Wash. Post's Krauthammer Pushes Anti-Obama Myth Debunked By The Post Itself
This morning, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer pushed the myth  that "Obama's entire Middle East policy" consists of "apology and accommodation." This claim, however, has  been repeatedly debunked  by Washington Post own fact-checker, Glenn Kessler.
Kessler has noted  that the speeches conservatives cite to push the myth that Obama regularly apologizes for the United States do not contain apologies and have often been "selectively trimmed for political purposes":
The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.
Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties. The shift in policies, in fact, might have been more dramatic from Clinton to Bush than from Bush to Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush's approach to fighting terrorism.
In other cases, Obama's quotes have been selectively trimmed for political purposes. Or they were not much different than sentiments expressed by Bush or his secretary of state.
In his column, Krauthammer went on to say that Obama has ignored the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and referred to the attack as mere "bumps in the road." In fact, Obama has  repeatedly condemned  the Benghazi attack, and when Obama said "bumps in the road," he was referring  to his support for Arab countries' transition from autocracy to democracy during the Arab Spring, even though he knew the transition would not be perfect.
This is the second time in a week that a conservative Washington Post columnist has push a falsehood debunked by Kessler. Post columnist Marc Thiessen claimed  that President Obama had often skipped his intelligence briefings and Kessler responded with a thorough debunking . Thiessen then criticized  Kessler's debunking, and Kessler updated his original post, stating that Thiessen's answer was an "interesting if not very factual argument."