From the September 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
During the run-up to the Iraq war, some of the worst purveyors of misinformation about Iraq had a home at Fox News, and their ranks have swelled considerably since then. Media Matters takes a look at the track record of wrong predictions and shoddy analysis about the war in Iraq by many of Fox News' contributors and analysts.
Before President Obama delivered his address tonight about the end of combat operations in Iraq, Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News that the speech would be "a mistake," adding, "You don't declare an arbitrary milestone on a fixed timetable when you have no Iraqi government and Al Qaeda is resurgent":
KRAUTHAMMER: He had one task. He has not succeeded. I'm with Michael O'Hanlon ... who says this is a mistake. You don't declare an arbitrary milestone on a fixed timetable when you have no Iraqi government and when Al Qaeda is resurgent. You do it when you have a stable government and then you have a ceremony in which the president and the new leader of Iraq have a ceremony in which the transition is declared mutually acknowledged. This is premature and political and it could be very costly.
But after the speech, Fox News' Sean Hannity complained that Obama didn't explicitly declare victory in Iraq:
HANNITY: If he had his way, we wouldn't have had this today. But he couldn't even utter the words, "we were victorious," which, if I was one of the brave men and women that served there, I think I would be a little offended tonight.
Before the speech, Stephen Hayes said on Special Report that "the real question" is "whether the president treats this as sort of a campaign speech ... or whether he talks to the country as the president, as he should while speaking from the Oval Office":
HAYES: The real question is going to be whether the president treats this as sort of a campaign speech as he did in his radio address this week or whether he talks to the country as the president, as he should when speaking from the Oval Office. From the excerpts and from everything we've been hearing from the White House today, it seems like they didn't make a decision. It sounds like he's going to do a little bit of both.
After the speech, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said he wished the "boring" address had sounded more like Obama's campaign speeches:
O'REILLY: Why was he so boring? ... Here's my problem: I watched this guy on the campaign trail. He was Elvis. the guy was out -- he did this and hope and change and we're and that and the place was going wild, all right? And he was talking about serious things. ... What I'm telling you is that he has changed his demeanor -- still talking about serious things. Talking about serious things in the campaign, he's talking about serious things now. But now he's the boring professor -- not the nutty professor, the boring professor.
CROWLEY: During the campaign, he was campaigning, which is the only thing that this man knows how to do --
O'REILLY: Then why doesn't he keep doing it?
From the August 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
Loading the player reg...
Despite the right-wing media's claim that their opposition to Park51 -- the planned Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan -- is not about restricting religious freedom, protests have sprung up nationwide in opposition to local mosques and Islamic community centers in the wake of the manufactured controversy. These protests follow the right-wing's relentless assault on not just Park51, but Islam in general.
From the August 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
Loading the player reg...
Does Sally Quinn read the Washington Post microsite On Faith? You know, the one she writes for, created, and runs -- and which uses her name and photo in its banner graphic?
Quinn posted her thoughts on the proposed Park51 Islamic community center last evening, endorsing the project and denouncing its critics. But Quinn seems unaware of the commentary her On Faith site has featured.
Quinn ridicules Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich for their strident opposition to the community center -- ridicule that is well-deserved. She mocks Charles Krauthammer for failing to indicate exactly what he considers "Ground Zero" and how far away from it he would keep Muslims. She tweaks Gingrich for his plans to appear at a demonstration with a Dutch politician "who has called for a ban on the Quran."
Quinn's criticisms of Palin, Gingrich and Krauthammer are appropriate, as is her scorn for "conspiracy theorists" who claim that the cultural center will be "connected to terrorism." And that's why I have to wonder if she actually reads the site she moderates. See, On Faith has hosted some pretty far-out and incendiary commentary about the Park51 project, most notably Cal Thomas's angry July 21 screed. Thomas called Muslims liars, insisted that the cultural center is about "celebrating" the deaths of thousands of Americans, suggested that America should take Saudi Arabia's lead when it comes to religious tolerance, and claimed that the cultural center is an attempt by "our enemies" to establish a "beachhead in America" from which to "launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing." Thomas did all that under Sally Quinn's banner, presented to the world by her as a "distinguished" panelist and part of an "intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation."
It's great that Sally Quinn is calling out merchants of fear and intolerance like Palin and Gingrich. But why is she ignoring her own panelist's reckless smears of Muslims and of the community center she endorses? If she is really concerned about the "growing Islamophobia in this country," why does her site embrace and promote one of its most influential practitioners?
From the August 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Loading the player reg...
With a new poll out showing that an astounding 18 percent of Americans incorrectly believe that President Obama is Muslim, many in the media wonder who is to blame for generating the rumor. Unsurprisingly, right-wing pundits are quick to shirk responsibility for propagating such a notion, and instead, absurdly, place blame on the President himself. Tonight, the conservative members of Special Report's All Star Panel concluded that they can understand why Americans think Obama is a Muslim given his "affinity for Muslim culture."
Fox News contributors Steve Hayes and Charles Krauthammer, and even Special Report host Bret Baier assign blame for the misconception to President Obama. Krauthammer claimed that "the emphasis Obama placed on Muslim outreach might incline people to conclude that he's not a Christian," while Hayes agreed "absolutely" with host Bret Baier's suggestion that the fact that Obama "has talked openly about his -- the Muslim heritage in his family" has contributed to misconceptions about his religion.
The fact that these right-wing pundits are blaming Obama is astoundingly egregious. If they truly wanted to discover who is to blame for such conspiratorial rumors, the right-wing media need look no further than themselves. In fact, Fox News is in part responsible for launching the notion from fodder in the conservative blogosphere to the mainstream. Had Special Report's All Star Panel turned back the clock a year, they would have discovered that the show aired a segment in June of 2009 which asked of the President, "Islam or Isn't He?"
In addition, blogger and frequent Fox News guest Pamela Geller has tagged 267 blog posts with the phrase "Muslim in the White House." Other conservative figures, including Fox's own Glenn Beck, frequently call Obama's Christianity into question, even claiming that he has "contempt for the Scriptures."
The right-wing media has been pushing the idea that Obama is a Muslim for years. Any attempt by the right-wing media to whitewash their involvement in forwarding the rumor by blaming Obama is simply dishonest.
The right-wing media is predictably hyperventilating over comments Speaker Nancy Pelosi made in which she questioned the funding of organized Park51 opponents. Most have taken her comments to the extreme, suggesting or outright claiming that she was calling for some sort of government investigation into "those who stand in opposition of the Ground Zero mosque." Of course, Pelosi did no such thing, as she made clear she was simply calling for transparency both in the funding of the Park51 project and for transparency in the funding of groups that are opposed to the mosque.
During an interview with San Francisco's KCBS radio, Pelosi was repeatedly asked about her position on Park51. Pelosi, who was speaking outside of an event to transfer the San Francisco Bay area man-made island Treasure Island from the Navy to the city of San Francisco, marveled that what is "a zoning issue in New York City" had become such national issue that "two of the first three questions" she's asked after inking the Treasure Island deal, which took decades to accomplish, are on this topic. She said, "There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how ... this opposition to the mosque is being funded." As Greg Sargeant noted, "it was a bit unclear what she was referring to," (perhaps because KCBS only provided a short audio clip of her comments), but Pelosi's office quickly clarified "what she meant":
"The freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.
"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'
"For all of those expressing concern about the 9/11 families, we call upon them to join us in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act when Congress returns in September."
Clearly, as Sargent noted, "Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right." She's simply calling for transparency in who is funding Park51 and who is funding the attacks against it. Many conservatives have taken issue with that element in particular by suggesting that there is no organized opposition to Park51, just a bunch of concerned citizens, like themselves. This conveniently ignores groups like Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe," Center for Security Policy, and Pam Geller's "Stop Islamization of America" who have been at the forefront of the opposition to Park51, creating ads, hosting rallies, and initiating bus banner campaigns against the project-- initiatives that have been widely celebrated across the right-wing media.
Of course, Pelosi's clarification and the obvious fact that there is at least some element of organized opposition to Park51 isn't going to get in the way of a full scale right-wing media freak out.
Right-wing media have responded to President Obama's comments that he "believe[s] that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country" by falsely claiming that opponents of the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan have not talked about restricting Muslims' religious freedom. In fact, opponents have advocated using government intervention to restrict construction of the center or have asserted that the planners don't have a right to build it at the proposed location.
Charles Krauthammer claimed that the Obama administration's policies, including the decision to halt funding for the "virtual fence," indicate that the administration doesn't prioritize "serious border enforcement." However, the Government Accountability Office said the virtual fence was defective, and the Obama administration's budget has committed more funding to Customs and Border Protection than the previous administration.
Politico's Jonathan Martin writes up the Right's fear-mongering about a potential lame-duck session of Congress this fall, and does a good enough job of noting that it is unlikely that Democrats would "come up with a 60-vote majority in the Senate on the sort of hot-button bills now being used to galvanize conservative constituencies" during such a session.
But Martin didn't so much as hint at the fact that many of the conservatives currently insisting that it is wildly inappropriate to take up controversial measures during a lame-duck session are more than a little hypocritical. For example, Martin prominently quotes a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner insisting Democrats should rule out a "a 'sour grapes' lame-duck session." But Martin didn't mention that John Boehner voted to impeach a sitting Democratic president during a lame-duck session following an election in which the Republicans lost seats in part because of public disgust over GOP efforts to impeach the president. (Nor did Martin note that Boehner's spokesperson apparently doesn't know what "sour grapes" means.)
That's kind of a big one, don't you think? The Republican leader currently running around denouncing Democrats for (theoretically) using a lame-duck session to pursue controversial goals himself cast a deeply controversial vote to impeach President Clinton during a GOP-controlled lame duck session. You don't get much more hypocritical than that -- but Martin didn't mention it. Nor did he mention that Charles Krauthammer, who Martin noted has "sounded the alarm" about a lame duck session, urged the lame-duck House to impeach Clinton in 1998.
UPDATE: Here's a USA Today article from November 13, 2006, just days after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress:
A lame-duck Congress, including the so-called "living dead" who were defeated for re-election, opened today with an ambitious agenda that includes a showdown over President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Although the Democrats take charge of both houses of the new Congress starting in January, the Republicans maintain control of the Senate and the House of Representatives until the lame-duck session expires in December.
This year's session could run well into December as Congress takes up a long list of unfinished business: nine spending bills; extending already-expired tax breaks; approving trade pacts with Vietnam and Peru; bioterrorism legislation; and a measure giving doctors a reprieve from a scheduled cut in Medicare payments.
But a critical test of wills between the Democrats' rising power and the White House will come over the Bolton nomination.
Bush last week also called on the lame-duck Congress to pass a controversial warrantless domestic wiretapping bill known as the Terrorists Surveillance Act. But that appears dead because of strong opposition by Democrats.
And a December 6, 2006 Associated Press article:
House Republicans abruptly pulled from floor action Tuesday a bill to open a large area of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling after it became clear the legislation lacked the two-thirds vote needed for passage.
"The House will revisit the offshore drilling legislation again at some point before the end of this week, though details on the mechanics of how the measure will be considered have yet to be decided," Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner, said in a statement.
The drilling bill is one of a string of measures House GOP leaders have readied for this week's "lame-duck" session under an expedited procedure that bars amendments, but also requires a two-thirds vote for approval.
Why would any journalist report conservatives' anti-lame-duck-session stance without checking to see what they did in 2006?
Charles Krauthammer, July 23, 2010:
Beware the Lame Duck
Democrats should pledge now to refrain from approving controversial legislation during the lame-duck session.
How then to prevent a runaway lame-duck Congress? Bring the issue up now — applying the check-and-balance of the people's will before it disappears the morning after Election Day. Every current member should be publicly asked: In the event you lose in November — a remote and deeply deplorable eventuality, but still not inconceivable — do you pledge to adhere to the will of the electorate and, in any lame-duck session of Congress, refuse to approve anything but the most routine legislation required to keep the government functioning?
Charles Krauthammer, November 6, 1998:
Lessons of an election in which a president (facing impeachment!) scores the first off-year gains since 1934.
Lesson 1. The dead can rise, with Republican help. The real story of this election is the resurrection of Bill Clinton. Eight weeks ago, the Democrats were demoralized and frantically running away from the president. On Tuesday, Clinton's comeback lifted many Democratic boats.
Credit for this lies mainly with the House Republicans, who fumbled away one of the easiest open field touchdowns in history. Over Democratic objections, they first released the Clinton grand jury testimony, then forced through an open-ended impeachment inquiry -- in both cases spurning an opportunity for unanimity and magnanimity. They handed the Democrats the "partisanship" charge and the "unfairness" issue. In the end, these not only neutralized but trumped the Clinton scandal.
Having written that Democrats gained seats in the November 1998 elections in large part because the public rejected the GOP's push to impeach Clinton, surely Krauthammer then insisted that the House Republicans not impeach Clinton in a lame-duck session, right? Er … not quite.
Charles Krauthammer, November 27, 1998:
The House should therefore vote on two simple articles of impeachment. … Republicans are running scared on impeachment for fear of the stain it will leave on them. This is the perfect opportunity for the turning of the tables on their opponents. Let these be the articles and let the Democrats vote against them, as they surely will. Up or down, yes or no, nothing less.
And yet now Krauthammer, who cheered on as a lame-duck Republican House of Representatives impeached a Democratic president after an election in which -- according to Krauthammer himself -- the American public rejected the GOP's impeachment efforts, insists that Democrats must pledge not to enact "controversial" legislation in a lame-duck session this fall.
It would be easier to take Krauthammer seriously if he added that he was wrong to push for lame-duck impeachment in 1998.