Nearly half of likely voters — 49 percent — favor the Democratic candidate in their House district and 36 percent the Republican. Indies favor Dems by 15% ...

In their coverage of the guilty verdict in the trial of Saddam Hussein, several print news outlets -- including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal -- reported U.S. officials' assertions that the November 5 announcement had not been timed to coincide with the November 7 midterm elections but ignored reporting that conflicts with these denials. In particular, print outlets did not note that, while the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) declared Saddam guilty of "crimes against humanity" and sentenced him to death, the judges did not release the full verdict, which, as NBC News Middle East correspondent Richard Engel reported on November 5, presumably "explain[s] how and why" the judgment was reached. U.S. officials have said that the full ruling will be released on November 9, leading Engel to ask on NBC News' Blogging Baghdad weblog, "So why issue the verdict today?"

Further, most of the print media reporting U.S. officials' denials that the verdict in Saddam's trial was politically timed did not report that the verdict was rescheduled for two days before the U.S. congressional elections -- the verdict had originally been set for mid-October. These outlets also failed to note earlier reporting from The Washington Post and The New York Times that the United States ran "much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial" and had an "undeniably pervasive" influence on the proceedings.

On November 5, the SICT found Saddam guilty of "crimes against humanity" for ordering the execution of nearly 150 Shiite civilians in the 1980s. The tribunal sentenced him to death by hanging. While this news immediately traveled the globe, few print news outlets noted that the verdict had not been accompanied by a written judgment explaining the rationale for the ruling. As blogger Joshua Micah Marshall noted on November 6, in a November 5 post on Blogging Baghdad, Engel highlighted the absence of a full verdict and wrote that it would be released the following Thursday:

In less than 10 minutes, Saddam Hussein was told he was guilty of crimes against humanity, but never exactly how or why.

Was it the witness testimony that proved Saddam's guilt?

Was it Saddam's own acceptance in court of overall responsibility for the draconian punishment his regime carried out of the villagers of Dujail after a 1982 assassination attempt in the town? Was it documents the prosecution said Saddam signed ordering the deaths of Dujail residents that ultimately swayed the judges? We still do not know.

The full verdict, a document of several hundred pages, explaining how and why today's judgment was reached was not released. U.S. officials said it should be ready by Thursday. So why issue the verdict today? U.S. court advisors told reporters today it was delayed mainly for technical reasons. All insist the verdict was not politically timed and that it was an Iraqi decision; there is no reason to doubt their word.

The furthest the chief judge went today to explain why Saddam was sentenced to death was to say Saddam was found guilty of Article 12 A, through Article 15 B, of the Iraqi High Criminal Court Law (the tribunal trying Saddam's constitution). All that means, examining at the law, is that Saddam was guilty of "willful murder" because he had "ordered, solicited or induced the commission of such a crime, which in fact occurs or is attempted." Saddam Hussein was found guilty of ordering murders. Who he murdered, how, when and what proved his guilt, we are told, will be explained on Thursday.

Despite asking the obvious question -- "So why issue the verdict today?" -- Engel went on to note U.S. officials' denials of political timing, later writing, "[T]here is no reason to doubt their word." But to the contrary, the decision to announce the verdict days before finalizing the full judgment is not the first development in Saddam's trial to raise questions about political timing. In early October, the SICT announced that it intended to delay the verdict beyond October 16 -- the date on which it was originally expected to be announced. On October 16, the AP reported that the verdict and sentences for those found guilty would "be announced Nov. 5."

The Bush administration has since repeatedly claimed that the U.S. government does not have the power to set the date of the verdict. But as Media Matters for America has noted, some of the media outlets reporting this assertion have left out facts that undermine this claim. For instance, a January 25 Washington Post article reported that the "U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Regime Crimes Liaison Office run much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial." And a May 21 New York Times article described the "American influence" on the SICT as "undeniably pervasive, with about 90 percent of the $145 million in annual costs for the court and associated investigations paid for by the United States Justice Department, and lawyers sent by Washington acting as advisers."

Nonetheless, in the wake of the November 5 verdict, several print outlets reported the White House's denials of any involvement in the trial, while failing to inform readers of the U.S. government's "pervasive" role in conducting the trial, the recent rescheduling of the verdict to two days before the election, and the SICT's decision to announce the ruling and sentence without having completed the full verdict.

• AP: In a November 5 article on the verdict, staff writer Jennifer Loven uncritically quoted White House press secretary Tony Snow calling allegations of the verdict's political timing "absolutely crazy," as did staff writer Deb Riechmann in a separate article on the domestic response. Moreover, Loven reported that U.S. officials have "always denied direct involvement in the trial" -- a claim directly contradicted by the reporting from the Post and Times noted above. In an article published the same day, staff writers Steven R. Hurst and Hamza Hendawi similarly reported that the White House "denied the U.S. had been 'scheming' to have the historic verdict announced two days before American midterm elections" and further noted that the "United States has denied direct involvement in the trial."
  
  On November 5 and 6, the AP published five other articles on the Saddam verdict (here, here, here, here, and here), none of which mentioned that the full judgment has not yet been released.
• Los Angeles Times: A November 6 article by Times staff writers James Gerstenzang and Tom Hamburger reported that Snow called suggestions of political timing "preposterous" and quoted a U.S. adviser to the trial saying, "I know everyone wants to read into this some sinister plot. ... But it's just not there."
• The Wall Street Journal: In a November 6 article (subscription required), Journal staff writer Philip Shishkin reported that "many Iraqis suspect the Bush administration somehow influenced the timing of the sentence to benefit the Republican party" and went on to note that Snow "dismissed the idea as 'preposterous.' "
• The Washington Post: In contrast to the above examples, a November 6 article by Post staff writer Peter Baker noted that the verdict had earlier been delayed. He reported that the SICT "originally planned to render a verdict in October but delayed it until two days before the election, prompting a defense lawyer for Hussein to write a letter accusing Bush of manipulating the proceedings for campaign purposes." Nonetheless, Baker went on to quote Snow as saying in response to that allegation, "Are you smoking rope? ... Are you telling me that ... the Iraqi judicial system is coming up with an October surprise? ... Man, that's -- wow." But Baker made no mention of his own paper's previous reporting on the extent of U.S. control over the trial's "day-to-day arrangements." Nor did he note that the verdict had been announced days ahead of the full judgment.

New York Times reporter Julia Preston, meanwhile, reported in a November 6 article that "many trial observers were withholding final opinions yesterday because the Iraqi judges had not issued their written judgment, a voluminous document expected to come out this week." Preston went on to note that lawyers had dismissed "suspicions that the verdict had been delayed" for political purposes:

[M]any trial observers were withholding final opinions yesterday because the Iraqi judges had not issued their written judgment, a voluminous document expected to come out this week.

American lawyers in Iraq dismissed suspicions that the verdict had been delayed to give the Bush administration a political victory in Iraq close to Tuesday's elections.

Accusations by Mr. Hussein's supporters that the trial was manipulated by United States officials were not borne out, American lawyers who followed the case said.

But while Preston reported that the written judgment remained incomplete, she gave no indication that she had questioned these "American lawyers" about whether the verdict had been rushed, rather than delayed. Further, she failed to address a separate question: whether the 30-day appeal period starts immediately or only once the full judgment has been released.

On the November 5 edition of MSNBC's Decision 2006: Battleground America, host Tucker Carlson said that Sen. Robert Menendez (R-NJ) is leading Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr. in the polls because "[President] Bush is, I guess, less popular than the Mafia in New Jersey" and asserted that "Kean has made it pretty clear that Senator Menendez is a dues-paying member of the Mafia." Carlson also repeated Kean's charge that Menendez is "under federal criminal investigation," even though, as Media Matters for America has noted, CBS News reported on October 26 that "it is unclear whether the allegation is true." He was responding to a report by MSNBC correspondent JJ Ramberg in which she described the campaign as "Kean saying, 'Hey, a vote for Menendez is a vote for dirty politics,' and Menendez saying, 'Listen, a vote for Kean is just a vote for George Bush.' " Ramberg also noted that "Menendez says none of those accusations [made by Kean] are substantiated."

From the November 6 edition of MSNBC's Decision 2006: Battleground America:

CARLSON: The nasty and costly senate race in New Jersey is almost over, which is great or a shame, depending on how you stand on that. The Republican Party has spent three and a half million dollars for Tom Kean Jr. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has spent $4 million to portray Kean as merely a mouthpiece for President Bush. According to new polls, Kean's opponent, Senator Bob Menendez, now leads the Republican 48 to 41 percent. JJ Ramberg joins us now from Jersey City, New Jersey. Is this where it stands? It looks like that's a pretty sizable lead, JJ.

RAMBERG: Yes. Suddenly, this is a lot different than it was last week, when it was still pretty much neck-and neck. And now, Bob Menendez is doing everything he can to try and hold on to that lead. Now, both candidates have spent the day doing a series of meet-and-greets this morning. Later on this afternoon, Bob Menendez is going to be lent a little bit of star power by Governor [Jon] Corzine, who's going to be campaigning with him. And then, both of these candidates will end up the day at pre-election rallies, which they hope will get everyone excited about going to the polls tomorrow. They're starting to concentrate a lot on these get-out-the-vote campaigns because they know people actually have to go there out and vote in order for this to work for them. And then, finally, you mentioned those commercials, those nasty commercials that everyone in here New Jersey has been seeing for months, are still going on. There are just a barrage of them on television here. Tucker?

CARLSON: Well, JJ, Kean has made it pretty clear that Senator Menendez is a dues-paying member of the Mafia. So I wonder why he's leading. I mean, what are -- what are the issues? Kean from day one has said, "This guy's under federal criminal investigation," and people are voting for him anyway. Why?

RAMBERG: You know, Bob Menendez says none of those accusations are substantiated. And really, the candidates have pitted themselves against each other, Kean saying, "Hey, a vote for Menendez is a vote for dirty politics," and Menendez saying, "Listen, a vote for Kean is just a vote for George Bush." Make your choice.

CARLSON: Yeah, that's right. Bush is, I guess, less popular than the Mafia in New Jersey. JJ Ramberg, thanks for joining us.

For months, Republicans and conservative media figures have attacked House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) by claiming that Pelosi, who would likely be elected speaker should Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives after the November 7 elections, is "extreme," "out of touch," and outside the "mainstream." These attacks have often been repeated uncritically in the media, despite the actual legislative agenda Pelosi has offered in the event that Democrats take the House, which boasts initiatives that draw broad support from the American public.

As Media Matters for America documented, Pelosi has been the target of attacks by Republicans and conservative media figures. The Republican National Committee has attacked Pelosi for her "extremely liberal record." On the November 1 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Andrea Koppel reported that Pelosi was "among the most liberal politicians in America," and that "Republicans have seized on the prospect of liberal lawmakers running the House as a way to fire up their base on the campaign trail." On the October 24 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough claimed that Pelosi is "out of touch ... in so many districts across the country." On the October 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, host Sean Hannity claimed that "people don't know how extreme she is, but we've got 26 days to inform people." Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, on the October 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, attacked Pelosi's "San Francisco values." On the August 21 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity called Pelosi "that San Francisco extreme left-wing liberal."

In August, the House Democrats announced the "Six for '06" legislative agenda, calling for "Real security at home and overseas," "Better American jobs -- better pay," "College access for all," "Energy independence -- lower gas prices," "Affordable health care -- life-saving science," and "Retirement security and dignity." As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Pelosi had previewed this agenda in a June 22 Associated Press article, claiming that her plan for the first 100 hours of Democratic control would involve "implementing the 911 Commission recommendations; increasing the minimum wage; making healthcare and prescription drugs more affordable; renewing efforts to protect Social Security; rolling back subsidies to major oil companies in favor of spending more on alternative energy sources; and improving college affordability."

Pelosi elaborated on the specifics of her "100 hours" plan in an October 6 AP article:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats -- in her fondest wish -- win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds -- "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview [October 5].

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

A Newsweek poll, conducted October 19-20, noted that Democrats have endorsed several of these initiatives, and asked respondents whether they should be top priorities, lower priorities, or not pursued at all, should the Democrats win control of Congress. According to the poll, 74 percent of respondents thought that "[a]llowing the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices for seniors" should be a top priority; 68 percent favored raising the minimum wage as a top priority; 62 percent favored "[i]nvestigating charges of impropriety or wrong-doing by members of Congress"; 52 percent of respondents favored "[n]ew rules to limit the influence of lobbyists" and "[e]nacting all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission" as top priorities. When asked whether "[b]roadening the kinds of stem cell research that can receive federal funding" should be a top priority, 44 percent said yes, while 31 percent said it should be a lower priority. "Rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts" was favored as a top priority by 38 percent of respondents, while 28 percent said it should be a lower priority.

On the November 6 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Wall Street Journal Washington bureau chief David Wessel baselessly asserted that the Democrats' ability to "accomplish anything," should they gain control of one or both houses of Congress on November 7, will hinge on whether "they want to spend the next two years investigating and overseeing the Bush administration" or whether "they want to govern and try to show that they can get something done." When host Steve Inskeep asked, "Is that an either/or?" Wessel responded in part: "I think that it's certainly an 80-20 question: You can spend 80 percent of your time doing one, but you can't spend 80 percent of your time doing both."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the view that Democrats will use congressional investigations to obstruct and destroy the Bush administration is a Republican talking point, advanced by Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA). Democrats, on the other hand, assert that Congress' duty to "govern" includes its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Notwithstanding Wessel's apparent view that congressional oversight of the executive branch does not constitute "get[ting] something done," recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans would support Democrats if they began such investigations. Moreover, Wessel's statement reflects the view -- for which he provides no support -- that Congress cannot both conduct oversight and pass legislation.

From the November 6 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:

INSKEEP: If Democrats do take over one or both houses of Congress -- and let's underline the if -- will they be able to do anything anyway?

WESSEL: There are two parts to that. One is: What do the Democrats want to do? Do they want to spend the next two years investigating and overseeing the Bush administration? Or do they want to govern and try and show that they can get something done? I don't think we know the answer to that.

INSKEEP: Is that an either/or?

WESSEL: I think it is an either/or. I think that it's certainly an 80-20 question: You can spend 80 percent of your time doing one, but you can't spend 80 percent of your time doing both.

INSKEEP: OK.

WESSEL: And the second thing, of course, is they will not have 60 votes in the Senate, which is what you need to get anything substantial done. And they will still have a Republican in the White House. Even though Mr. Bush has been reluctant to use the veto, I suspect he'll be a little less reluctant if Democrats are sending him legislation. So, they have to decide what they want to do, and then they have to have a strategy to get Republicans on board if they actually want to accomplish anything.

INSKEEP: David Wessel of The Wall Street Journal, thanks for coming by again.

WESSEL: A pleasure.

On the November 6 edition of MSNBC's election special, Decision 2006: Battleground America, host and NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asserted that new national polls "show Republicans gaining ground." She went on to cite three recent surveys -- from the Pew Research Center, Washington Post/ABC News, and USA Today/Gallup -- that found Republicans within four, six, and seven percentage points, respectively, of Democrats on the generic congressional ballot. But as Bloomberg Washington managing editor Al Hunt noted in response, there are several other recent polls that show Democrats with leads in excess of 15 percentage points, including those from Time, CNN, and even MSNBC's news partner, Newsweek.

CNN's poll, taken most recently, shows Democrats with a 20-point lead on the generic ballot among likely voters. Nonetheless, on the November 6 edition of CNN's American Morning, co-host Soledad O'Brien noted the new survey then, moments later, asserted that the "race is tightening."

On Battleground America, Mitchell discussed the recent polls with Hunt and Newsweek White House correspondent Holly Bailey. During the segment, Mitchell cited -- and an onscreen graphic displayed -- three recent polls showing Democrats leading by, at most, seven percentage points. These included:

• Pew Research Center (11/1 -- 11/4): Democrats, 47 percent -- Republicans, 43 percent

• Washington Post/ABC News (11/1 -- 11/4): Democrats, 51 percent -- Republicans, 45 percent

• USA Today/Gallup (11/2 -- 11/5): Democrats, 51 percent -- Republicans, 44 percent

Mitchell asserted that the above polls show the "GOP gaining ground." Bailey added that this "might be a sign the GOP turnout machine is working" and claimed that the Pew poll "is very important" because White House senior adviser Karl Rove and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman consider it "a bible ... in terms of how to construct their turnout machine."

Hunt, meanwhile, described the reporting that the Republicans are "closing" on the Democrats as "extremely exaggerated." He went on to cite the other recent polls "that show 14-, 15-, 20-point gaps" in favor of the Democrats, including from Newsweek -- Bailey's magazine and a news partner of MSNBC -- Time, and CNN. Following are the generic-ballot findings in those three polls, as well as the recent CBS News/New York Times survey:

• Newsweek (11/2 -- 11-3): Democrats 54 percent -- Republicans 38 percent

• CNN (11/3 --11/5): Democrats, 58 percent -- Republicans 38 percent

• Time (11/1 -- 11/3): Democrats, 55 percent -- Republicans, 40 percent

• CBS News/New York Times (10/27 -- 10/31): Democrats, 52 percent -- Republicans, 34 percent

Earlier in the day, on CNN's American Morning, O'Brien cited her network's new poll showing Democrats with a 20-point lead on the generic congressional ballot. She went on to note that some individual races are "too close to call" and then began a discussion of the election with Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist Charles Black by asserting that "the race is tightening." Carville responded, "How's it tightening? You have it 58 to 38. That doesn't seem to be very tight if we believe our poll -- it's at 20 points."

From the November 6 edition of the MSNBC's special Decision 2006: Battleground America:

MITCHELL: Do you think that the stem cell issue does actually carry a lot of weight in individual states? Or is this really a national referendum on Iraq and on the Bush presidency?

HUNT: I think it's more the latter. Stem cell, minimum wage, gay marriage may make a teeny difference on the margins. And if there's -- if the races are as close as your polls suggest, the margins matter. But I think in most places it's going to be broader economic and Iraq issues.

MITCHELL: Let's talk a bit now about these new polls showing Republicans now gaining ground. Are conservative voters coming home, as RNC chairman Ken Mehlman has said? And if so, why is this happening? Let's first of all look at Rhode Island Senate. You've got a pair -- first the Pew poll and the Washington Post/ABC poll and the NBC/Gallup poll all indicating that the GOP gaining ground. Before we look at those races, Holly, what do you think? Is there a narrowing here? Is this a natural tendency because of the Republican effort and possibly some of those robocalling campaigns?

BAILEY: I think -- you know, I think everybody has sort of expected to see tightening in the last few days of the campaign. And this -- you know, what's interesting is, you know, this might be a sign that the GOP turnout machine is working. One thing that I would note is that the Pew poll is very important. Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman have looked at this poll and used it as a bible, in a way, of -- in terms of how to construct their turnout machine. And so I can't imagine that they're not thrilled with what they're seeing today.

MITCHELL: Doesn't the Pew poll show that it's down to six points in terms of the -- in the terms of the generic of whether or not you would want a Democrat or a Republican to control Congress?

BAILEY: Absolutely. And Democrats are -- you know, the polls are still showing that they're in the lead, but, you know, Republicans have certainly tightened that. And, you know, that's the one thing that we've been looking for is whether the turnout machine is going to be working.

MITCHELL: Al, I don't know anyone who knows polling better than you, having done these polls for, you know, decades. How do you read these polls? Is it possible to interpret a national poll to reflect what's really going to happen in individual congressional states?

HUNT: It's a guide of sorts. I think the closing has been enormously exaggerated. I think there's a little bit of coming home -- that always happens. There's some other polls including Holly's magazine's poll, Time, CNN that show 14-, 15-, 20-point gaps. I tend not to believe those either. The Pew poll, which is a very good poll -- Andy Kohut [president of the Pew Research Center] is great -- I think there's maybe a flaw in it.

MITCHELL: In the sample?

HUNT: It assumes that people -- there will be more Republicans than Democrats who turn out on Election Day. If that's the case, it's right. I'd be very surprised. I think it's still incredibly similar to where it was in 1994.

From the November 6 edition of CNN's American Morning:

O'BRIEN: This morning, a day before Americans decide which party is going to control Congress, a final look at where the battle stands. New Opinion Research Corporation polls for CNN just released shows 58 percent of likely voters, 54 percent of registered voters will vote for a Democrat. That could help the Democrats pick up 15 seats they need to regain the House and six seats they need to control the Senate.

Meanwhile, the president's popularity is still low -- 61 percent disapprove of how the president's doing his job.

The election, of course, is going to be decided in those head-to-head contests, and some of them at this point are way too close to call. So let's take a look at how both sides see the campaign this morning. CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist James Carville is with us in New York. In Washington, D.C., Republican strategist Charles Black is with us.

Nice to see you both. Thanks for joining us.

Let's begin with James Carville -- 24 hours to go. The race is tightening. More than even the last time we spoke a couple of days ago. Realistically, is there anything that can be done at this point?

CARVILLE: How's it tightening? You have it 58 to 38. That doesn't seem to be very tight if we believe our poll -- it's at 20 points.

O'BRIEN: In some of the specific races, they're absolutely neck and neck.

CARVILLE: Well, some specific races -- I mean, probably with about 20 points, we'll pick up 300 seats. Some of them are very close, yes.

O'BRIEN: But my question is, what can realistically be done at this stage of the game?

CARVILLE: A lot of pacing. You know, you got GOTV [get-out-the-vote operations] effort, they're making phone calls, they're sending out mail -- I mean, they're doing a lot of things. I don't know how much of it is gonna matter. But it's not gonna be for a lack of action in these campaign headquarters, I promise you that.

On the November 3 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News correspondent Steve Harrigan underwent what he described as three "phase[s]" of the controversial interrogation technique known as "waterboarding," on camera, concluding that the technique is "a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes." Harrigan stated that his report on waterboarding was meant to show viewers "what exactly it is," whether it is "torture," and if "the U.S. [should] use it."

During his demonstration, Harrigan, clad in an orange jumpsuit, was apparently put through three different procedures by three men dressed entirely in black, complete with black ski masks. The first technique to which Harrigan was apparently subjected involved his being handcuffed while lying in a pool, with two "interrogat[ors] applying pressure to Harrigan's stomach and chest, while the third "interrogat[or]" poured water over Harrigan's face.

The second "phase" was similar, though this time Harrigan's mouth was covered with what appeared to be a wet towel; one "interrogat[or]" poured water over Harrigan's nose. The final procedure involved water being dripped into Harrigan's nose while cellophane wrap covered his mouth. Harrigan alternated between claiming that the waterboarding was "really scary" and not "that bad" while being subjected to the different "phase[s]." According to ABC News, "former and current intelligence officers and supervisors" have claimed that prisoners are subjected to a waterboarding technique similar to the third technique Harrigan demonstrated:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

ABC News further noted, that intelligence officials believed "that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool" because many may confess to anything in order for the technique to stop. Army regulations prohibit the use of waterboarding, but the CIA does not.

Reflecting on his experience, Harrigan remarked, "[Y]ou really learn you can crack pretty quickly. ... I mean, they took me to the brink, where I was ready to submit, tell them anything within minutes, and then, just minutes later, I was standing by the side of that pool feeling fine." Harrigan concluded that "as far as torture goes, at least in this controlled experiment, to me, this seemed like a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes." However, psychologists, such as Dr. Allen S. Keller, director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture reportedly disagreed: According to The New Yorker magazine, Keller asserted that "such forms of near-asphyxiation," like waterboarding, could indeed lead to long-term psychological damage:

Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.

From the November 3 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren:

VAN SUSTEREN: Waterboarding -- you heard me right. It's waterboarding, a notorious interrogation technique used to crack prisoners and get them talking. But what exactly is waterboarding? Fox's own Steve Harrigan wanted to find out. He joins us from New York. Steve, what is this?

HARRIGAN: Greta, so many people have been talking about waterboarding over the past couple of weeks. Is it torture? Should the U.S. use it? We left those questions on the side and just really tried to look at what exactly it is. Working with [retired U.S. Army] Major Bob Bevelacqua and two of his colleagues, here's what we found.

[begin video tape]

HARRIGAN: Stop!

So you pressed down here, and then I couldn't catch a breath and I felt water fill my nose and my mouth, and within, like, three seconds, I wanted out of there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We wanted to give you that sensation of drowning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the only place he can breathe is through his nose, and we're going to fill that with water.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you ready to talk?

HARRIGAN: No!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on!

HARRIGAN: Stop!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't pour anymore.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

HARRIGAN: One was not too bad. Two was a little scary. I don't know how many numbers these guys got, but we'll see.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a lot.

HARRIGAN: All right.

I'm starting not to like these guys in the black masks. I expect I'll tap out pretty soon here because I'm scared.

No, this isn't that bad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

HARRIGAN: Whoa!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You OK, Steve?

HARRIGAN: Yeah, the -- when you try and take a breath in, the cellophane goes in your mouth, and then it's lights out.

[end video tape]

HARRIGAN: Yeah, phase 3 is when they put that Saran wrap over your mouth; it's really scary. And the interrogators said it's more about fear than pain. Just seeing them tear that Saran wrap off when they're about to put it over your face, it really gets you scared. And you can imagine people who go through this day-in, day-out, you really learn you can crack pretty quickly.

VAN SUSTEREN: Yeah, what I was reading, Steve, is that -- it seems that there's sort of a time when most people crack; how much they can endure. What's sort of how -- you know, what's the longest anyone can endure these things?

HARRIGAN: Greta, there's no hard science on this. Some people say a couple minutes is about as long as you go. But the thing that really impressed me was just how quickly you can recover. I mean, they took me to the brink, where I was ready to submit, tell them anything within minutes, and then, just minutes later, I was standing by the side of that pool feeling fine. So, as far as torture goes, at least in this controlled experiment, to me, this seemed like a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Steve. Well, I'm glad this was your project and not mine. Fascinating. Thank you, Steve.

During his November 5 televised sermon about apostates, Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder and chairman of the Moral Majority Coalition, stated, "[Y]ou go to Washington -- there's some great and godly men and women in the Congress, but for every one of them, there's a Hillary Clinton. For every one of them, there's a Nancy Pelosi." Falwell added: "Imagine 'San Francisco Pelosi' speaker of the House."

As Media Matters for America noted, on the November 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Falwell declared that the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) is "not going to discourage any evangelicals I know from voting" because "[w]e lived through Bill Clinton, and this situation with Foley is minuscule in comparison."

During his November 5 sermon, Falwell also stated that in "Hollywood -- oh, there are few believers there. Most of them are loonies or fruitcakes; they're against everything high, holy, and sacred." Falwell has previously described "[m]ovie stars" as "moral pervert[s]" for "having babies" out of wedlock and asserted that "you almost got to be a homosexual to be recognized in the entertainment industry anymore," as Media Matters noted.

From Falwell's November 5 sermon at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, where he serves as senior pastor:

FALWELL: We're in the minority, maybe you don't know that. You come here to church full of thousands of people, you think, "Man, we're in the majority." I want to tell you we're in the minority. We, Hollywood -- oh, there are few believers there. Most of them are loonies or fruitcakes; they're against everything high, holy, and sacred. And you go to Washington -- there's some great and godly men and women in the Congress, but for every one of them, there's a Hillary Clinton. For every one of them, there's a Nancy Pelosi. Imagine "San Francisco Pelosi" speaker of the House.

Democrats ahead -- 58 percent to 38 percent -- over Republicans among likely voters in the survey released Monday morning, lead by 12 in poll of polls ...

The old Left-Right division has largely been eclipsed as a realistic way of analyzing American politics. Corporatism is now being seriously challenged by a new populism ...

Maybe you don't want to vote, because Bush and Republicans were successful in their effort to "turn off" voters - and turned you off they did! However, maybe you have one to a dozen reasons to vote. They might be reasons, perhaps, that you don't normally consider while pondering whether or not to vote. The reasons you should vote this year: your children. What, you might ask, do your children have to ...

Call me naive, but I never thought a president would stoop so low as to accuse members of Congress of being pro-terrorist ...

The verdict on the former Iraqi dictator is just, but everything stinks about the process by which it has been reached ...

As the two sides make final appeals, the differences suggest that the tools that boosted Republicans to victory in the past may be less potent this time ...

The Democrats are in command, but the races could go either way. Ford has closed gap to three points in Tennessee. ...

Bush-style democracy in Iraq: 05 Nov 2006 Iraqi security forces have closed two Sunni Muslim television stations for violating curfew and a law that bans airing material that could undermine the country's stability [*What* stablity?], the Interior Ministry said. Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman, told The Associated Press that the Al-Zawraa and Salahuddin stations were closed with the approval of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He said that the stations violated a curfew imposed in three provinces [!!!] by speaking to people in the streets and airing comments that were deemed to "incite violence."

03 Nov 2006 The military services and defense agencies have requested as much as $160 billion in supplemental spending for the remainder of fiscal 2007 -- a staggering figure that would bring wartime costs this year to $230 billion, defense sources said Friday.

05 Nov 2006 A recent Central Intelligence Agency assessment found that the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, had been significantly weakened by rising popular frustration with his American-backed government, American officials say. The assessment found that increasing numbers of Afghans viewed Mr. Karzai’s government as corrupt, failing to deliver promised reconstruction and too weak to protect the country from rising Taliban attacks.

05 Nov 2006 The Justice Department increasingly has refused to prosecute FBI cases targeting suspected terrorists over the past five years, according to private researchers who reviewed department records. The government says the findings are inaccurate and "intellectually dishonest."

If most of the political prognosticators are calling it right, the House of Representatives is poised for a change of leadership: the first Democratic majority in 12 years ...