is a remarkable resource for the state of Colorado. In fact, the gas, the clean-burning natural gas that is there to be harvested can provide about 20 years of -- it could heat every house in Colorado for 20 years. And the, you know, the people on the far left -- Ken Salazar and Mark Udall -- who wanted essentially no development there, who pursued a strategy of a moratorium on development were on one side, and then those on the other side, perhaps the far-right side of that debate, were for more aggressive development strategy. And I think Ritter came right to where I usually end up on these kinds of issues, which is right in the center. And that is an effort to allow for responsible development to go forward, and it's only one percent, for example, of the top of the Roan Plateau will be developed at any one point in time, and that's -- it's not a perfect compromise, but it strikes me as a reasonable one, again, considering you had Udall on the far left, developers, energy developers on the far right, and, I think, Ritter's compromise is, makes sense.

Udall and Salazar did in fact attempt to delay drilling on the Roan for one year after the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) refused Ritter's request for extra time to review its Roan drilling plan. But they also later introduced legislation in the House (H.R. 5851) and the Senate (S. 2879) that proposed to implement a substantial portion of Ritter's plan for phased development of the Roan Plateau. In the interview with Schaffer, Caplis and Silverman failed to bring up Udall and Salazar's legislation, despite its similarity to the phased development plan with which Schaffer claimed to agree.

According to an April 17 news release from the governor's office, "Gov. Ritter today praised U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. John Salazar and Mark Udall for introducing legislation regarding land management and energy development on the Roan Plateau." The statement continued:

"The legislation introduced today substantially addresses the same goals reflected in the uniquely Colorado plan I proposed in December," Gov. Ritter said. "This legislation emphasizes significant protections for wildlife areas within the Roan and requires phased leasing and responsible development. I am confident that phased leasing will result in a more thoughtful pacing of energy development and far greater revenues to the state over time.

Furthermore, the News reported April 18 on Udall and Salazar's support of Ritter's plan:

Three Colorado Democrats will push federal legislation to require the state's Roan Plateau to be leased for energy development in phases and to expand lands designated as critical for wildlife habitat.

The package mirrors most of the provisions Gov. Bill Ritter has said he wants in place before more gas drilling begins. Ritter's requests were rejected by the Bureau of Land Management last month, prompting the current action by Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. John Salazar and Mark Udall.

Sen. Salazar, Udall, and Rep. Salazar explained the substance of their legislation in a May 15 guest op-ed in the News:

First, our bill would replace the BLM's plan to lease the entire top of the Roan Plateau all at once with a phased leasing requirement.

Second, our bill would protect the "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern" covered by Ritter's plan, while allowing development of the natural gas resources along existing ridge-top roads. (Our bill would protect an additional 3,000 acres of critical habitat for native Colorado River cutthroat trout.)

Third, our bill would authorize BLM to waive the normal limits on the size of leases in order to maximize lease revenues to the state of Colorado.

Fourth, our bill retains the BLM's existing unitization requirement and reclamation requirements.

Finally, our bill gives the state and the public a bigger say in Roan decisions.

Like Ritter's plan, our bill would allow development of nearly all of the natural gas under the Roan Plateau. It represents a win-win for Colorado and the nation.

On the July 15 broadcast of their 630 KHOW-AM show, co-hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman uncritically allowed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to mischaracterize a 2002 resolution that his opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D), introduced in advance of the Iraq War as one that Udall offered "to declare war on Iraq." Additionally, they did not challenge Schaffer's false claim -- made in comparing Udall's resolution to the one Congress adopted, H.J. Res. 114 -- that the "only difference between the two was that the use of force resolution didn't specify Iraq and Udall's still did."

Similarly, on his July 15 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Mike Rosen read from a July 15 Rocky Mountain News article that quoted Udall spokesperson Taylor West as saying that Schaffer in a July 14 debate distorted a provision in Udall's resolution "to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted." Rosen labeled the statement "laughable" and misleadingly claimed, "To make it seem as if the point of the resolution was to force diplomatic, an attempt at a diplomatic resolution, is a gross distortion of the spirit of that resolution." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted, in differentiating his measure H.J. Res. 118 from the one later adopted, in an October 9, 2002, floor speech Udall stated "new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to our national security" would be necessary to convince him that it was necessary to go to war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations, and that the United States might do so "as a last resort" after the president had "come to Congress for a separate authorization."

Caplis and Rosen discussed Udall's resolution in the context of a July 14 debate between Udall and Schaffer. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, in its July 15 reporting on the debate, the News failed to report the content and context of Udall's resolution, which support the accuracy of West's reported characterization of it as "one to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted." Rosen read from the News article about the debate before making his remarks about Udall's resolution.

From the July 15 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: So Schaffer read directly from this resolution stating that Iraq had been a state sponsor of terrorism and failed to end its weapons of mass destruction program. I actually have a copy of this joint resolution in front of me, dated October 7th, 2002, to provide preliminary authorization for the use of force against Iraq, and it proceeds with a whole bunch of whereases -- I've cited this thing many times before on this program. And wrote a column listing the highlights of this joint resolution passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and noting that, of all of the whereases, the whereases that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction greatly outnumbered the whereases that had to do with WMD.

It starts, "Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991, which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs," so on and so forth. "Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the U.N. Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687" -- OK, I won't read the whole thing; you get the point of it. A whole series of whereases authorizing the use of force against Iraq, prospectively. So, Schaffer reads directly from this resolution explaining why he supported the use of force against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. And while he's reading it, he then asks in the audience, he asked for who -- he asked who -- excuse me -- he asked those who agree with it to raise their hands, and a lot of hands were raised among Bob Schaffer's supporters in the audience, and hisses -- hisses were offered instead by supporters of Mark Udall in the audience.

"He asked who agreed with it, drawing raised hands from his supporters and hisses from Udall's"; this is directly from Ed Sealover's account in the Rocky Mountain News. So, the Udall people are booing and hissing. Then Schaffer reveals that he was reading a resolution introduced by Mark Udall himself in 2002. And I've got the resolution in front of me, October 7, 2002, and the very first line on the printed version of this resolution is "Mr. Udall of Colorado introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the committee on international relations." There was a deafening silence followed by a gasp from the Udall supporters in the audience who had hissed the resolution and then were informed that their guy, Mark Udall, had actually introduced that resolution. Grand-slam home run by Bob Schaffer. A severe blow to the body of Mark Udall and his supporters.

[...]

ROSEN: And then in the Rocky story, the damage-control effort by Udall after Schaffer zinged him on his own resolution, Udall's resolution. It says, "Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West called the move a distortion of the record, saying the resolution was one to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted." That is laughable. That's a very minor element of the resolution, which was very forceful itself in laying out the case why Congress is authorizing military force against Saddam Hussein. To make it seem as if the point of the resolution was to force diplomatic, an attempt at a diplomatic resolution, is a gross distortion of the spirit of that resolution.

In fact, in the October 9, 2002, floor speech, Udall proposed his resolution -- which also took the form of an amendment -- as an alternative to the one Congress later adopted:

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

Like many of my colleagues, I have struggled with the question of whether to give the President the broad authority to take our Nation into a full-scale war with Iraq. I have also struggled with the question of how to support the President's objectives and also keep faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution.

I continue to have grave reservations about acting unilaterally, acting without evidence of an imminent threat and acting without considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or without a commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the resolution we are considering today would give the President authority to act without adequately addressing these crucial questions.

Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the President in determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be on that path with us and ultimately what kind of war we intend to wage. This resolution does not allow Congress to answer these important questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the President, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is amended.

Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq as a part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the costly and difficult nation building that must follow but also to avoid compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly in the Islamic world.

As a last resort, it may be necessary for American military forces to act without the support of the United Nations Security Council. But before we do so, I believe the President should come to Congress for a separate authorization. That is what the amendment I offered to the Committee on Rules called for.

My amendment was based on a resolution I introduced, House Joint Resolution 118, which would ensure that Congress, not the President, makes this awesome decision. Regrettably, my amendment was not made in order; so I am glad that tomorrow I will have the opportunity to vote for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more consistent with the Constitution than the underlying resolution we are being asked to support.

Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it poses for our global war on terrorism, and the consequences for our security in this region, is simply irresponsible, in my view.

Do not misunderstand. I have no illusions about the duplicity of Saddam Hussein or the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of appeasement towards Saddam Hussein. But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is only part of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's threat in the context of broader security goals, including crippling al Qaeda and sustaining and building the important global relationships we need for the war against terrorism and for solving other critical global problems.

My father, Morris Udall, who was serving in Congress in 1964, came to regret his support for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution when it became clear that it was being used as a substitute for the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war. I fear that this Congress, a generation later, is poised to make a similar mistake. To avoid that, we need to reject this resolution.

Caplis and Silverman interviewed Schaffer and Udall during separate segments of their July 15 broadcast. In the earlier segment, Caplis allowed Schaffer to distort the relationship between Udall's resolution and the one Congress passed by claiming that "[t]he only difference between the two was that the use of force resolution didn't specify Iraq and Udall's still did." In fact, the adopted resolution, H.J. Res. 114, specified Iraq both in its title -- "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" -- and in its provisions.

Caplis and Silverman did not question Udall about his resolution when he when he appeared on the show later in the broadcast, but Udall corrected Schaffer's distortion, noting that the website ColoradoPols.com "has a good summary of the resolution."

From the July 15 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

CAPLIS: According to the papers there was a pretty dramatic moment yesterday during the debate when you quoted from a resolution and asked the crowd who agreed with it. In the 30 seconds we have left, can you describe that moment for us?

SCHAFFER: Well, yeah, the question was about why we're in Iraq. And what I did was read the bill that Mark Udall introduced to declare war on Iraq. And he introduced his bill three days before the real resolution passed, the use of force resolution. The only difference between the two was the use of force resolution didn't specify Iraq, and Udall's still did. So I quoted it, and it was interesting, because Udall's support for declaring war in Iraq was something that appealed to my part of the audience, but Udall's supporters didn't like it at all. But it helped answer the question, and it showed that, you know, those who once believed that Saddam was a real threat was a bipartisan representation of the U.S. House, including Udall.

CAPLIS: Right; and hey, really appreciate your time today, my friend; thank you.

SCHAFFER: Thank you.

SILVERMAN: Thanks a lot, Congressman.

CAPLIS: Thank you, Congressman Bob Schaffer; I expect and hope will be our next U.S. Senator. But Mark Udall will join us in a second. Disagree with Mark on the fundamental issues of the day but like him, and we always enjoy our conversations.

[...]

CAPLIS: You were on the show with us before the "surge," and my question now would be, looking back, looking back, you know, in retrospect, at that point in time we were in at crossroads where Senator Obama wanted us out. And under the plan he introduced at that time, and supported at that time, America would not have embarked on the surge and would have had all combat troops out of Iraq by April of this year. John McCain favored the surge; the surge went forward; obviously I think it's been a success. But bottom line is you; you're the guy running for Senate. In retrospect, do you think the surge was a good idea, or should we have followed Senator Obama's plan and pulled all of our combat troops out by the April that just passed?

UDALL: Well, Dan, let me answer your question if I could come back to the debate on Iraq yesterday, because I wanted to talk about what happened there as well. But look, when the surge was announced I opposed it, because I didn't think it would lead to a permanent solution. And I still don't think it would lead to a permanent solution; we're back at where we were in 2004. There is some good news out of Iraq, but I think the important question is how we move forward. And this is a real contrast between Congressman Schaffer and myself. He wants an open-ended commitment; he agrees with President Bush. I agree with those who in a bipartisan fashion have said, "Look, let's responsibly exit. Let's bring our troops home. Let's focus on the central front on the war on terror, which is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And let's finally hunt down Osama Bin Laden."

UDALL: That's the success that I want to see, and that's the course of action. We can't stay in Iraq in an open-ended fashion in some -- now look, yesterday there was an interesting moment when Congressman Schaffer read a portion of a bill I introduced and then implied that somehow I was eager to take us to war. And that's just simply not true; it was stunt. And what I wanted to do at the time was say, "Congressman, why don't you read the entire resolution?" And Dan and Craig, I'd urge you guys to put it on your website. ColoradoPols has a good summary of the resolution, and what I was calling for was to use all diplomatic means and then to come back to the Congress. And Bob, frankly, pulled that tactic yesterday to dodge his own record. If he'd voted for what I proposed, we wouldn't be in this situation. We wouldn't be spending $2.5 billion a week, we wouldn't have lost 4,000 Americans, and we wouldn't be facing a shortfall here at home when we need to invest in our own domestic needs, whether it's responding to the foreclosure crisis or working to bring new energy sources to the marketplace. So, that's the true story, and Bob filibustered yesterday on a couple of the questions; and I've gotta tell you that, there are enough people who filibuster in the Senate; I'm goin' over there to get somethin' done.

CAPLIS: Congressman, if I can follow up briefly. With all due respect, I'm not sure you got to my precise question, which is: Do you really think we would have been better off not pursuing the surge as you recommended and being out of Iraq by April of this year?

Reporting on a planned Colorado campaign appearance by Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama, a July 16 Rocky Mountain News article uncritically reported Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams' statement that he believes Sen. "John McCain's candidacy is far more representative of what women voters want," without noting that several national polls show Obama holding a significant lead over McCain among female voters.

The News also published Wadhams' assertion that Obama "supports higher taxes on the middle class," but provided no information about Obama's actual tax proposals. In fact, Obama has proposed raising taxes only on "people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more" and cutting taxes for middle-income families. Further, as Colorado Media Matters has pointed out, an analysis of the candidates' tax plans by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that "Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes," while "Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers."

The News article by David Montero reported, "Michelle Obama today makes her first stop in Colorado since her husband became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president -- taking part in a $1,000-a-person fundraiser." The article continued:

The trip is also designed to highlight issues important to women, and the campaign is hoping her visit will strike a chord with them. Oh, and maybe a few of those who backed Sen. Hillary Clinton in her historic campaign might take a look at Obama's platform on women's issues.

[...]

Dick Wadhams, Colorado Republican Party chairman, said Obama's policies are out of touch with the needs of women.

"I think John McCain's candidacy is far more representative of what women voters want and what all voters want," Wadhams said. "There is nothing pro-woman about a candidate who supports higher taxes on the middle class."

In quoting Wadhams' unsubstantiated statement that "McCain's candidacy is far more representative of "what women voters want," the News failed to note national polls taken in June and July that show Obama leading McCain among female voters by 6 percentage points or more. For example, in a Newsweek poll conducted July 9-10, and released July 11 by the magazine, female voters favored Obama over McCain 45 percent to 39 percent. Similarly, an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted July 10-13 showed Obama "leads by 15 points among women (54 percent to 39 percent)," the Post reported on July 16. The poll had a margin for error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Those polls reported a similar trend widely reflected by other national surveys showing Obama leading McCain among women:

• A July 7-14 CBS News/New York Times poll found Obama leading McCain among female registered voters by 46 percent to 37 percent. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
• A Quinnipiac University National Poll conducted July 8-13 found that among likely voters, "women support [Obama] 55-36 percent," with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
• A June 19-23 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed Obama ahead of McCain among female voters by 54 percent to 29 percent. The margin of error for all voters was plus or minus 3 percentage points; but the poll noted that "[f]or smaller subgroups the sampling error may be somewhat higher."
• A Reuters/Zogby poll of likely voters, conducted June 12-June 14, reported Obama leading 51 percent to 36 percent among women; it had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

• A June 12-15 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 58 percent of voters trusted Obama more than McCain "to handle ... [i]ssues of special concern to women." According to the poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, 26 percent trusted McCain over Obama on women's issues.
• According to a June 6-9 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters, women favored Obama over McCain 52 percent to 33 percent. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
• A June 5-9 Gallup poll showed women supporting Obama over McCain 51 percent to 38 percent, respectively.

Furthermore, the News did not report any background relevant to Wadhams' unsubstantiated claim that Obama "supports higher taxes on the middle class." In addition to the statements Obama has issued about his tax proposals, according to Obama's Tax Fairness Plan, he "will provide $80-85 billion in tax relief to America's workers, seniors, and homeowners." Obama's proposed tax cuts include "a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family"; "a new universal mortgage credit" that "will provide the average recipient with approximately $500 per year in tax savings," and the "eliminat[ion]" of "all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year."

According to the TPC analysis, under Obama's tax proposals, tax filers in the middle quintile -- those earning $37,595 to $66,353 annually -- would receive an average tax cut of $1,042 in 2009 and an average tax cut of $2,136 in 2012. TPC further noted that those figures represent "an average cut equal to 2.4 percent of income" in 2009 and "an average tax cut equal to 4.6 percent of income" in 2012. From the Tax Policy Center analysis:

On his July 14 broadcast, Newsradio 850 KOA host and Independence Institute President Jon Caldara uncritically allowed his guest, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Eric O'Keefe of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance, to assert that Caldara's "free-market" think tank "feed[s] accurate information" to the mainstream media as a counterbalance to what O'Keefe characterized as inaccurate information provided by "well-funded left research shops." In fact, Colorado Media Matters has noted numerous instances in which the media uncritically have reported false and misleading information provided by the Independence Institute and by prominent staff members such as Caldara.

O'Keefe stated that "you need an extra dose of skepticism these days when listening to mainstream media; they're being fed things by these well-funded left research shops," later adding, "we need to have organizations repeating facts, doing what the Independence Institute does -- look at the situation and feed accurate information. The only antidote to bad information is good information."

Colorado Media Matters has noted the following examples of misinformation from the Independence Institute that was spread through the local media:

• On June 15, The Denver Post uncritically published Caldara's claim in a guest commentary that the 2007 Colorado Children's Amendment (SB 199) "does not guarantee a single penny to education or to children" and "has no requirement that any of the money be spent on children." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters has noted repeatedly (here, here and here) when Caldara made similar claims on his Newsradio 850 KOA radio program and his KBDI Channel 12 Independent Thinking public television program, the bill's fiscal note, prepared by the nonpartisan Colorado Legislative Council Staff, estimated that because of initiatives mandated by the legislation, SB 199 would increase spending on preschool education by $6.7 million in FY 2007-08 and by $19.1 million in FY 2008-09. Additionally, the law phases in an increase in minimum per pupil state funding above levels mandated by the Colorado Constitution at an additional combined cost for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 of $19.6 million.

• In a July 14, 2007, Rocky Mountain News column, Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel dubiously asserted that Fox News "is slanted to the right ... to a lesser degree than CBS, ABC and NBC slant left" and cited a Quarterly Journal of Economics study to substantiate his claim. However, the study Kopel cited used a questionable methodology that categorized the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a "conservative" group and the RAND Corporation as a "liberal" group, and led the authors to conclude that The Wall Street Journal has more "liberal bias" than any other news outlet in America. Media Matters for America has detailed the methodological flaws in that 2005 study.

• On the July 6, 2007, broadcast of KBDI's Colorado Inside Out, Kopel called former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame an "audacious liar[]" and claimed that she "never got put under oath." In fact, as panelist Dani Newsum correctly pointed out, Plame was under oath when she testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 16 about her covert status.

• Caldara insinuated in a May 9, 2007, KMGH 7News "investigation" by reporter Tony Kovaleski that the Regional Transportation District (RTD) was involved in a "pay to play" scheme connected to the FasTracks transportation project because it awarded contracts to 28 companies that had donated to the FasTracks Yes! campaign, which supported the 2004 public transportation referendum that financed FasTracks. However, as the Rocky Mountain News reported on May 7, 2007, of the 94 firms contracted to work on FasTracks, the majority (59) did not contribute to the FasTracks Yes! campaign. The News further reported that "35 firms working on FasTracks made donations totaling $542,570," which was "15 percent of $3.63 million total." It added, "[O]ne of the highest profile contracts so far, the construction management deal on the West Corridor, went to an experienced transit-building partnership of Herzog Contracting of St. Joseph, Mo., and Stacy & Witbeck of Alameda, Calif. Neither firm gave a dime to the campaign and beat out other bidders with both experience building other rail for RTD and a record of campaign donations."

• To back up a dubious claim that then-Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter "has run, in effect, a sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants, Kopel said on the October 20, 2006, broadcast of KBDI's Colorado Inside Out that "if you say you're an illegal alien, and you commit a felony ... the Denver DA is going to make sure you get a plea deal so that you can stay in the country." In fact, according to the Denver district attorney's office and reporting by several media outlets, it was never the policy of Ritter's office to "offer a plea deal" that would allow an illegal immigrant to avoid deportation. Instead, according to Denver district attorney's office spokesperson Lynn Kimbrough, it was "standard procedure" to refer the illegal immigration status of suspected criminals to federal immigration authorities.

• Reporting on a September 28, 2006, debate between the Independence Institute's Linda Gorman and Rich Jones of the Bell Policy Center on Colorado's then-proposed Amendment 42 ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage, the Rocky Mountain News uncritically repeated Gorman's arguments that, if the minimum wage were raised, "jobs for the least-skilled workers will be lost, which would likely force those workers onto welfare." The article also stated misleadingly that the idea that a higher minimum wage will not result in job cuts "is contrary to economic theory" and summed up Gorman's claim that raising the minimum wage "will cost jobs and opportunity." But the News did not point out that hundreds of economists supported raising the current minimum wage and that several studies contradicted the claim that an increase would result in job losses.

Media Matters for America also noted several studies contradicting the claim that a higher federal minimum wage would cause significant job loss. A 1998 Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study of the impact of the two most recent increases in the federal minimum wage found that the effect on employment was "economically small and statistically insignificant ... [and] almost as likely to be positive as negative." Additionally, as the blog Think Progress has noted, a 1995 study by Princeton University economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger found that increases in state and federal minimum wages in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to "increases in pay, but no loss in jobs." The conclusions of Card and Krueger regarding state-level wages were supported by a March 2006 report from the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute, which found that "employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level." In addition, a report from the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development found that the state's 2005 minimum-wage increase "produced $175 million in additional payroll and a $3 million boost in state tax revenue."

• On the July 21, 2006, edition of Colorado Inside Out, Kopel distorted an October 2004 remark made by then-vice presidential candidate and Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) in support of expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Discussing "proponents of federal subsidization for" embryonic stem cell research, Kopel falsely stated that "John Edwards in 2004 claimed that [the late actor] Christopher Reeve would walk again." In fact, Edwards did not say that stem cell research would allow Reeve, who was paralyzed, to "walk again." Rather, at an October 10, 2004, campaign stop in which Edwards noted that Reeve had died earlier that day, Edwards stated that "if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk."

Colorado Media Matters also has documented numerous instances of local mainstream media outlets quoting or publishing opinion pieces by Independence Institute staffers without disclosing their affiliation with the think tank or its ideological agenda.

Later in the July 14 interview, speaking of "left groups" that purportedly influence the mainstream media, Caldara referred to the controversy over his use of the expression "bitch-slapped" to describe a Democratic presidential primary debate exchange between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In citing the role of "the local Media Matters," Caldara referred to Colorado Media Matters, which documented his use of the expression on his January 21 radio program.

From the July 14 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Jon Caldara Show:

O'KEEFE: There's another element that I'm sure your listeners have heard a fair amount about -- the tough time newspapers are having. Heavy layoffs, loss in circulation. And most of us -- well, most of us don't mourn that, but --

[Caldara laughs]

O'KEEFE: -- it's, part of what is going on here in politics is responsive to that. Newspapers were very political and partisan in the 19th century, and they're slowly faded away. Now we have this situation with layoffs and intense economic pressure. It's making investigative reporters available, and some of these left groups are specifically targeting laid-off reporters. It's also making the established media hungry and less able to check for facts. So they are being fed a lot of their stories, and you need an extra dose of skepticism these days when listening to mainstream media; they're being fed things by these well-funded left research shops.

And again, that is -- we have to understand that's not so much media bias anymore in the mainstream media as it is thin staffs that are dependent for others to hand them stories, and they're -- to offset that, we don't need to grouse about it, we need to have organizations repeating facts, doing what the Independence Institute does -- look at the situation and feed accurate information. The only antidote to bad information is good information.

CALDARA: And the great coordination between these groups -- my listeners remember the great "bitch-slap" moment of 2008, where I had Ann Coulter on and I used the term "bitch-slap." I said, "Did Hillary get bitch-slapped in this debate?" Well, apparently that was supposed to be very offensive, and so the local Media Matters says, "Oh, this is awful, this is awful; do something about it." That's their job. They hand it off to ProgressNow. ProgressNow says, "We're organizing a boycott. That's what we're doing. We gotta get rid of Caldara." And so they go off and do that.

Of course, one, we didn't care. Nobody here at 850 KOA said this was anything but what it was, an interesting hit piece. And then when we found out that the liberals used the term bitch-slap all the time, including Randi Rhodes and Al Franken and