A Washington Times editorial that advocated drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge exaggerated estimates of the refuge's oil reserves and the amount of daily oil production that could be achieved through exploration there.
The Washington Times' Donald Lambro claimed that New Jersey state Sen. Thomas H. Kean Jr., a Republican, "is running even" with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) in the 2006 New Jersey senatorial race. In fact, the most recent polling shows that Menendez is six points ahead of Kean.
A Washington Times editorial asserted that "Iran has shown no serious interest in negotiating" about its alleged nuclear weapons program, despite evidence that, in May 2003, Iran made diplomatic overtures toward the United States.
On the third anniversary of President Bush's premature declaration of victory in Iraq, Media Matters has compiled examples of media that sounded alarms over Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction capabilities now sounding similar alarms over Iran.
A Washington Times editorial asserted that the amount of petroleum imported into the United States was projected to increase by more than 7 million barrels daily from 2004 to 2025 "[u]ntil President Bush recently joined his six immediate predecessors by promising that America's addiction to oil would end." In fact, new, lower projections came in December 2005, before Bush promised to "break" the country's "addiction" to oil in his January 31 State of the Union address.
Echoing Brit Hume's recent report that global warming "could ... be in remission," a Washington Times editorial cited a misleading statistic -- recently highlighted by global-warming skeptic Bob Carter -- to suggest that global warming might have "stopped in 1998" because of a "negligible decrease in temperature" since that year. But Hume and the Times neglected to mention why temperatures have slightly decreased since 1998: That year was the hottest on record, according to the Climatic Research Unit, the source of Carter's data.
In his Washington Times column, Tony Blankley stated that there is "strong evidence" of a secret agreement between active-duty generals to retire in succession and then speak out against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In fact, Blankley's only evidence is a Washington Post column by former Clinton ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, who wrote that he expected more generals to speak out. According to Blankley: "Mr. Holbrook [sic] is at the least very well informed if he is not himself part of this military cabal intended to 'consume ... Donald Rumsfeld.' "
Over the span of two weeks, Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro has apparently reversed his support of continued U.S. military action in Iraq, without acknowledging that he has done so.
The final installment of The Washington Times' months-long series of opinion pieces aimed at "counter[ing]" the "disingenuous charge" that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq included "excerpts from two bipartisan reports" that the Times claimed "absolv[e] the president and his staff of these opportunistic accusations." But National Journal investigative reporter Murray Waas, in two recent articles, has further offered evidence that Bush and his aides did, in fact, knowingly twist and manipulate intelligence reports to build the case for war, and then covered up their actions.
Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro claimed that pollsters "are seeing deep dissatisfaction across the country at just about every level of government," and that "[w]hile neither party can take solace in the [poll] numbers, there may be some perverse comfort for Republicans in the fact that many of the Democrats' biggest gubernatorial stars have run into political trouble." To support his claim, Lambro cited polls conducted by Republican-linked polling groups without identifying them as such.
A Washington Times editorial accused Latinos who took to the streets in recent days to protest a House immigration bill of either supporting or having given "tacit approval" to the "reconquista" agenda of "Hispanic radicals," which the editorial said was the "reconquering of Mexican land lost during the Mexican-American war."
A Washington Times editorial claimed that opponents of a recent House immigration bill have "disingenuously charged" that, under the bill, "anyone who helps an illegal immigrant would be considered a felon." But the bill explicitly includes under "criminal offenses" any person who knowingly "assists, encourages, directs, or induces" an illegal alien to "reside in or remain in the United States." So while courts would ultimately have to determine the scope of the conduct proscribed under the bill, critics -- including prominent religious leaders -- can hardly be accused of "disingenuous[ness]" for citing its plain language.
In a Washington Times column, Tony Blankley claimed that Democrats are using "the old Chinese water torture" on President Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance by "dragging out" the issue for "months and months," even as those "same senators ... oppose similar water-related interrogation techniques when used on captured enemy terrorists." He added: "But then I suppose the president is not covered by what [right-wing radio host] Michael Savage calls the Democratic Party's 'Terrorist Bill of Rights.' "
Following Dubai Ports World's announcement that it would divest its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports, news outlets and media figures depicted Republicans as having neutralized the issue of port security. In other cases, they portrayed the Democratic opposition to the state-owned Arab firm's acquisition of the ports as purely political. But such characterizations take a narrow view of the political issues involved in the controversy, entirely ignoring differences between the two parties' broader records on this issue.
Several journalists and media figures have taken to describing Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's approval of a deal allowing state-owned Dubai Ports World to assume control of six major U.S. ports as an attempt by Democrats to move "to the right" of President Bush and Republicans in Congress on issues of national security. In fact, some of the Democrats who have most strongly denounced the deal have been among the most active proponents of enhancing port security since the 9-11 terrorist attacks.