While discussing President Bush's May 15 speech to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, on that night's broadcast of the CBS Evening News, senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield stated that "the president, in the Israeli parliament, made a statement that everyone knew, including the White House, had to be seen as a frontal attack on [Sen.] Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee. This is a key theme we're going to hear all fall that Barack is naive, inexperienced, doesn't understand the real danger that is out there in the world." He added: "Also, because the Republicans think they have a shot at the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote, the number one fear in Israel and among some American Jews is Iran -- that's who Obama wants to talk to -- and it's stirred up quite a hornet's nest." However, in asserting that Obama "wants to talk to" Iran, Greenfield did not note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reportedly stated that the United States should "sit down and talk with" Iran.

According to a May 15 Washington Post article, Gates said of Iran, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. ... If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

During his speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence, Bush stated:

BUSH: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

From the May 15 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

COURIC: OK, Chip Reid, thanks very much. Jeff Greenfield is our senior political correspondent. And Jeff, why do you think President Bush's comments are striking such a nerve?

GREENFIELD: Because the president, in the Israeli parliament, made a statement that everyone knew, including the White House, had to be seen as a frontal attack on Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee. This is a key theme we're going to hear all fall that Barack is naive, inexperienced, doesn't understand the real danger that is out there in the world. Also, because the Republicans think they have a shot at the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote, the number one fear in Israel and among some American Jews is Iran -- that's who Obama wants to talk to -- and it's stirred up quite a hornet's nest.

On the May 14 edition of NBC's Today, during an interview with former CIA agent Michael Sheehan about his new book, Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves (Crown, May 2008), host Matt Lauer said, "You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties." In fact, despite Lauer's suggestion that it is only "the far left" that is concerned about "trample[d] civil liberties," Americans across the political spectrum have denounced the Bush administration for alleged violations of civil liberties, including conservatives such as former congressman (and current Libertarian Party presidential candidate) Bob Barr, former Reagan administration associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, other members of the conservative American Freedom Agenda, and members of the libertarian Cato Institute.

In addition, Lauer did not challenge Sheehan's assertion that the wiretapping and investigative authorities of the CIA, FBI, and NYPD have not "been abused over the last seven years." Sheehan stated: "What you need is good oversight involved. You need oversight within the agencies; you need congressional oversight; oversight from the press -- and make sure that when we give our CIA or FBI or NYPD the authority to do wiretaps or do investigations, that they're not going to abuse it. I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years." Lauer did not point to any of the reports of abuses of authority by the Department of Justice inspector general or to the reports of dissent from within the administration regarding the warrantless domestic surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA).

As Media Matters for America has noted, in a March 2007 report, the Justice Department inspector general (IG) found many "instances of illegal or improper use of national security letters [NSLs]" by the FBI between 2003 and 2005. NSLs, the report explains, "are written directives to provide information" and "are issued by the FBI directly to third parties such as telephone companies, financial institutions, Internet service providers and consumer credit agencies, without judicial review." The IG's report stated that its investigation "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies" and identified multiple ways that the FBI had done so.

Further, the report also found that the FBI acquired information in some cases without obtaining grand jury warrants or even issuing NSLs. As The Washington Post reported in a March 9, 2007, article:

The inspector general's report discloses that on 739 occasions, the FBI obtained telephone toll or subscriber records without first having a required national security letter or grand jury subpoena, according to an unclassified version. Instead, the report says, the FBI used a tactic called "exigent letters" that claimed there were emergencies that warranted getting the information immediately. Many times, no such emergencies existed, the inspector general found.

"On over 700 occasions the FBI obtained telephone billing records or subscriber information from three telephone companies without first issuing national security letters or grand jury subpoenas," the report says. It notes that many times the FBI supervisors who approved such requests did not even have the legal authority to sign national security letters.

The IG report stated that the FBI's use of such "exigent letters" "circumvented the ECPA [Electronic Communications Privacy Act] NSL statute and violated the Attorney General's Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection (NSI Guidelines) and internal FBI policy."

Lauer also could have pointed to reports of dissent within the Bush administration over the legality of the NSA's domestic surveillance activities. In their December 16, 2005, New York Times article on NSA "eavesdropping," Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen wrote: "Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight."

In a March 30 Times article adapted from his book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice (Pantheon, April 2008), Lichtblau wrote:

In one previously undisclosed episode, [then-]Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson refused to sign off on any of the secret wiretapping requests that grew out of the program because of the secrecy and legal uncertainties surrounding it, the officials said. With the veil of secrecy around the program, Mr. Thompson was not given access to details of the N.S.A. operation, and he was so uncomfortable with the idea of approving this new breed of wiretap applications that he had a top adviser write a memorandum assessing the legal ramifications. The adviser warned him not to sign the warrant applications because it was unclear where the wiretaps were coming from.

In addition, as Media Matters documented, Lichtblau and Risen reported on another instance of dissent over the NSA program in a January 1, 2006, Times article. Lichtblau and Risen noted that in March 2004, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey was serving as acting attorney general while then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital. Lichtblau and Risen reported that Comey objected strenuously to the continuation of the NSA program, prompting Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, White House counsel at the time, to visit Ashcroft's hospital room to obtain Department of Justice approval for "aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program." At a May 15, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Comey testified that after the hospital meeting, the program under discussion at the hospital "was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality." He also said of the attempt to get Ashcroft to sign off on the program: "I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

Concerns over the legality of the domestic surveillance program also reportedly extended to members of the judiciary. Lichtblau reported in a January 10, 2006, Times article that "the Justice Department held an unusual closed-door briefing Monday for judges on a secret foreign-intelligence court in response to concerns about President Bush's decision to allow domestic eavesdropping without warrants." He added that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), "raised objections in 2004 to aspects of the program and instructed for a time that no material obtained by the N.S.A. without warrants could be presented to the court in warrant applications." In addition, according to media reports, Judge James Robertson resigned from the FISC in December 2005 in protest of the NSA's eavesdropping program.

From the May 14 edition of NBC's Today:

LAUER: The third point -- and this is really the crux of your book here -- is that: "Only spying works." And when you talk about spying, let me just go through some of the things you call for -- demand. You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties.

SHEEHAN: Well, I hope not, and actually, I believe very firmly you can do both. What you need is good oversight involved. You need oversight within the agencies; you need congressional oversight; oversight from the press -- and make sure that when we give our CIA or FBI or NYPD the authority to do wiretaps or do investigations, that they're not going to abuse it.

I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years. And even when President Bush pushed the NSA wiretapping thing, I think as people began to understand what he was doing, they became -- they understood it more. It's just the way he went about it. I think if we have a little bit more dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress with the American people, we can get through that.

LAUER: And it takes us to the title of you book, which is Crush the Cell, and your thought here is, once you see a cell forming, you break it up before that gang has a chance to dream big.

Thumbs on the scale

During a speech to the Israeli parliament yesterday morning, President Bush attacked Barack Obama, comparing him to Nazi appeasers for the Illinois senator's willingness to hold discussions with Iran.

One problem: Bush's speech came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."

Oops.

Naturally, then, a media firestorm erupted, with the Bush administration and its political allies questioned all day about whether Bush has any idea what he is talking about, whether he has lost control over the Pentagon, whether Gates will be fired, what Gates thinks about Bush's comparison of those (like Gates) who advocate dialogue between the United States and Iran to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, and whether the fiasco will remind voters that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been marked by incompetence and dishonesty, thus doing irreparable electoral damage to John McCain and other Republican candidates.

Sorry -- what was I thinking? That didn't happen.

Instead, much of the news media got busy pretending the Post article didn't exist and that Gates had not undermined Bush's political attack on Obama. Instead, many news outlets simply rushed to repeat Bush's assault over and over again, as though it had merit.

A quick look at ABC's The Note -- which claims for itself the responsibility for providing "editorial guidance on the leading political stories of the day" -- demonstrates how thoroughly Gates' comments were ignored in coverage of Bush's attack. Yesterday's edition of The Note didn't mention either Bush's comments (which came after The Note was finished) or Gates'. But a later posting did devote 341 words to Bush's criticism of Obama without bothering to mention Gates' comments about meeting with Iran. Today, The Note included 560 words about Bush's remarks -- but still no mention of Gates.

Though The Note boasts (unfortunately with some accuracy) of setting the agenda for the rest of the media, it reflects other news organizations' priorities as much as it sets them, and this is no exception. The Note's "Must-Reads" today included links to five articles about the "appeasement controversy" -- one each from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, and Time. None of those articles -- not one -- even mentioned Gates' name. The Washington Post's failure to mention Gates' comments in its article is most striking, since the paper reported his comments yesterday. (The Note also attempted to link to a Joe Klein article or column or blog post -- it isn't clear which -- but did not provide a direct link to the piece in question. Klein has not mentioned Gates' comments on Time's website, as far as I can tell.)

Politico's Mike Allen writes another of the most widely read political tipsheets. Allen has mentioned Bush's attack on Obama in his daily "Playbook" each of the past two mornings -- but didn't mention Gates in either. Allen has, however, devoted a full paragraph to Hannah Montana and 272 words to American Idol.

Nor were Gates' comments mentioned on the ABC or CBS evening news broadcasts last night -- both of which did segments about Bush's attack.

But the most striking disappearance of Gates' comments came on CNN. On yesterday's American Morning, host John Roberts interviewed Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. Gibbs twice brought up Gates' comments -- though when CNN aired clips of the interview later in the day, the cable network edited Gibbs' comments to include the sentence before he mentioned Gates, and the sentence after he mentioned Gates -- but to omit any reference to the defense secretary.

Here's what Gibbs actually said, which CNN did air in its entirety the first time:

GIBBS: Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Them being Iran. Look, we have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were.

But twice during the day, CNN again aired that clip of Gibbs -- except that it edited out the portion in bold, in which Gibbs pointed out the Bush administration's hypocrisy. Several other times, CNN aired a portion of Gibbs' comments, without the references to Gates.

CNN covered the controversy over Bush's attack on Obama with numerous segments throughout the day, but the only times viewers were told of Gates' comments were when they were mentioned by Gibbs and Sens. Joe Biden and John Kerry -- and one report in which CNN reporter Zain Verjee quoted Gates. On Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper mentioned written comments Gates made in 2004 about the importance of contact with Iran. Cooper then noted, "That was back in 2004. He says the situation has changed." But Cooper didn't mention that just that morning, The Washington Post reported new comments by Gates about the need to talk to Iran.

This morning brought further evidence of right-wing hypocrisy: video of John McCain saying two years ago that the United States should talk to Hamas. Yesterday, McCain embraced Bush's attack on Obama, adding, "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people."

So, McCain was for talking with people who want to "wipe Israel off the map" before he was against it.

Here's how CNN's Dan Lothian dealt with this fresh evidence of McCain's hypocrisy this afternoon:

LOTHIAN: Now, you know, already, we have seen Senator John McCain bring up this issue. He was going after Obama yesterday, attacking him. And then more controversy today when an op-ed piece in The Washington Post by Jamie Rubin, who worked in the -- former President Bill Clinton's administration, is a Clinton supporter, is a leading Democrat, as well. And he suggested that Senator McCain was flip-flopping because two years ago, he talked about negotiating with Hamas. Of course, the McCain camp had to respond immediately, saying that it wasn't true.

Lothian indicated that the evidence of McCain flip-flopping consisted of an op-ed by a Clinton supporter and presented the matter as a he-said/she-said situation in which Rubin suggested McCain flip-flopped and the McCain campaign denied it. But there is video of the McCain comments in question -- video that had been widely available online for more than 12 hours at the time of Lothian's report. There was no reason to present the situation as a dispute between Rubin and McCain's campaign; Lothian could have read McCain's actual comments. Or even, through the magic of cable television, played the video for viewers!

And it turns out, McCain also supported talking to Syria -- another state sponsor of terrorism.

We know what the media would do if the candidate who blasted his opponent for being willing to engage in diplomatic talks with state sponsors of terrorism despite having previously argued in favor of talks with Syria and Hamas was named John Kerry or Al Gore. They would flay him mercilessly as a flip-flopper, as someone willing to say and do anything to win.

So far, they've treated John McCain a little more gently: They've frantically covered up evidence of hypocrisy.

In a May 14 article about the upcoming HBO film Recount, New York Times writer Edward Wyatt reported, "In 2006 ABC made changes to 'The Path to 9/11' after complaints from former Clinton administration officials that it portrayed them as less than vigilant in their pursuit of Osama bin Laden," but did not note that, despite editing, the final version of the ABC miniseries still included several fabricated scenes, falsehoods, and sharp discrepancies between its account of certain events and the findings laid out in the 9-11 Commission's report. Indeed, Wyatt himself wrote in a September 18, 2006, Times article: "It's little wonder that ABC's mini-series 'The Path to 9/11' drew stinging criticism earlier this month for its invented scenes, fabricated dialogue and unsubstantiated accounts of how the Clinton and [George W.] Bush administrations conducted themselves in the years encompassing the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001." These falsehoods and discrepancies have been noted by Media Matters for America and numerous others.

In mentioning only "complaints from former Clinton administration officials" -- and not actual falsehoods in the movie -- the May 14 article repeated the Times' 2006 suggestion that criticism of the movie was leveled exclusively by former Clinton officials upset at their portrayal in the film. In fact, the film was criticized for its falsehoods regarding both the Clinton and the Bush administrations' handling of the terrorist threat by people from across the political spectrum, including journalists and participants in the film's production as well as a number of conservative commentators, as Media Matters has documented.

From Wyatt's May 14 New York Times article:

As many dramatizations do, "Recount" includes invented scenes and dialogue. Danny Strong, who wrote the screenplay, said in an interview that while those inventions condensed events, they reflect what actually happened. "The film tries to give the essence of the truth," he said, and is based on his own research and interviews, as well as on books and newspaper and magazine articles documenting the recount effort.

Dramatizations of historical events, particularly political ones, have frequently given trouble to writers and producers trying to create compelling entertainment. In 2006 ABC made changes to "The Path to 9/11" after complaints from former Clinton administration officials that it portrayed them as less than vigilant in their pursuit of Osama bin Laden. CBS dropped plans to show "The Reagans," a 2003 mini-series, after Republican and conservative groups protested its portrayal of President Reagan as forgetful and unsympathetic to AIDS victims. (The series was broadcast on Showtime.)

"Recount," which has been screened for invited audiences in Washington and New York and will be shown in Florida this week, is inspiring similar protests.

On the May 14 edition of NBC's Nightly News, while previewing a report on the Department of Interior's announcement that it was listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), anchor Brian Williams said: "Then today, a huge milestone by the Bush administration: Polar bears were declared a threatened species." However, neither Williams nor the report by chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson mentioned that the "milestone" comes after environmental groups twice sued the administration to make a listing decision, almost two years after the administration published a proposed rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species -- and just one day before a court-ordered deadline to make a final decision on the polar bear's status.

By contrast, a May 15 article in The Washington Post noted: "Yesterday's decision marked the resolution of a lengthy battle between environmental groups and the Bush administration, though it is not likely to be the last one over the issue. The Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned to list the polar bear in 2005. When the Interior Department took no action, the groups sued. As part of a settlement, the administration proposed listing the polar bear as threatened in late 2006, but it delayed finalizing the rule until the groups took the government to court again and won a ruling setting a deadline of today."

The article also quoted the former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under President Clinton as saying: "The administration has been brought kicking and screaming to this decision."

The environmental groups sued the Bush administration in December 2005 after FWS did not act on their petition to consider listing the polar bear under the ESA. As a result of that lawsuit, in February 2006, FWS began a full status review of the polar bear. In June 2006, the federal district court granted the parties' stipulated settlement agreement, which committed FWS to make the second of three required findings under the ESA by December 27, 2006, at which time the administration announced the proposal to list the species as "threatened." On January 9, 2007, pursuant to that agreement, FWS published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species. Under the ESA, the administration was required to make a final listing decision within one year of the proposal, or January 9, 2008. After the administration did not make its final decision within the deadline, the groups again filed suit on March 10. On April 28, the district court for the Northern District of California issued an order requiring the administration to issue a final decision by May 15. The administration announced its decision to list the polar bear as threatened on May 14.

From the May 14 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: This has been a very big week for those who are fighting to save the environment. Yesterday in an interview, President Bush said there's no question global warming is real. Then today, a huge milestone by the Bush administration: Polar bears were declared a threatened species. But none of that apparently has changed the fight over what to do about climate change. Our report tonight from our chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson:

[begin video clip]

THOMPSON: The polar bear is on thin ice and could well be on its way to extinction. Today the Bush administration acknowledged global warming is shrinking sea ice, a crucial part of the bear's habitat in Alaska. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne used satellite images to show the dramatic change in ice from 1979 to today in explaining his decision to list the bear as threatened, but he insisted this would not be a way to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and power plants.

KEMPTHORNE: The Endangered Species Act is not the means nor the method nor the vehicle by which you can deal with global climate change.

THOMPSON: That disappointed many environmental groups, leading some to label the listing as an empty victory.

DALE BRYK (National Resources Defense Council): The administration on the one hand is saying, "Yes, global warming is the dominant threat to your survival." But at the very same time, they're saying, "We're going to do nothing to protect you from that threat."

THOMPSON: Dr. Scott Bergen of the Wildlife Conservation Society says they can already see the impacts of the shrinking ice. Pregnant females are lighter, and fewer cubs are surviving their first year.

What role does the sea ice play in the polar bears' survival?

BERGEN: It determines the polar bears' survival.

THOMPSON: The 20,000-plus bears use the ice to catch the seals they feed on.

The fear is, without protection, this will be one of the few places polar bears exist. Last year, government scientists predicted two-thirds of all polar bears will disappear by the year 2050, including every bear in Alaska. And today a new international study confirmed man-made climate change is causing a reduction in the number of bears, more evidence that those in the wild tonight are at risk. Anne Thompson, NBC News, New York.

[end video clip]

In a May 15 post to the mediabistro.com blog fishbowl DC, editor Patrick W. Gavin reported that in response to his inquiry following up on a Media Matters for America item asking whether NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert would give Libertarian presidential candidate and former Republican congressman Bob Barr (GA) the same platform on Meet the Press that Russert gave Ralph Nader, Meet the Press executive producer Betsy Fischer asserted, "We would certainly be open to having Rep. Barr back on Meet the Press to discuss his candidacy."

The fishbowl DC blog post:

Will "Meet" Book Barr?

MediaMatters asks an interesting question: "Will Russert offer Libertarian candidate Barr the same Meet the Press platform he gave Nader?"

"Meet the Press" Executive Producer Betsy Fischer tells FishbowlDC:

Meet the Press has a long history of interviewing third party presidential candidates ... Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Harry Browne (Libertarian Pres. Candidate), John Hagelin and Howard Phillips -- just to name a few. We would certainly be open to having Rep. Barr back on Meet the Press to discuss his candidacy. He has previously appeared on the program six times during his career.

On the May 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, commentator Jack Cafferty asserted that Sen. John McCain "has been at odds with his own party for years on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming," without noting that McCain said on January 30 that he would no longer support his own comprehensive immigration reform bill if it came up for a vote in the Senate. Additionally, McCain has reversed himself on the issue of border security; he now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.

Cafferty also said that "a lot of Republicans are hoping that the maverick appeal of McCain will help other Republicans on the ballot." Media Matters for America has extensively documented the broadcast and print media's repeated habit of using the label "maverick" when discussing McCain.

From the May 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: John McCain took a look into the future this morning, delivering a speech that looked ahead to what the U.S. and the world would be like in four years, after the first term of a McCain presidency. You may recognize some things in here as stuff you've heard before.

Some of the highlights: He thinks the Iraq war will be won; Iraq will be a functioning democracy; violence there will be, quote, "spasmodic and much reduced," unquote. McCain thinks the U.S. will have welcomed home most of its troops. He thinks the threat from Al Qaeda and the Taliban won't yet be eliminated, even though [Osama] bin Laden will be captured or killed.

Recognize -- does this stuff sound familiar to you yet?

It's pretty bold to lay out these objectives like this. It gives the critics a lot to measure you against if, for example, these things don't turn out to actually be the case in four years, assuming you win the White House - which is a bit of a leap of faith at this point anyway.

In any case, John McCain seems to be one of the few things Republicans have going for them this fall. After a string of GOP defeats in special elections, a lot of Republicans are hoping that the maverick appeal of McCain will help other Republicans on the ballot.

It's all kind of ironic when you consider the Arizona senator has been at odds with his own party for years on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming.

In a May 16 Washington Post article discussing President Bush's controversial remarks in his May 15 speech to the Israeli Knesset, staff writer Michael Abramowitz reported that Bush "compared people seeking talks with Iran and radical Islamic groups to the Nazis' appeasers" and that he "warned that the United States must not negotiate with Iran or radical groups such as Hamas." Abramowitz noted that "Democratic leaders demanded that [Sen. John] McCain repudiate Bush's comments," and he reported that, rather than "repudiate" the comments, "McCain joined in on Bush's side" and quoted McCain as saying: "Why does Senator [Barack] Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? What does Senator Obama want to talk about with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" But Abramowitz did not note that, as his Post colleague Karen DeYoung reported in a May 15 article, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, like Obama, has said that the United States needs to be willing to "sit down and talk" with Iran. DeYoung reported that in a May 14 speech to the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, Gates said of Iran, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. ... If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

From the May 16 Post article:

On an emotional visit to mark Israel's 60th anniversary, President Bush on Thursday compared people seeking talks with Iran and radical Islamic groups to the Nazis' appeasers, provoking a political storm at home and accusations that he was politicizing the celebration.

[...]

In the speech, Bush warned that the United States must not negotiate with Iran or radical groups such as Hamas.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

[...]

Democratic leaders demanded that McCain repudiate Bush's comments, but McCain joined in on Bush's side. "Why does Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? What does Senator Obama want to talk about with Ahmadinejad?" McCain asked reporters while campaigning in Ohio.

[...]

White House press secretary Dana Perino dismissed the Democrats' complaints, saying that Bush's remarks were not directed at Obama. "This is not new policy that the president announced, and it should come as no surprise to anybody that the president would talk about this," Perino said.

Obama is far from the only politician who has advocated a renewed dialogue with Iran to try to get it to give up its nuclear-enrichment programs. A smaller number of U.S. politicians, including former president Jimmy Carter, have said the United States should talk to Hamas.

In reports during the 10 and 11 a.m. ET hours of the May 15 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN aired comments by Robert Gibbs, Sen. Barack Obama's communications director, responding to President Bush's remarks that "[s]ome seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals," reportedly in reference to Obama, but CNN spliced the audio clip to omit part of the statement in which Gibbs noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, like Obama, has reportedly said that the United States needs to be willing to meet with Iran. CNN had left intact Gibbs' reference to Gates in the audio clip of Gibbs' comments it aired during the 9 a.m. hour of the program.

Gibbs was responding to comments Bush made at the Israeli parliament in which Bush said: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' " Gibbs stated, "I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, 'We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.' Them being Iran." During the 9 a.m. hour of the program, CNN aired Gibbs' assertion -- which came in the middle of his statement -- about Gates stating that the United States should "sit down and talk" with Iran. By contrast, during reports about Bush's comments on the 10 and 11 a.m. hours of the program, CNN spliced the audio to omit Gibbs' statement about Gates saying the United States should engage Iran.

During the 9 a.m. hour of CNN Newsroom, CNN aired Gibbs' full comment, including his reference to Gate's statements -- noted below in bold:

GIBBS: Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Them being Iran. Look, we have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were. Ronald Reagan once asked Americans whether they were better off than they were four years ago. And I think people are going to ask themselves in this election are we safer than we were eight years ago under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding "no."

Here's what CNN aired during the 10 and 11 a.m. hours:

GIBBS: [T]his is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. ... [W]e have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were.

The reports during the 10 and 11 a.m. hours made no mention of Gates' comments about Iran. The Washington Post reported in a May 15 article that Gates said the United States should "construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran" and quoted Gates as saying: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them." The article also noted that "[o]thers, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful."

From the May 15 Washington Post article, headlined "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure":

The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way ... of Americans" visiting Iran.

"I think that may be the one opening that creates some space," Gates said.

The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.

Others, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful.

Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled "Iran: Time for a New Approach." At the time, he explained yesterday, "we were looking at a different Iran in many respects" under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran's role in Iraq was "fairly ambivalent," he said. "They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful."

From the May 15 edition of CNN Newsroom:

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD (anchor): It's that word, "appeasement." Senator Obama had said in the past that he'd be willing to talk to Hamas, willing to talk to, quote-unquote, "enemies." What is the Obama campaign saying now in response to the president, Suzanne?

MALVEAUX: Well, Fred, you'll notice that President Bush did not mention Obama by name but my own colleague -- our own colleague Ed Henry, who is traveling with the president there, said that he spoke with White House aides who acknowledged that, yes, he was referring to Barack Obama when he made those comments. And it really is that whole idea, this policy of appeasement that has the Obama campaign quite surprised by all of this, the fact that the president is making these remarks in Israel, but also it is designed really to have that kind of impact, at that setting, in that particular moment, to talk about what is going to be a really hot political issue for the general election.

It is only -- not only about national security, but it is also about Middle East peace. President Bush trying to make a push in that direction, saying that he had hoped that he would bring that about before the end of his administration. The Barack Obama folks have reacted quite strongly this morning. We heard from Robert Gibbs. He is the communications director. Let's just take a quick listen at how he responded to President Bush.

GIBBS: Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Them being Iran. Look, we have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were. Ronald Reagan once asked Americans whether they were better off than they were four years ago. And I think people are going to ask themselves in this election are we safer than we were eight years ago under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding "no."

[...]

MALVEAUX: Now, we heard from Robert Gibbs, communication director of the Obama camp, lashing out, simply saying that this is more of the past rhetoric, that frustration from the Bush administration that has not moved the ball that much forward in the Middle East peace process. And also, a different philosophical approach to reaching out to other leaders. Take a listen.

GIBBS: [T]his is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. ... [W]e have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were.

MALVEAUX: And, Tony [Harris, anchor], I know John McCain is getting set to speak. So we're going to make this real quick here. Obviously, it underscores this is going to be a very important issue come the general election.

On the May 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing the controversial religious leaders associated with presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, Michael Savage stated that Rev. Rod Parsley, a McCain supporter and senior pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, has made "some inflammatory statements of which I agree with 100 percent." Savage then played a clip of Parsley, who has reportedly called McCain a "strong, true, consistent conservative," and who McCain has reportedly referred to as "a spiritual guide," in which Parsley stated: "I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I'm not shrinking back from its implications. The fact is that America was founded -- I'm gonna stagger you right now -- America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. And I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

Later, Savage played another clip in which Parsley said: "Why is marriage under attack? Why is the family coming under such brutal attack of the forces of darkness? In essence, the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2003, legalized the perverted act of sodomy. And we said nothing. This is not about homosexual rights or lesbian rights; this is about the destruction of the very covenant. They are seeking to redefine marriage. In other words, they are intending to pervert God's original intention."

Savage also asserted that "the libs are gonna run with this" and later stated: "This could backfire on the libs. They're, you know, they're desperate to use any dirt they can get, but this is not dirt. This is gold. I think they should play Parsley even more -- it'll bring more people around to McCain."

In a March 12 article, Mother Jones Washington editor David Corn noted that Parsley endorsed McCain on February 26 at a campaign rally at which they both appeared. Corn reported that Parsley called McCain a "strong, true, consistent conservative," and that McCain referred to Parsley as "a spiritual guide."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the media have largely ignored McCain's association with Parsley.

From the May 12 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: Now, we have something that I think you're gonna really appreciate, and that is John McCain's spiritual adviser, Rod Parsley. And he makes some inflammatory statements of which I agree with 100 percent. Now, the libs are gonna scream that McCain's reverend problem is equal to that of Obama's Reverend Wright problem -- and, of course, they're lying. That's what liberals do for a living. And the difference is that John McCain's spiritual adviser, as you'll soon hear, what he says, 80 percent of Americans will agree with, while the reverse was true with Revered Wright. Number two, this reverend for McCain loves America, unlike Obama's reverend, who hates America. So listen to clip seven.

PARSLEY [audio clip]: I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I'm not shrinking back from its implications. The fact is that America was founded -- I'm gonna stagger you right now -- America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. And I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

SAVAGE: Now, of course, the libs are gonna jump in and say that they believe in Islam, because most of them would believe in anything except Christianity, as you well know. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So, today they're friends now. Parsley, the spiritual adviser to John McCain, also in clip nine says again things that 80 percent if not more of Americans would agree with. Listen to 09.

PARSLEY [audio clip]: Why is marriage under attack? Why is the family coming under such brutal attack of the forces of darkness? In essence, the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2003, legalized the perverted act of sodomy. And we said nothing. This is not about homosexual rights or lesbian rights; this is about the destruction of the very covenant. They are seeking to redefine marriage. In other words, they are intending to pervert God's original intention.

SAVAGE: Now, the libs are gonna run with this. The problem they're gonna have is that most Americans agree with Reverend Parsley, while most Americans disagreed with Obama's reverend. And the reason I know that to be true is because in the 16 states where same-sex or homosexual marriage was put up as a ballot initiative, in every state the people said no. When the people are asked their opinion, they agree with Reverend Parsley. They certainly don't agree that this is the U.S. of KKK -- that's something only the Obama worshippers would love. The phone number here is 1-800-449-8255. The website is michaelsavage.com, where we have great stories.

[...]

SAVAGE: I see. So it's even 50 -- it's not even the same thing as Obama with Reverend Wright, who married Obama and baptized his children. So it's not like McCain has sat there for 20 years. By the way, I agree with Rod Parsley, incidentally.

CALLER: I do too.

SAVAGE: And 80 percent of America would agree with Rod Parsley, and 95 percent of America would disagree with Reverend Wright and Obama's pastor. So, that's a given. This could backfire on the libs. They're, you know, they're desperate to use any dirt they can get, but this is not dirt. This is gold. I think they should play Parsley even more -- it'll bring more people around to McCain.

CALLER I agree.

SAVAGE: Thanks. That's all.

On the May 14 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If [Sen.] Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago." Limbaugh made the comment after stating that "this is from the guy who said he has visited 57 states," suggesting that Obama mishandled the flag pin controversy, and after playing an audio clip of Obama, speaking before an audience in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Limbaugh's hometown, in which Obama said: "Right now, we don't have enough troops. And NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq. So, we just don't have enough capacity right now to deal with -- and it's not just troops, by the way. It's, like, Arab -- Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers. We only have a certain number of them, and if they're all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them. And obviously, they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that they speak in Afghanistan -- oftentimes people who speak Urdu or Pashtun or whatever the languages are -- they're going to be needed in those areas, and a lot of them have ended up being placed elsewhere. So, we've got to focus on Afghanistan."

After playing the clip of Obama's comments, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, what you just heard was the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee wandering aimlessly in desperate hope for a cogent thought. His point was -- he was trying to tell these people in his audience in Cape Girardeau yesterday that our foreign policy's all screwed up 'cause every asset that we need to actually win the war against Islamofascists is in Iraq. And that's a phony war, it shouldn't have happened. We don't even have any Arabic translators for Afghanistan. And then, he quickly realized, "Wait a minute. They don't speak Arabic there. Oh God, what am I going to do? What --" Then he makes up a couple languages that they speak. But then he said, "We need some Arabic translators there because you never know who is there."

The ABCNews.com Political Radar blog said of Obama's statement in a May 13 post that "Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic." In responding to the post, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton reportedly said that "[t]his poorly researched and written piece is inaccurate in that it just completely ignores the need for Arabic translators in Afghanistan" and noted the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan, including those from "various Arab countries," as The New York Times reported in October 2007. In addition, during a report on the January 18, 2002, edition of PBS' NewsHour, correspondent Spencer Michels reported that "U.S. intelligence agencies and the military have been scrambling to hire or train speakers of Middle Eastern languages like Arabic, Farsi, and Pashto, all languages spoken in Afghanistan."

Further, contrary to Limbaugh's assertion that Obama "ma[de] up a couple languages that they speak" in Afghanistan, Urdu is spoken there, and Pashtu or Pashto is one of the official languages of the country.

Moreover, when Sen. John McCain made the admittedly false claim at a March 18 press conference in Jordan that Iranian operatives are "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," Limbaugh downplayed the misstatement as "this little -- this gaffe." Indeed, on the March 21 edition of his show, a caller asked, "McCain was wrong? McCain was not wrong." Limbaugh responded, "It doesn't matter whether McCain's right or wrong. This is what the Democrats do. They're going to try to attack. And Obama's desperately trying to change the subject, and he's trying to make it look like he's already won the nomination. So, he's focusing on McCain, who is the presumptive Republican nominee. It's -- and he knows the drive-bys are going to carry his water. He knows the drive-bys will then go to McCain and play this little -- this gaffe up and so forth."

From the May 14 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: All right, ladies and gentlemen. Barack Obama was in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, yesterday -- watched the speech, watched his appearance, did not see all the Q&A, but we heard enough. Here is a portion of remarks made by Barack Obama in Rush Limbaugh country.

OBAMA [audio clip]: Right now, we don't have enough troops. And NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq. So, we just don't have enough capacity right now to deal with -- and it's not just troops, by the way. It's, like, Arab -- Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers. We only have a certain number of them, and if they're all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them. And obviously, they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that they speak in Afghanistan -- oftentimes people who speak Urdu or Pashtun or whatever the languages are -- they're going to be needed in those areas, and a lot of them have ended up being placed elsewhere. So, we've got to focus on Afghanistan.

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, what you just heard was the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee wandering aimlessly in desperate hope for a cogent thought. His point was -- he was trying to tell these people in his audience in Cape Girardeau yesterday that our foreign policy's all screwed up 'cause every asset that we need to actually win the war against Islamofascists is in Iraq. And that's a phony war, it shouldn't have happened. We don't even have any Arabic translators for Afghanistan. And then, he quickly realized, "Wait a minute. They don't speak Arabic there. Oh God, what am I going to do? What --" Then he makes up a couple languages that they speak. But then he said, "We need some Arabic translators there because you never know who is there."

They speak Dari and Pashto in Afghanistan. I have been there. Afghans do not speak Arabic. Now, this is from the guy who said he has visited 57 states. This is the guy who -- by the way, when he was on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, was not wearing his American flag lapel pin.

When he showed up in Cape Girardeau, he was wearing his American flag lapel pin. Now here is the thing about this: Nobody would be making a big deal of it other than he started it. He made a big point of telling everybody why he was not going to wear the flag pin after 9-11, because he wanted to show real patriotism, patriotism ideas, not the patriotism of symbols.

So, he brought it up, so people started paying attention to it. And a lot of people say, "Come on, there's other things about Obama that we can talk about. Let's not mess around with the flag pin business. It's not going to get us anywhere." But now he takes it off, now he takes it on. Depending on where he is, he puts it on. Depending on where he is, he takes it off.

On the floor of the Senate, doesn't want the flag pin on. Probably doesn't want his Democrat buddies to see it. When he gets to Cape Girardeau in a Republican district, swing state, bam-o -- time to put the flag pin back on.

I am just telling you, if this guy were Dan Quayle -- if he -- can I channel Geraldine Ferraro? If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago.

Now, Democrats keep telling us that George W. Bush is an idiot. And a lot of Democrats think that George W. Bush is an idiot because he can't speak. He can't articulate. Here's Obama. Let's listen to this again, audio sound bite number five. Here's Obama without a teleprompter. You tell me if what you're hearing is a man with gravitas.

OBAMA [audio clip]: Right now, we don't have enough troops. And NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq. So, we just don't have enough capacity right now to deal with -- and it's not just troops, by the way. It's, like, Arab -- Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah.

OBAMA [audio clip]: We only have a certain number of them --

LIMBAUGH: Hmm-mm.

OBAMA [audio clip]: -- and if they're all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them. And obviously, they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that they speak in Afghanistan -- oftentimes people who speak Urdu or Pashtun or whatever the languages are --

LIMBAUGH: Pashto.

OBAMA: -- they're going to be needed in those areas, and a lot of them have ended up being placed elsewhere. So, we've got to focus on Afghanistan.

LIMBAUGH: Wow. Now, there's a giant intellect on parade. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an intimidating intellect. There, I guess, is the gravitas that the Democrats keep telling us George W. Bush lacks.

Forty percentage points -- Hillary Clinton wins in West Virginia by 40 percentage points. The drive-by media today is just ripping its hair out. Why don't she quit? Why won't she quit? Why won't she quit for the good of the party? Why won't she get out? Why --

Drive-bys, she's not doing this for you. Drive-bys, what's the big deal with the party? Are you members of the Democrat -- I thought you guys -- you know, objective and all that? What do you care what happens to the Democrat party? Why won't she get out? Why won't she get -- they're also upset that their guy can't close the deal. And sit around and say that all these Republicans are voting against McCain in the primaries -- which they are. How about all these Democrats voting against Obama since February 22nd, drive-bys? Why don't you tell us about that?

From the March 21 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to talk to you about this Obama character --

LIMBAUGH: Yeah.

CALLER: -- which -- I am a typical white person, and I question his patriotism. I question that he's been defending this Reverend Wright and has yet never shown any kind of passion for this land, for this country, as a whole, and as -- this nation as a whole. My second issue with Obama is the fact that he's keep [sic] correcting Senator McCain, but if we all remember, this guy doesn't even know his recent history.

All of the -- some of the head of Al Qaeda and Taliban ran to Iran, and they were being harbored by that government. That government has been doing that for many years. Where is he coming from saying that Iran has never supported Al Qaeda? Why doesn't he sit and listen to our generals?

LIMBAUGH: Wait a minute. I lost you during there, because you're talking -- are you talking about McCain at the end of that, or are you talking about Obama?

CALLER: Obama. And I'm saying, why is he thinking that Obama was -- I mean, McCain was wrong? McCain was not wrong. Iran has been harboring Al Qaeda.

LIMBAUGH: No, OK. OK. It doesn't matter, Paris. It doesn't matter whether McCain's right or wrong. This is what the Democrats do. They're going to try to attack. And Obama's desperately trying to change the subject, and he's trying to make it look like he's already won the nomination. So, he's focusing on McCain, who is the presumptive Republican nominee. It's -- and he knows the drive-bys are going to carry his water. He knows the drive-bys will then go to McCain and play this little -- this gaffe up and so forth.

This is who the Democrats are, and this is -- you know, McCain's not going to play this game.

In a May 15 post on washingtopost.com political blog The Trail, Washington Post staff writer Michael D. Shear falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama has changed his position on U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq since September 2007. Reporting on a speech that Sen. John McCain gave that day, Shear wrote that the speech "envisioned an America that, by 2013, 'has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women' " serving in Iraq, and that "[b]y that time, McCain said, 'the United States maintains a military presence' in Iraq, 'but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.' " Shear also reported that when "[a]sked to make a withdrawal timeline pledge during a debate last September, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama declined, saying that 'it's hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.' " Shear continued: "But more recently, Obama has said he will remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president and will leave 'some troops' in Iraq to protect U.S. embassy personnel there and carry out targeted strikes on terrorists."

But contrary to Shear's suggestion, Obama did not make contradictory statements. During the September 26, 2007, MSNBC debate, host Tim Russert asked Obama, "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq? [emphasis added]" Shear reported Obama's answer but not the question -- which was about the withdrawal of all troops, not, as Shear suggested, the withdrawal of most troops. Obama responded, "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," as Shear reported. Obama also said: "What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office ... then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there [emphasis added]." Thus, contrary to Shear's suggestion, Obama's statement in September 2007 about withdrawing most troops, while leaving a troop presence in Iraq, is consistent with what Shear quoted Obama as saying recently.

From Shear's May 15 post on The Trail:

Just last month, McCain said that "to promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.''

But the speech he gave this morning envisioned an America that, by 2013, "has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won."

By that time, McCain said, "the United States maintains a military presence" in Iraq, "but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

Asked to make a withdrawal timeline pledge during a debate last September, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama declined, saying that "it's hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there."

But more recently, Obama has said he will remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president and will leave "some troops" in Iraq to protect U.S. embassy personnel there and carry out targeted strikes on terrorists.

In an article for the May 18 edition of The New York Times Magazine, political writer Matt Bai claimed that "whether you agree with him or not, there is a notable honesty to" Sen. John McCain's position on the war in Iraq. Bai wrote: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent the primary season competing over who's more eager to ship out of Iraq, but everyone associated with their campaigns knows that withdrawal will not happen quickly or without peril. McCain's pitch, on the other hand, is as straightforward as it is stripped of political charm." But undermining Bai's characterization of a "notable honesty" in McCain's position on Iraq are numerous instances in which McCain has made false or inconsistent assertions on Iraq.

McCain's falsehoods and inconsistent statements on Iraq include the following:

• McCain has repeatedly claimed during the campaign that he called for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. In fact, while McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president." After The Washington Post uncritically reported McCain's claim that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, a subsequent Post article noted that "[a] McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.' "

• McCain repeatedly made the false claim that Iran was helping to train Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. After McCain twice made the claim to reporters during a March 18 press conference in Amman, Jordan -- one day after he made the claim during an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt -- Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who was accompanying McCain on the trip, alerted McCain, and McCain stated: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

• McCain falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama had said that Al Qaeda currently has no presence in Iraq. During the February 26 Democratic presidential debate, Obama said that as president he would act if "Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq" after U.S. troops are withdrawn. In comments that were widely reported, McCain mocked Obama, saying: "I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called Al Qaeda in Iraq." But, contrary to McCain's suggestion, Obama did not say that Al Qaeda currently has no presence in Iraq. He was speaking of the future, saying: "[I]f Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
• Moreover, The New York Times itself has written that, contrary to McCain's assertion following Obama's comments, McCain does not expect that Al Qaeda would take control of Iraq if the U.S. withdrew. On April 19, The Times reported that "[f]ew, including Mr. McCain, expect Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [Iraq], a Sunni group, to take control of Shiite-dominated Iraq in the event of an American withdrawal. The situation they fear and which Mr. McCain himself sometimes fleshes out is that an American withdrawal would be celebrated as a triumph by Al Qaeda and create instability that the group could then exploit to become more powerful."

• In 2006, McCain "commend[ed]" Bush for providing the public with what McCain characterized as an "honest assessment" of the situation in Iraq. McCain made his comments commending Bush in the wake of controversy generated by remarks he made at a campaign event for then-Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) three days earlier, during which McCain criticized the administration, stating: " 'Stuff happens,' 'Mission Accomplished,' 'Last throes,' 'A few dead-enders.' I'm as more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

From Bai's article in the May 18 edition of The New York Times Magazine:

JOHN McCAIN HAS NEVER been very good at political artifice. Like every politician I've known, McCain will sometimes surrender to the cheap ploy or prevarication when the moment demands it, but it is often with a smirk or a wince, some hard-to-miss signal that he knows he's up to no good. In the more serious instances when he knows he has put expedience over principle (his reversal on the Bush tax cuts just in time for the campaign season may well turn out to be one of them), he has an almost therapeutic need to acknowledge it later, as he did when he told South Carolinians, weeks after losing the brutal primary there in 2000, that he had been wrong to defend the Confederate flag just to win their votes. And so, whether you agree with him or not, there is a notable honesty to his position on the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent the primary season competing over who's more eager to ship out of Iraq, but everyone associated with their campaigns knows that withdrawal will not happen quickly or without peril. McCain's pitch, on the other hand, is as straightforward as it is stripped of political charm. We made a mess in Iraq, he says, but it's our mess now, and we have to stay on and fix it.

Ultimately, McCain is relying on the same strategy to achieve success both in Iraq and in the November election. In each endeavor, McCain is staking everything on the notion that the public, having seen the success of a new military strategy, can be convinced that the war is, in fact, winnable and worth the continued sacrifice. Absent that national retrenching, McCain admits that this war, like the one in Vietnam, is probably doomed. Near the end of our conversation in Tampa, I asked him if he would be willing to change course on Iraq if the violence there started to rise again. "Oh, we'd have to," he replied. "It's not so much what McCain would do. American public opinion will not tolerate such a thing."

The problem is that there's actually no evidence to suggest that a reduction in casualties in Iraq will translate into a greater public tolerance for a protracted engagement there. According to Gallup, Americans' confidence that the surge is improving the situation on the ground rose sharply between last summer and this spring; 40 percent of those polled in March said the surge is working, compared with 22 percent last July, while 38 percent said it was making no difference, down from 51 percent last year. For McCain, that's no small measure of vindication. And yet, during the same period, even as optimism about the new strategy grew, the percentage of Americans who say they want a timetable for gradual withdrawal -- those, in other words, who agreed primarily with the two Democratic candidates -- remained almost exactly the same, rising to 41 percent from 39 percent. (Another 18 percent have consistently said they want to get out right away.) Nor has the success of the surge in reducing American casualties done a thing to convince the public that the invasion made sense in the first place. According to another Gallup poll released a few weeks ago, 63 percent of Americans now believe it was a mistake to go to war -- an all-time high.

It doesn't help that McCain has never put his argument for staying into some larger context that might explain what he really means by "winning" the war in Iraq. If you ask him to define victory, his answer is that Americans soldiers will have stopped dying, and that the Iraqi military and government will be functioning on their own. That would be a great day, no doubt, but surely the overarching purpose of a war can't be to stop more soldiers from dying in it. (On the one notable occasion when McCain tried to put a more hopeful spin on progress in Iraq, during a visit there last spring, the result was an unqualified public-relations debacle: strolling through an outdoor market in Baghdad market wearing a flak jacket and surrounded by what seemed liked a regiment of U.S. soldiers, McCain declared that life for Iraqis was at last returning to normal. The next day, by some accounts, 21 Shiite workers at the market were abducted and killed.) McCain's main reason for continuing on in Iraq seems to be that we're already there and must not accept defeat, and that's an argument that probably feels all too familiar to many Americans who lived through a decade of aimless war in Vietnam, to no discernible end.

On the May 15 edition of MSNBC Live, while previewing an upcoming interview with former figure skater Tonya Harding, anchor Tamron Hall stated: "Well, remember when there were those reports out that Hillary Clinton would use the so-called 'Tonya Harding strategy' to perhaps take out Barack Obama? Well, we're going to talk to the real Tonya Harding about her place in history and now her infamy within American politics. Yes, really, Mika." MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski responded: "Oh, my God." Hall said: "That's ahead on MSNBC. No, really. Really, we are." Brzezinski added: "I can't believe that. It's great."

During the interview, Hall stated: "Obviously, big presidential race, and the 'Tonya Harding option' actually came up in the news. Reportedly that was one of the options that Senator Clinton's campaign was looking at and that they would do anything to take out Senator Barack Obama. Your name became synonymous -- or is synonymous with taking out the other person. I know you had to have heard this. What did you feel, and how do you feel when even your name comes up in a situation like politics?" Harding responded: "Well, you know what? Whatever people said, it doesn't matter. It's their opinion. But I think that there's more important issues that we need to deal with in this world and that they need to focus on the candidacy at hand and hopefully help this country." Hall pressed on, asking Harding, "But did you cringe when you heard this, though?" Harding said, "I just heard about it just a little while ago, and I just thought that it was really sad that they have to talk about me and not the problems in the world."

The assertions that there were "reports out that Hillary Clinton would use the so-called 'Tonya Harding strategy' to perhaps take out Barack Obama" and that the "Tonya Harding strategy" was reportedly "one of the options that Senator Clinton's campaign was looking at" echo the headline of a March 25 blog post by ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper, which read: "Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option.' " Tapper's post did not, in fact, match the headline, which suggested that a Democratic Party official claimed Clinton was "Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option.' " In the post, Tapper quoted an anonymous source saying of Clinton, "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible -- but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option' " -- not that Clinton was actually "[p]ursuing" such a strategy. Tapper referenced his blog post during his appearance on the March 25 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson. As Media Matters for America noted, numerous media figures repeated the reference -- some going so far as to assert that the purported "Tonya Harding option" was a specific strategy adopted by the Clinton campaign.

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on May 15:

BRZEZINSKI: That does it for me this hour. I'm Mika Brzezinski. Tamron Hall is up next. Tamron.

HALL: Hi there, Mika. Well, remember when there were those reports out that Hillary Clinton would use the so-called "Tonya Harding strategy" to perhaps take out Barack Obama? Well, we're going to talk to the real Tonya Harding about her place in history and now her infamy within American politics. Yes, really, Mika.

[laughter]

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, my God.

HALL: That's ahead on MSNBC. No, really. Really, we are.

BRZEZINSKI: I can't believe that. It's great.

HALL: Well, believe it.

[laughter]

From the 12 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on May 15:

HALL: Well, she's been called the most tarnished woman in the history of sports. Tonya Harding, the Olympic skater linked to the attack against fellow competitor Nancy Kerrigan just before the 1994 Winter Olympics. But she says the world only knows half of her story. Now she's revealing shocking new details about the incident, as well as tales of rape and abuse in a book called The Tonya Tapes. Earlier, I had a chance to speak with Tonya Harding. She says she's disclosing such personal details in an effort to send a message.

[...]

HALL: Let me ask you this. You talk about the way people view you. Obviously, big presidential race, and the "Tonya Harding option" actually came up in the news. Reportedly that was one of the options that Senator Clinton's campaign was looking at and that they would do anything to take out Senator Barack Obama. Your name became synonymous -- or is synonymous with taking out the other person. I know you had to have heard this. What did you feel, and how do you feel when even your name comes up in a situation like politics?

HARDING: Well, you know what? Whatever people said, it doesn't matter. It's their opinion. But I think that there's more important issues that we need to deal with in this world and that they need to focus on the candidacy at hand and hopefully help this country.

HALL: But did you cringe when you heard this, though?

HARDING: I just heard about it just a little while ago, and I just thought that it was really sad that they have to talk about me and not the problems in the world.

HALL: All right, Tonya. Thank you very much.

A May 15 Associated Press article reported that Sen. John McCain "has worked with Democrats on legislation" such as "redrafting immigration rules and regulations" and that this work with Democrats "has cultivated a maverick image for McCain." But the AP did not note that McCain said on January 30 that he would no longer support his own comprehensive immigration reform bill if it came up for a vote in the Senate. Additionally, McCain has reversed himself on the issue of border security; he now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.

McCain has also reversed his position on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, the 2007 version of which would have allowed certain illegal immigrants under age 30 who had entered the country before age 16 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military. Twelve Republican senators voted in favor of the 2007 version of the bill, which had two Republican co-sponsors.

As Media Matters for America has documented, the AP has repeatedly reported that McCain supports immigration reform without noting his reversals. Media Matters has also documented the broadcast and print media's habit of using the label "maverick" when discussing McCain.

From the May 15 AP article:

"I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries," McCain says in remarks prepared for delivery in the capital city of Ohio, a general election battleground. "There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will end; the era of problem solving will begin."

To the disdain of some fellow Republicans, the presumed GOP nominee has worked with Democrats on legislation aimed at overhauling campaign finance regulations, redrafting immigration rules and regulations and implementing government spending controls.

While that has cultivated a maverick image for McCain, the Arizona senator has also been accused of exhibiting a nasty temper -- swearing even at fellow lawmakers from his own party -- and unabashed partisanship.

In particular, McCain has clashed with the leading Democratic presidential contender, Barack Obama. After tangling with the Illinois senator on lobbying reforms, McCain questioned Obama's integrity in a publicly released 2006 letter.