Examiner Columnist Bashes Obama's Lack of Military Service Topic: Washington Examiner
Gregory Kane's May 26 Washington Examiner column is a weird rant against President Obama for never having served in the military:
If the military is indeed our most trusted institution, then why did one Barack Hussein Obama pass on serving in it?
After college Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School. Later, he became a community organizer in Chicago. I have no problem with either of those callings. Thousands have gone to Harvard Law, and tens of thousands to other law schools across the nation. And being a community organizer is a noble calling.
But for those who opt for the career path that leads from Harvard Law to community organizing to state senator to U.S. senator, I expect one thing: Don’t come before me years later running for president, in essence asking to be commander-in-chief of a military force you didn’t think was worthy of your commitment.
Maybe I’m just funny this way, but I would never, under any circumstances, vote for a presidential candidate who had no military experience, either as an officer or an enlisted man or woman. I have a laundry list of reasons why I didn’t vote for Obama; his passing on military service is in the top three.
Obama promised the graduates that he’d only “send them into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary.” That promise would mean a lot more coming from a president who’d experienced at least some of the rigors of basic training.
But military service is not a constitutional requirement for being president. Indeed, a significant number of presidents never served in the military.
Kane is also curiously silent about whether he himself has "experienced at least some of the rigors of basic training."
First, it is no longer possible to doubt that [Nancy] Pelosi knew as of September 4, 2002 that the CIA included water-boarding among its tools for interrogating high-value terrorists like al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. She knew this because, according to then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-FL, he and Pelosi received a detailed classified briefing from the agency.
[...]
In view of these facts, Pelosi’s April 23, 2009, claim that “we were not - I repeat - were not told that water-boarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used” was untrue and she knew it to be untrue.
In fact, the CIA document to which the Examiner is referring does not prove that Pelosi was briefed on the use of waterboarding against Zubaydah, only stating that she was briefed on "use of EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah."
Further, the Examiner fails to note that, as we've detailed, the CIA report was accompanied by a letter from CIA chief Leon Panetta stating that the report is, in part, based on "notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals" who did the briefings, and that the committee to which the report was submitted "will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened." In other words, the CIA isn't vouching for the accuracy of the claims in the report.
The editorial also states that waterboarding of detainees such as Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "further deadly terrorist attacks were thereby prevented from taking place in this country. A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSnews.com, for example, the May 30, 2005, Justice Department memo describing how the 'second wave' attack on Los Angeles was unraveled." But as we've also detailed, CNS has failed to report that the Bush administration has claimed that the Los Angeles plot was foiled a year before Mohammed was captured, which would mean that his waterboarding could not have "unraveled" the plot.
Tapscott Repeats Inflated Tea Party Attendance Figure Topic: Washington Examiner
In a May 1 Washington Examiner blog post, Mark Tapscott uncritically repeats a claim that the April 15 tea party protests featured "1.2 million patriots."
As we detailed when WorldNetDaily did it, any million-plus figure is highly inflated. Even Americans for Tax Reform counts as of this writing 578,000 participants -- and even thatnumber can be reasonably assured of being inflated since ATR has an interest in a high number as well.
Tapscott pulled his number from the Tea Party Patriots website, which does not substantiate it.
Examiner's '10 Worst Ideas' Peddle More Misinformation Topic: Washington Examiner
The Washington Examiner's "10 worst ideas of the week" is proving to be a regularsource of right-wing misinformation -- no wonder they won't put it on the website, leaving it only in print editions of the paper. Let's see what they got wrong this week, shall we?
No. 1 in the April 26 edition was a claim that "prominent scientist" Christopher Monckton was "disinvited" from a House committee hearing by Democrats "who don't welcome his doubts about the legitimacy of global warming." As we've noted, Monckton is a not a scientist; he's a journalilst by training. Further, Monckton has peddled dubious claims of his own, making him a less-than-credible witness.
In third place was criticism of Democrats for deciding to use the "reconciliation" process to push health care reform through Congress. The Examiner adds: "But reconciliation is supposed to be for reconciling different dollar amounts, not for major policy changes. In short, it's a major procedural abuse." Nowhere is it noted that when Republicans controlled Congress, they repeatedly used reconciliation to push through numerous initiatives that had nothing to do with "reconciling different dollar amounts," like tax-cut bills.
Examiner Columnist Repeats False Attack on Obama Topic: Washington Examiner
In an April 27 Washington Examiner column (print-only, not online) attempting to prove that President Obama "could very well be one of the worst U.S. presidents in history when it comes to thinking on his feet," Michael Taube repeats a false story:
According to Sky News, the president read Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen's speech -- and thanked himself -- on his teleprompter in March 2009. Cowen followed him to the podium, started repeating the same words, stopped and then said, "That's your speech."
First, Taube gets the order wrong -- Cowen's teleprompter goof came before Obama's turn to speak, not after. Second, the White House press pool report clearly indicates that that Obama was making a joke about Cowen's goof by thanking himself. Which demonstrates that Obama may be better at thinking on his feet than Taube thinks.
Meanwhile, Over At HuffPo... Topic: Washington Examiner
We've got a new column up at Huffington Post detailing the right-wing tilt of the Washington Examiner.
Examiner Loves Ideologically Based Dishonesty Topic: Washington Examiner
In naming yet another liberal its "dim bulb of the week" for the crime of doing something non-conservative, the Washington Examiner, in its April 19 print edition, accused him of "ideologically based dishonesty." But that's exactly what the Examiner engages in in the rest of that paper:
The main editorial blamed Congress in general and Barney Frank in particular for ignoring warning signs aboutproblems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While the Examiner cites quotes from Frank maked in 2003 and 2004, nowhere does it single out any Republican for criticism, even though Republicans were in charge of Congress until 2006 and, thus, it was Republicans -- and not Frank -- who controlled the agenda of the House Financial Services Committee until 2007, when Frank introduced legislation creating an agency with "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Examiner doesn't mention that, either.
The Examiner ran a column by Michael Reagan (which also ran at Newsmax) in which he smeared President Obama as a Nazi.
The print-only, liberal-bashing "10 worst ideas of the week" was rife with false and misleading claims: It falsely called right-wing documentarian John Ziegler a "journalist" (he's a foul-mouthed bully), and it falsely claimed that "the White House demanded that a pernament IHS insignia ... be covered" during a speech at Georgetown (the White House made no such specific demand).
President Barack Obama is getting generally positive reviews from the purveyors of conventional wisdom for his performance at the London G-20 summit and in France during a joint appearance with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. An admiring news story in The New York Times, for instance, all but hailed Obama for setting “a new tone for the alliance with Europe.” Unfortunately, the new tone consists mainly of Obama apologizing for those times “when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward its European allies.
But the Examiner plucked Obama's statement out of context, failing to mention that Obama also stated that immediately after the part of the speech it noted, Obama said: "But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
On top of this, the self-proclaimed “watchdogs” at ThinkProgress and Media Matters are busily cherry picking supposedly offensive snippets from those having the nerve to say or write anything they don’t agree with. Laughably, such edit advice extends to the Obama-loving Chris Matthews irrespective of his obvious support for Democrats and liberal policies.
What this means is the goal is not to create a fair and balanced media which many on the Right desire. Hardly. What these folks strive for is a complete and total elimination of all opinion and viewpoints that are not in complete and total lockstep with their own.
Really? You wouldn't know that from reading the site for which Sheppard serves as associate editor, NewsBusters. Postafterpost at NewsBusters -- including by Sheppardhimself -- attack media outlets and those working for them for making statements conservatives like Sheppard don't agree with. It's difficult to argue that such attacks demonstrate that "the Right" wants only to "create a fair and balanced media."
Sheppard needs to stop pretending that his NewsBusters boss, Brent Bozell, is merely interested in balance when the evidence -- like cherry-picking 19 posts out of tens of thousands to attack the Huffington Post -- amply demonstrates the contrary.
(Disclosure: I work for Media Matters and post at Huffington Post, but neither have any involvement, financially or otherwise, in ConWebWatch.)
Examiner Again Hides Funding of Anti-Union Study Topic: Washington Examiner
Barbara Comstock, in a March 26 column, is the latest Washington Examiner writer to attack the Employee Free Choice Act by uncritically citing a study by Anne Layne-Farrar without noting that the study was funded by anti-union groups.
Examiner Misleads Again on Obama, Defense Spending Topic: Washington Examiner
A March 25 Washington Examiner editorial asserts that President Obama "intends to slash defense spending 8.2 percent below the level planned under President George W. Bush."
As we noted the last time the Examiner misled about defense spending, Obama's planned budget is $14 billion higher than the current one, which undercuts the Examiner's assertion that Obama is doing "defense-on-the-cheap." The "plan" that Obama is purportedly "slashing" was, in fact, only a preliminary budget request. Does the Examiner really think that the Defense Department should get everything it asks for without question?
The Examiner also falsely asserts that Obama is "severely cutting American defense forces." In fact, Obama claimed during the campaign that he wants to increase the size of both the Army and the Marines.
Tapscott Lies About Obama, Healthcare Topic: Washington Examiner
Mark Tapscott doesn't stray from scary, misleading right-wing boilerplate in attacking President Obama in a March 19 Washington Examiner column. Here's just one example:
Finally, there is Obama’s vision of a nationalized health care system. A Federal Health Board like that envisioned by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice as secretary of health and human services until unpaid taxes derailed his nomination, would become America’s equivalent to Britain’s National Health Service.
Tapscott is repeating a discredited talking point from John McCain. In fact, Obama is not planning to nationalize health care. AsPolitiFact detailed, Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured.
Sheppard Likens Obama to Soviets, Nazis Topic: Washington Examiner
Noel Sheppard has another too-hot-for-NewsBusters column up at the Washington Examiner, and this time he's in a mood to smear:
Seems like our new president is using unreasoning, unjustified terror to paralyze the petrified masses into unconditionally surrendering to a proposal that is either totally unnecessary or based on rose-colored assumptions that can’t possibly pan out.
Whichever the case, it is no basis for America throwing away liberty and our very way of life.
Discarding centuries of freedom and capitalism to save some people from hard financial times must be avoided like a bank stock for it is precisely such myopia that led to the Red Revolution in Russia in the early 1900’s. Did that succeed, or was it a huge mistake?
Or how about National Socialism in Germany? Wasn’t that an atrocious decision made by a seemingly desperate people scared enough by horrid economic conditions to elect an inhumane dictator in return for financial security?
Huh? Does Sheppard really think that Russia under the czarist system was all about "freedom and capitalism"?
Examiner Hides Funding of Anti-Union Study Topic: Washington Examiner
Numerous Washington Examiner articles -- a March 5 editorial, a March 6 article by Kevin Mooney, a March 6 "Opinion Zone" article, a March 11 editorial, and a March 13 column by Republican Rep. Howard McKeon -- have touted a study by Anne Layne-Farrar claiming that, in the words of one article, "Every three percentage point gain in union membership would be accompanied by a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate the following year." Most of these articles offer some variation on a neutral description of Layne-Farrar's background -- in Mooney's words, "an economist with LECG, a non-partisan Chicago-based economic consulting group."
None of the articles, however, mention one pertinent fact: As Media Matters detailed, Layne-Farrar's study was funded by anti-union groups. A press release issued by the HR Policy Association announcing the results of Layne-Farrar's study, "Funding for the Study was provided by the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs." The release further states that the alliance "is chaired by HR Policy Association and includes the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, The International Council of Shopping Centers, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."
Then again, to have mentioned this would have meant that the Examiner is acknowledging that it's serving as the PR arm of those very same anti-union forces.
The Return of Mark Hyman -- And His False Claims Topic: Washington Examiner
You may remember Mark Hyman from his heyday as a right-wing Sinclair Broadcasting commentator, during which he peddled all sorts of false and misleading claims.
Well, he's back. In a March 10 Washington Examiner column, Hyman served up a laundry list of anti-Obama attacks -- including some false ones.
In recent days, there were attacks against CNBC hosts Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, a prominent Obama supporter. The pair articulated on-air what millions of Americans are thinking: Obama’s economic policies are seriously damaging America.
Santelli said he understood the threat when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs publicly stated, “I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives…” What Gibbs may have hoped to instigate is anybody’s guess.
In fact, Santelli himself backed off his false claim that Gibbs "threatened" him when confronted on it by NBC's Matt Lauer.
Hyman also wrote that "Prosecutors and sheriffs in the swing state of Missouri who backed Obama threatened to prosecute anyone behind information they – as a self-appointed 'truth squad' -- judged to be inaccurate." In fact, as we noted at the time, those prosecutors and Sheriffs made no such threat, and the chief promoter of this claim was Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt, a John McCain supporter.
Hyman didn't go only after Obama; he wrote, "The Clinton Administration repeatedly used dirty tricks against 'enemies,'" listing among them "White House Travel Officer [sic] Director Billy Dale." In fact, as we've detailed, independent counsel Robert Ray concluded that because Dale and other employees of the travel office worked at the pleasure of the president, President Clinton had the legal right to fire them without cause. Further, there was indeed evidence of financial mismanagement in the travel office under Dale, though Dale was later found not guilty of criminal charges filed over it.
