Media Matters for America - Latest Items

National Review Caricatures Hillary Clinton As Infamous Roman Emperor

Sat, 18 May 2013 02:28:31 EDT

The cover of the June 3 issue of National Review shows a caricature of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with exaggerated features and playing a fiddle in front of what appears to be the attacked U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya engulfed by flames. The cover, as TPM noted, is likely "an allusion to the Roman Emperor Nero, who is said to have 'fiddled while Rome burned.' "

According to PBS, history has implied that Nero himself set the fire that burned Rome, so that he could rebuild the city more to his liking:

History has blamed Nero for the disaster, implying that he started the fire so that he could bypass the senate and rebuild Rome to his liking. Much of what is known about the great fire of Rome comes from the aristocrat and historian Tacitus, who claimed that Nero watched Rome burn while merrily playing his fiddle. Gangs of thugs prevented citizens from fighting the fire with threats of torture, Tacitus wrote. There is some support for the theory that Nero leveled the city on purpose: the Domus Aurea, Nero's majestic series of villas and pavilions set upon a landscaped park and a man-made lake, was built in the wake of the fire.

Unlike Nero, Clinton is documented to have been active at the time of the attack in Benghazi. Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified to a House committee on May 8 that Clinton called him the night of the attack for a report of the events:

HICKS: I think at about 2 p.m. -- 2 a.m., sorry -- the Secretary, Secretary of State Clinton called me along with her senior staff were all on the phone and she asked me what was going on and I briefed her on the developments. Most of the conversation was about the search for Ambassador Stevens. It was also about what we were going to do with our personnel in Benghazi. And I told her that we would need to evacuate and she said that was the right thing to do.

"A Really Good Guy": Fox Hypes Former Employee's Candidacy

Sat, 18 May 2013 02:09:03 EDT

Fox News hyped the candidacy of its former contributor Pete Snyder, calling him "a really good guy."

On May 17, the Virginia Republican Convention began. Over the course of the weekend, Virginia Republicans -- as described by a May 17 Washington Post article -- are gathering "to pick nominees for lieutenant governor and attorney general, and rally behind Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II for governor."

One of the candidates for lieutenant governor is Snyder, a former Fox News contributor, whose campaign website -- as of May 18 -- features that fact in a front page box. The box links to a page that details Snyder's experience at Fox and includes a laudatory quotation from Fox News chairman Roger Ailes:

On the May 18 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, co-host Tucker Carlson hyped the candidacy of Snyder, trumpeting his chances of winning and calling him "a really good guy." Co-host Alisyn Camerota praised Carlson's "shout out":

CARLSON: I want to say good morning to our old friend Pete Snyder. You may remember, Pete was a Fox News contributor for quite a while. And I just wanted to note, today in the Commonwealth of Virginia is the Republican Party's meeting where the nominee for lieutenant governor will be chosen. Pete is in the running. It looks pretty good for him. It's just neat when people you know and like sort of ascend up the ladder politically. This man could be the lieutenant governor of Virginia and when he is, I'm calling him for dinner.

[...]

CARLSON: A good guy. Pete Snyder is a really good guy.

CAMEROTA: That's great

CARLSON: It's just nice to see that.

CAMEROTA: Nice shout out.

Fox's Crowley: Obama Administration Has "Ideology Of Control" Like Communist, Socialist, Fascist Societies

Fri, 17 May 2013 11:03:07 EDT

From the May 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

Previously:

Fox's Crowley: Obama's Election Shows He "Accelerated This Process" Of Making People "Dependent On Government"

"DYNAMITE": Fox's Crowley Endorses Film Alleging Obama's "Real" Father Is An American Communist

Fox News Ethics: Contributor Monica Crowley Speaks At Anti-Obama Rallies

Fox's Dobbs Revives False Claim That Health Care Costs Have Doubled

Fri, 17 May 2013 09:03:17 EDT

From the May 17 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight:

Previously:

Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled

Krauthammer Brings Thoroughly Debunked Health Care Cost Myth To The Washington Post

Grasping For New Scandals, Fox Fearmongers That Obamacare Will Allow IRS To Deny Medical Treatment

Fri, 17 May 2013 05:07:05 EDT

Fox continued its effort to target the Obama administration with manufactured scandals, fearmongering that IRS commissioner Sarah Hall Ingram will use the IRS' authority under the Affordable Care Act to discriminate against conservatives by denying or postponing approval for medical procedures.

IRS Commissioner Who Oversaw Tax-Exemption Approvals Now Heads Healthcare Office

ABC News: "IRS Official In Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office." In a May 16 report headlined "IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office," ABC News reported that Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS commissioner previously in charge of the office that oversaw the approval of tax-exempt organizations had been moved to an IRS office in charge of some aspects of the new health care legislation:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today. [ABC News, 5/16/13]

Fox Fearmongers That Health Care Reform Gives The IRS Power To Discriminate Against Conservatives

Fox News' Steve Doocy Suggests The IRS Could Use Health Records To Interfere With Conservatives' Healthcare. Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy suggested that the IRS would be able to access Americans' private health information and meddle in specific health procedures:

DOOCY: Well, this is a little scary. Just think about the nexus of IRS with healthcare and the fact that she -- keep in mind, one of the things from the IG report was, one of the problems with the IRS, was they blamed ineffective management. Well, she was the management, and now she's running Obamacare at the IRS? Going forward, just imagine: okay, so you go in and you're, you're trying to get a doctor's appointment; right? And they go, we see from your tax records -- how would that possibly be possible? -- We see from your tax records that you support the Tea Party or conservative groups. You want a doctor's visit? Three weeks. You want hip replacement? Four years.

Fox displayed this graphic during the segment:

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/13]

In Fact, The IRS Will Only Have Power To Verify Health Coverage

Politico: "The Agency Will Verify Insurance Coverage, But Nothing More." A May 16 Politico article disputed the suggestion that the IRS would have the power to stand between conservatives and their doctors, quoting former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller who explained during a September 2012 House hearing that the insurers will only provide insurance coverage information to the IRS:

In reality, the IRS is just supposed to verify that people have health coverage -- which means collecting records from employers and insurers, but not doctors.

And in September, then-IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller testified at a House hearing that the agency will verify insurance coverage, but nothing more. "It is important to note that the information that insurers provide to the IRS will show the fact of insurance coverage, and will not include any personal health information," he said in his prepared testimony. [Politico, 5/16/13]

Reuters: IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller Testified Agency Will Not Audit Health Coverage. A September 11, 2012 Reuters article reported then-IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller clarification of the agency's role in implementing the Affordable Care act to a subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointing out that "[i]n most cases, taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and-or making a payment, and there will be no need for further interactions with the IRS":

The Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday assured congressional lawmakers that agents would play no role in enforcing the controversial requirement that Americans buy insurance under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

"IRS revenue agents will not be involved. There will not be audits," IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller told a subcommittee of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

[...]

"In most cases, taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and-or making a payment, and there will be no need for further interactions with the IRS," Miller said. [Reuters, 9/11/12]

The New Republic: Idea That Obamacare Gives IRS Control Over Individuals' Health Care Is "Beyond Laughable." In a May 17 New Republic article, Jonathan Cohn called the idea that the Affordable Care Act would "meaningfully" expand the power of the IRS "beyond laughable." He highlighted the minor role that the agency would play in implementing the law and contrasted it with the agency's existing power:

[T]he notion that Obamacare meaningfully expands the power of the IRS, let alone that it will give its bureaucrats control over how people get medical care, is beyond laughable.

It's true that the IRS performs several of Obamacare's critical functions. Starting next year, the IRS will be distributing the tax credits that will make insurance affordable for millions of Americans. The IRS will also be responsible for enforcing the "personal responsibility requirement"--a.k.a., the individual mandate. To do that, it must figure out who has insurance, and then, under certain circumstances, impose a tax penalty on people who do not.

[...]

The medical privacy nightmare is a figment of the libertarian imagination. The IRS will never see an actual medical record, let alone meddle with decision-making by doctors and hospitals. The agency will deal entirely with financial matters--how much money you make and whether you have insurance.

[...]

[I]f you're worried about the IRS discriminating against individuals, selective application of a modest, non-enforceable tax penalty seems like a trivial matter given the other options the agency has at its disposal. After all, the IRS has the power to conduct audits, which can be brutal, and dial income tax penalties way up or down. [The New Republic, 5/17/13]

Limbaugh: Obama Administration "Has More Respect" For Islamic Extremists Than Conservative Americans

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:01:02 EDT

From the May 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Previously:

Limbaugh: "It's Very Accurate To Say" That Conservative Republicans Are Bigger Enemy To Democrats Than Al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran

Limbaugh Claims Government Is "Not Us," And Obama "Uses Government To Punish People"

Rush Limbaugh's Wingnut Welfare

Limbaugh: Obama Faking Outrage Over IRS Investigation

Fri, 17 May 2013 03:01:39 EDT

From the May 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Previously:

Fox Distorts Obama's Response To IRS Report In Order To Justify Calls For A Special Prosecutor

Fox's Martha MacCallum Demands Obama "Take The High Road," Do Things He's Already Done

Mainstream Media Dismiss Fox's Benghazi Scandal Mongering

Fri, 17 May 2013 02:29:22 EDT

Mainstream media have dismissed recent scandal mongering by sources like Fox News over the initial de-classified talking points used to describe the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, as baseless and a distraction.

Recently released emails that detailed the creation of the initial talking points used to describe the attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi confirmed past reporting that changes made to the talking points were not political and were approved by intelligence agencies. Indeed, CBS Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett concluded on CBS Evening News that the released emails proved that "[t]here is no evidence... [that] the White House orchestrated these changes."

The Washington Post and The New York Times went further, declaring the continued scandal mongering over the talking points drew continued focus to a "phony issue."

In a May 16 editorial, the Post asserted that conservative media and Republicans "[b]y focusing on the phony issue of talking points... are missing the opportunity to press for needed reforms at State, and a more active U.S. policy in the Middle East."

A May 16 New York Times editorial also noted that there was "never a scandal to begin with" regarding the Benghazi talking points, and that the emails recently released by the White House "made clear that there was no White House cover-up." The Times added that the fixation on the Benghazi talking points non-scandal has distracted from continued Republican obstruction:

While Washington was arguing about e-mail messages about Benghazi, it wasn't paying attention to the hundreds of thousands of defense furloughs announced this week because of the Republican-imposed sequester, which will become a significant drag on economic growth. It wasn't focusing on the huge drop in the deficit, which has yet to silence the party's demands for more austerity. And apparently it's considered old news that Republicans are blocking several of the president's cabinet nominees.

For those who are wondering whether this week's political windstorms will hinder Mr. Obama's second-term agenda, here's a bulletin: That agenda was long ago imperiled by the obstruction of Republicans. (See Guns. Jobs. Education. And, very possibly, Immigration.)

Despite media's dismissal of a Benghazi talking points scandal and subsequent distraction, Fox has continued to draw from that well. During the May 17 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely suggested that the CIA did not approve the finalized talking points. Co-host Steve Doocy baselessly added that the State Department and the White House said "wait a minute, we can't talk about this" in reaction to the first draft, and that they forced the CIA to remove information in the talking points identifying a group responsible for the attack.

Limbaugh Still Claiming CIA Benghazi Talking Points Never Referred to Anti-Islam Video

Fri, 17 May 2013 01:55:38 EDT

From the May 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Previously:

New Talking Point Revelations Should End Benghazi Witch Hunt

Fox Uses Newly Released Emails To Falsely Suggest CIA Never Linked Benghazi To Anti-Islam Video

CBS Evening News Highlights Collapse Of Right Wing Scandal Mongering Over Benghazi Talking Points

Krauthammer Peddles False Claims In Desperate Attempt To Keep Benghazi Scandal Alive

Fri, 17 May 2013 01:27:37 EDT

Fox News contributor and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer pushed new and old falsehoods about the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, by misrepresenting recently-released emails that prove that government agencies drafted talking points without references to terrorism in order to protect the ongoing investigation into the attacks.

In his May 16 Washington Post column, Krauthammer misrepresented emails recently released by the Obama administration -- that document the process of drafting the talking points used by officials to discuss the September 2012 attacks -- to claim the emails revealed that the CIA was forced to change the talking points for political reasons. According to Krauthammer, references to Al Qaeda were removed from the talking points after the State Department raised concerns that the talking points needed to reflect "the political interests, the required political cover, of all involved," including "the need to protect the president's campaign." He also dismissed an email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, which explained that the talking points in fact needed to protect the investigation into the attacks, claiming this "excuse was simply bogus" because the FBI, "which was conducting the investigation, had no significant objections."

But the 100 pages of emails reveal that removing information from the talking points that could compromise the investigation was the primary priority of multiple agencies, including the FBI and the CIA. Following the initial emails among CIA officials on September 14, 2012, about whether or not references to al Qaeda should be included in the talking points, CIA General Counsel Stephen W. Preston stressed the need to ensure their work did not conflict with the National Security Section (NSS) of the Department of Justice and the FBI's criminal investigation into the attacks:

Folks, I know there is a hurry to get this out, but we need to hold it long enough to ascertain whether providing it conflicts with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this, etc. -- even internally, not to mention for public release. I am copying [CIA FO] who may be more familiar with those instructibns [sic] and the tasking arising from the HPSCI coffee.

Subsequent emails from the FBI reveal that contrary to Krauthammer's claims, the Bureau did have concerns with the initial CIA draft. A 7:51pm email from the FBI Press Office on September 14 requested a review of two of the talking points with recommended edits:

[CIA OPA] in coordination with CWD, we have some concerns:

1. The accuracy of the sentence of the first bullet point which states "On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening tob break into the Embassy." And-- who is the "we" that is referenced?

2. We recommend editing the last sentence in the second bullet point to "That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

A later email sent at 9:19pm on September 14 by the FBI Press Office revealed their concern that the Department of Justice be brought in to approve all further changes, because they would also be conducting key aspects of the investigation:

Just a question- but separate from the FBI concerns, has DOJ provided input? They will have to deal with the the prosecution and related legal matters surrounding the federal investigation.

Furthermore, The Washington Post, Krauthammer's own paper, reported more detail from senior administration officials about the email exchange, explaining that both CIA and FBI officials believed references to Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda affiliate, should be removed from the talking points to protect the investigation:

CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate.

[...]

A senior administration official said Wednesday that the only indication the CIA had at that point that Ansar al-Sharia was involved was a single piece of intelligence, whose existence it did not want to reveal lest its sources and methods be compromised.

The emails confirm what General David Petraeus, then-director of the CIA, reportedly testified to Congress in November: that references to terrorist groups were removed from the talking points in order to avoid tipping off those groups that intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, and thus preserve the ongoing investigation.

Krauthammer also pushed the debunked claim that Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of staff to the embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, was "ordered not to meet with an investigative congressional delegation" and subsequently got "a furious call from Clinton's top aide for not having a State Department lawyer (and informant) present." In fact, Hicks' official congressional testimony reveals that the State Department merely instructed him to follow standard procedure and not speak to the congressional investigators without a State attorney present. Furthermore, Hicks made clear that he had received no direct criticism from Cheryl Mills, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and simply said the "tone of the conversation" led him to believe Mills was unhappy with him.

Krauthammer's false accusations are part of the attempt by conservative media and the GOP to save Republican scandal-mongering on the Benghazi attacks, even as the charges of "scandal" collapse around them.

Dissecting Bob Woodward's Comparison Of Benghazi To Watergate

Fri, 17 May 2013 01:10:01 EDT

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, based on a series of dubious factual errors, is now offering a flawed comparison between the Watergate scandal and the Obama administration's response to the September terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

There's no small irony to Woodward injecting himself into what has become a scandal driven by deceptively edited emails passed off to reporters, given the recent attention he received after using a similar method to support his ridiculous accusation that a White House aide threatened him.

In his latest attempt to jump into the debate on the side of the right wing, Woodward demonstrates a striking lack of familiarity with the basic facts of what happened.

Here's what Woodward said during his May 17 appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, and what's wrong with those statements.

WOODWARD: You were talking earlier about kind of dismissing the Benghazi issue as one that's just political and the president recently said it's a sideshow. But if you read through all these e-mails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, "Oh, let's not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let's not tell the public that there were warnings."

If Woodward actually did read through all the recently-released emails from intelligence officials and other administration aides discussing the assembly of the much-ballyhooed talking points used in the wake of the attacks, he seems to have missed a few things. Administration officials suggested removing references to the al Qaeda ties of attackers because they were worried about tainting the investigation of the perpetrators, as David Petraeus, who was CIA director at the time of the attacks, later testified. Meanwhile, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell reportedly advocated for removing references to general CIA warnings about potential attacks -- there had been no specific threat warning for that day. As CBS News pointed out on May 16, the CIA signed off on all changes, and there is "no evidence" that the White House "orchestrated" the changes.

WOODWARD: I hate to show, that this is one of the documents with the editing that one of the people in the State Department said, 'Oh, let's not let these things out.'

Woodward appears to be holding this document, in which hand-written edits were made removing several paragraphs of the talking points during the "deputies meeting" of the National Security Council. But that editing was reportedly performed by the CIA's Morell, not anyone from the State Department. Morell reportedly approved the document for distribution.

8 Reasons Allen West Is The Perfect Fox News Contributor

Fri, 17 May 2013 01:09:19 EDT

Fox News has announced it's hired former Rep. Allen West as a contributor. The far-right Republican and the conservative news network are a match made in heaven: West's incendiary rhetoric against progressives and Democrats closely mirrors Fox News' own smears and attacks. Media Matters looks at eight reasons why West is a perfect fit for Fox News.

1. West Is A Former Republican Official

Allen West served in congress for one term as a Republican before being booted out by voters. By signing with Fox News, he'll join an oasis of former Republicans candidates, officeholders, and administration officials including: John Bolton, Scott Brown, Herman Cain, Liz Cheney, Al D'Amato, Mike Huckabee, William Kristol, Jon Kyl, Angela McGlowan, Oliver North, Dana Perino, and Karl Rove.

If West decides to run again for office, he'll have plenty of company. Scott Brown, Liz Cheney and Geraldo Rivera are considering runs for office as Republicans, and Fox News has a track record of helping former Republican politicians stay in the public eye until they reenter politics.

2. West Compares His Opponents To Nazis

West told reporters in December 2011: "If Joseph Goebbels was around, he'd be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine ... Let's be honest, you know, some of the people in the media are complicit with this and enabling them to get that type of message out."

Fox News has also frequently compared Democrats and their policies to Nazis. Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly portrayed his opponents as Nazis, and once claimed that Media Matters founder David Brock employs "Joseph Goebbels Nazi stuff."

Fox News chairman Roger Ailes once responded to NPR firing analyst Juan Williams by claiming of NPR executives: "They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism." (Ailes later apologized.)

ABC News & The Whitewater Tactics At The Center Of The Scandal Machine

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:01:25 EDT

Republicans leaders are reportedly concerned that the scandal machine that has been kicked into high gear in recent days will lead to similar backlash the party faced over its endless and costly investigations into President Clinton in the 1990s:

To veteran lawmakers, the sudden proliferation of investigations cannot help but raise the ghost of 1998. After seizing control of Congress in 1995, Republicans opened investigations into the White House Travel Office, allegations of malfeasance around the Whitewater Development Corporation, and claims of campaign finance improprieties in the 1996 presidential campaign. Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, famously shot a melon in trying to prove that the White House lawyer Vincent W. Foster Jr. did not commit suicide.

But it was the impeachment of Mr. Clinton that cost Republicans seats in the House, cost Newt Gingrich his job as House speaker, and ultimately lifted a moribund Democratic president from the political depths.

Right-wing media have been quick to invoke Whitewater, the real estate scandal that developed during Clinton's first term, as part of their endless quest to scandalize the Obama administration over the tragedy in Benghazi.

And reliance on shady Whitewater tactics - which involved leaking selectively edited transcripts to the media to push forth the scandal -- was on full display this past week, leading to a critical question: how will the media respond to the campaign of press manipulation?

CBS News reported on May 16 that Republican staffers have been selectively and deceptively leaking information to reporters in order to keep the Benghazi "scandal" alive. As Kevin Drum of Mother Jones explained:

So here's what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them. It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week's Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

ABC News, which initially reported that it had "obtained" the actual emails showing greater White House involvement editing the talking points than administration officials had acknowledged, was forced into a slippery acknowledgement that its "exclusive" report was based only on summaries of emails, a method of reporting that journalism experts called "highly problematic ethically" and "sloppy."

ABC's flawed reporting on the emails, based on selective leaks, has led to questions about reporter Jonathan Karl's future, vividly demonstrating the consequences of this type of press manipulation. But whether fellow journalists - and viewers - will demand accountability from Karl remains to be seen.

It's the Whitewater experience, which GOP leaders are reportedly skittish of repeating, that provides a blueprint for accountability over this type of press manipulation.

In the 1990s it was David Bossie, at the time an investigator for the House Government Reform and Oversight, who leaked selectively edited transcripts to the press in order to advance the scandal mongering of President Clinton. Bossie was reportedly fired for his role manipulating the press.

Will the media, which once again saw one of their own get burned by relying on selective leaks in furtherance of a hunting of a president, demand accountability this time?

Really Fox News? Benghazi Is Your Example Of Stellar Fox Journalism?

Fri, 17 May 2013 11:20:55 EDT

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Roger Ailes' biographer Zev Chafets joined host Steve Doocy in toasting Fox News' coverage of the so-called Benghazi scandal. Doocy was positively giddy about how Fox had been out way ahead of the mainstream press on the story of last September's terror attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Lybya. The host credited his boss, Ailes, for leading Fox's obsessive Benghazi charge for the last eight months.

"Now everybody else is catching up," Doocy crowed on May 16.

Chafets agreed ("this is Fox News at its best") and claimed that the White House had tried to stifle the controversy because "it doesn't obviously want the story to be about its incompetence in a situation in which people could have been saved and evidently nobody tried."

Did you note the dark irony there? In raising a glass to Fox's Benghazi coverage, Chafets peddled one of Fox's favorite Benghazi lies: "Nobody" had tried to save the Americans who came under deadly fire that night.

Ever since ABC News' bogus "exclusive" last week regarding administration emails about the editing and writing process of the talking points issued in the wake of the Benghazi terror strike, Fox News had been taking one long extended victory tour, claiming its eight-month campaign to demonize the president and to spread nearly nonstop misinformation about the terror attack had been fully vindicated.

"The mainstream media finally catches up to the Benghazi scandal," jabbed Chris Wallace on May 10. On America Live, host Martha MacCallum bragged, "When you look at Fox's coverage of Benghazi, we've been establishing the facts from the get-go." And right-wing blogger Jim Hoft cheered Fox's ball-spiking in the end zone with the headline, "FOX News Gloats Over Benghazi Coverage... We Told You So!"

The Fox team has also been rallied by their Benghazi enablers in Congress, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) insisting Ailes "deserves credit" if there's a full Benghazi investigation. "Thank God for Fox," cheered Benghazi critic Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

But even the most cursory review of Fox's obsessive Benghazi coverage reveals it to be a train wreck of epic proportions. In fact, it represents a textbook study in why people, and especially journalists, should use extraordinary caution whenever they're tempted to take seriously Fox's editorial content.

The Bureaucrat Whisperer

Fri, 17 May 2013 10:58:32 EDT

As of this writing, there is no indication that the IRS's inappropriate targeting of conservative political groups has any connection whatsoever to the White House. And some conservative talking heads are even acknowledging as much. But they're not letting that stop them from naming Barack Obama as the culpable party, arguing that the president is responsible due to his preternatural ability to bend the average bureaucrat to his maleficent will from afar.

It all started with RedState founder Erick Erickson, who wrote on May 15 that "Barack Obama never specifically asked that tea party groups and conservatives be targeted." But...

But by both his language and the "always campaigning" attitude of his White House, he certainly sent clear signals to Democrats with the power and ability to fight conservatives to engage as they could. Given his rhetoric against his political opponents, it is no wonder sympathetic Democrats in the Internal Revenue Service harassed and stymied conservative groups and, though little mentioned, pro-Israel Jewish groups and evangelical groups.

"President Obama did not have to tell the IRS specifically to harass conservative, evangelical, and Jewish groups who might oppose him," Erickson observed. "His rhetoric on the campaign trail and in the permanent campaign of the White House operations made clear what he wanted."