Right-Wing Media Launches Kitchen Sink Attack On Obama's Afghanistan Speech

From Media Matters

The right-wing media reacted to President Obama's address on troop withdrawals in Afghanistan by dredging up familiar, petty attacks, such as criticizing the number of times Obama referred to himself, and claiming the address was a "campaign speech" instead of a "war update." This follows a long history of the right-wing media launching frivolous attacks over speeches Obama makes on all manner of issues.

Attack: Obama Said "I" Too Many Times

Hannity: "I Heard The President Mention Himself, 'I, I, Me, I, I, I,' I Think About A Dozen Times."On the June 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity said, "The one thing -- I don't know if you noticed this -- I didn't hear General Petraeus' name. I heard the President mention himself, 'I, I, me, I, I, I,' I think about a dozen times. I didn't hear him mention General Petraeus in this speech. That was an omission? How is that possible?" [Fox News, Hannity, 6/22/11, via Media Matters]

Fox & Friends Counts The Number Of Times Obama Said "I" During Speech. The June 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends edited Obama's speech to isolate the number of times Obama said "I." The segment featured a running counter in the corner of the screen. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/23/11, viaMedia Matters]

Attack: Address Was A "Campaign Speech"

FoxNews.com: "The President Chose To Use The East Room Of The White House To Offer ... A Campaign Speech." In a June 22 FoxNews.com op-ed, DC International Advisory President and former aide to Dick Cheney Stephen Yates wrote:

Americans can be forgiven for wondering what exactly was offered up by their president as he announced his timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan Wednesday night. Quite naturally they would anticipate an update on progress made in the year and a half since he announced deployment of the surge - albeit half of the forces requested by his battlefield commander.

On that count, President Obama delivered as expected, reporting success and announcing the withdrawal of surge forces over the next year. That 30-second bit of information could have capably been delivered from the White House press podium or in a brief televised update from the Oval Office (which this president -- unlike all recent predecessors -- oddly seems to avoid).
Instead, the president chose to use the East Room of the White House to offer a fairly simple campaign speech, not a war update or national security strategy. [FoxNews.com,6/22/11]

Fox Nation: "In Afghanistan Remarks, Obama Offers A Campaign Speech Not A War Update Or National Security Strategy." Fox Nation linked to the Fox News op-ed under the headline, "In Afghanistan Remarks, Obama Offers a Campaign Speech Not a War Update or National Security Strategy." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 6/22/11]

Attack: Obama Shouldn't Have Mentioned Jobs Or Clean Energy

Obama: Instead Of War, "We Must Invest In America's Greatest Resource - Our People." From President Obama's June 22 speech:

Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens here at home.  Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times.  Now, we must invest in America's greatest resource -- our people.  We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means.  We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy.  And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war.  For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach.

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. [WhiteHouse.gov, Remarks by the President on the Way Forward in Afghanistan, 6/22/11]

Power Line: "The Promotion Of 'Green Jobs' Doesn't Really Belong In This Speech." In a June 23 post on Power Line, blogger Scott Johnson wrote, "Speaking of unintended humor, the promotion of 'green jobs' really doesn't belong in this speech. It may be time to rewrite Samuel Johnson to say that 'green jobs' are the last refuge of a scoundrel." [Power Line, 6/23/11]

Fox Nation: "Obama Pushes Green Energy In Afghan Speech." A June 23 post on Fox Nation linked to the American Spectator blog under the headline, "Obama Pushes Green Energy in Afghan Speech." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 6/23/11]

Attack: Speech Was Obama's "Mission Accomplished" Moment

Ace Of Spades: "Obama's Mission Accomplished Speech." On his blog Ace of Spades, blogger Ace titled a short post on Obama's address "Obama's Mission Accomplished Speech" and went on to write, "We fought this war, but I made all the right decisions." It was posted two minutes after President Obama began speaking. [Ace of Spaces, 6/22/11]

Red State: "Mission Accomplished - Just [Don't] Ask How." A June 22 post on the conservative blog Red State had the subtitle, "Mission Accomplished - Just Don\'t [sic] Ask How." The post went on to state, "Whatever you do, though, don't forget tonight's declaration of success in a war whose purpose most Americans have long forgotten -- just don't ask how that success was achieved, how it's being defined, or how long it can be expected to last." [Red State, 6/22/11]

WSJ: "We Half Expected To See A 'Mission Accomplished' Banner Somewhere In The Background." A June 22 Wall Street Journal editorial stated:

President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals have been achieved. We half expected to see a "mission accomplished" banner somewhere in the background. [Wall Street Journal, 6/22/11]

Fox & Friends Text: "Mission Accomplished?" The co-hosts of Fox News' Fox & Friends discussed Obama's speech several times during the June 23 edition of the show. During one segment, the following text aired on screen:

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/23/11]

Nothing New Here: Right-Wing Media Consistently Attack Obama's Speeches

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's 2009 Cairo Address. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked President Obama's 2009 address in Cairo, Egypt on relations with the Muslim world.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's Cairo speech, SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's Address On Libya. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked Obama's address on military actions in Libya.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's Libya speech, SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's 2011 State Of The Union Address. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked Obama's 2011 State of the Union address.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's 2011 State of the Union address,SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's 2010 State Of The Union Address. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media also attacked Obama's 2010 State of the Union address.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's 2010 State of the Union address,SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's Memorial Address Honoring The Victims Of The January 2011, Tucson, AZ Shooting. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked Obama's memorial speech following the January 2011 shooting in Tucson, AZ.

Can't Add It Up: Fox Still Misleading On Economy, Debt, Stimulus

From Media Matters:

Fox & Friends repeatedly attacked comments made by Democratic officials and legislators to suggest that the 2009 stimulus failed and that the Obama administration is primarily to blame for the nation's debt. In fact, economists have agreed that the stimulus promoted job growth and had positive economic effects, and several analyses have shown that most of the U.S. debt in the past decade can be attributed to former President Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

EMBED

Pelosi And Goolsbee Comment On Obama's Economic Policies

Goolsbee: "One Month Is Not A Trend. And The Last Six Months We've Added One Million Jobs In The Economy." On the June 5 edition of CNN's State of the Union, White House economic advisor Austan Goolsbee said:

GOOLSBEE: What you want to look at are what are the recent trends. Because one month is not a trend. And the last six months we've added 1 million jobs in the economy. The last 15 months we've added 2 million jobs.

[...]

So I think that the president's plan, there is a plan, it has been working. We have been adding jobs significantly over the course of this year. We faced a stiff headwind and this was a tough month, but I don't think that we should abandon the idea that what we need to do now is get the private sector stood up. [CNN, 6/5/2011]

Pelosi: "If [Obama] Hadn't Taken The Actions That He Did ... The [Economic] Situation Would Be Worse." In an interview that aired on the June 5 edition of CBS's Face the Nation, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said:

What the president has done has improved the situation from where it may have been," Pelosi said. "If he hadn't taken the actions he did, the situation would be worse. He pulled us from the brink of the financial crisis, from an economic crisis, and now we have to dig out of a deep debt. And we have to also make it clear that we're not getting into this situation again. [CBS, Face The Nation, 6/5/11 via CBSNews.com]

Fox & Friends Mock Pelosi And Goolsbee, Pin Debt On Obama, Attack Stimulus

Carlson:  "How Long Can You Continue To Say" The Recession "Is Something That They Inherited?" On the June 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts discussed Goolsbee and Pelosi's comments about the economy. Co-host Gretchen Carlson said: 

CARLSON: The argument to me is, you know, how long can you continue to say that the hard hit recession of 2007, moving into 2008 is something that they inherited? I mean at one point, at what point does it become this administration's situation that they have to take full control for, and I think we're kind of teetering right now on the fact that it is their responsibility now and the policies that they've put into place to try and fix it. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/6/11]

Doocy Touts Noonan's Claim That "It Comes Down To Four Words: [Obama] Made It Worse."Co-host Steve Doocy referenced Peggy Noonan's recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, noting that Noonan "says it comes down to four words: [Obama] made it worse." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/6/11;Wall Street Journal, 6/3/11]

Varney: "With The Stimulus, [Unemployment] Should Never Have Risen Above 8, 8.5 Percent."Later during the show, the co-hosts discussed  Pelosi's and Goolsbee's comments on the economy with Fox Business host Stuart Varney. While "grading" Obama's economic policies, Varney claimed that "with the stimulus, [unemployment] should never have risen above 8, 8.5 percent," presumably referencing the administration's initial post-stimulus projection of unemployment rates, which was made prior to Obama taking office and prior to having access to the complete economic data at the time. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/6/11]

Perino Suggests The Stimulus Failed And That Obama's Policies Are Primarily Responsible For Debt. Later during the show, the co-hosts discussed Pelosi's and Goolsbee's comments with Fox News contributor Dana Perino, who suggested that the Obama administration's policies have made the economy worse and are responsible for much of the government's debt. From the broadcast:

CARLSON: So Dana, some would say that maybe the president would think that another stimulus plan would be the answer. But that probably wouldn't fly with the American public or Congress.

PERINO: I think their gut instinct and their ideology that they follow does lead them to believe that more government spending would actually help the economy. The problem for them is that people can add two plus two, and it equals the Obama administration and the policies that they've put in place. Let's unpack what Austan Goolsbee said just a little bit. He said, you know, last month was just a blip. OK, well, I hope that the June numbers, when we get them in July, they must -- maybe he knows something we don't know, but I doubt they're going to be spectacular. In addition, while he's right that they had added some jobs over the last six months, remember that economic growth for the country had been revised down from a pretty anemic 3 percent to a 1.8 percent. And the markets are rattled. Their situation is worse. And they're playing -- they have no plan to move forward.

DOOCY: Right.

PERINO: Their plan right now is to demagogue the Republicans' plan to actually try to do something about the debt. And when Nancy Pelosi talks about the debt, it's like oh, really? Where do you think it came from in the last three years? Not that it didn't accumulate over the decades. But in the last three years, they've doubled it. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/6/11, emphasis added]

Trump: The Stimulus Was "A Tremendous Waste Of Money." Later during the broadcast, the co-hosts discussed the economy with Donald Trump. Trump said that the "stimulus is gone, which was really false to start off with. It was a tremendous waste of money." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/6/11]

But Economists Agree That The Stimulus Raised Employment, Had "Very Substantial" Effects

Independent And Private Analysts: Stimulus Significantly Raised Employment. As Media Mattershas previously documented, many analysts confirmed that the stimulus significantly raised employment. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the stimulus increased the number of people employed, as of the second quarter of FY2010, by "between 1.4 million and 3.3 million." Moody's Economy.com estimated it would have created 1.9 million jobs by 2010. [Media Matters,9/26/10]

Economists: "The Effects Of The Fiscal Stimulus" On Economy "Appear Very Substantial."Economists also agreed that the stimulus was effective. A March 2010 study in The Wall Street Journalfound that 70 percent of economists surveyed said the stimulus "boosted growth and mitigated job losses." ABC News reported on February 18, 2010, that most of the economists on its panel thought the economy "would be worse today without the big aid package." And a February 2010 survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)." [Media Matters, 9/26/10]

Eight Percent Unemployment Projection Made Before Data Was Released Showing "Far Worse" Economic Conditions

Initial Eight Percent Unemployment Projection Made Before Fourth-Quarter FY2008 Results. AsMedia Matters has previously noted, while Obama advisers initially predicted that after stimulus spending the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent -- a prediction made "10 days before Mr. Obama was inaugurated," according to The New York Times -- advisers later explained that this estimate was made before fourth-quarter results for the GDP were available. Jared Bernstein, then-economic advisor to the vice president, explained, "[W]hen we made our initial estimates, that was before we had fourth-quarter results on GDP, which we later found out was contracting on an annual rate of 6 percent, far worse than we expected at that time." [Media Matters, 6/9/09; The New York Times, 6/8/09]

Analyses Show Most U.S. Debt Can Be Attributed To Bush-Era Policies, Economic Downturn

Wash. Post Graphic Shows Bush Tax Cuts And Iraq Wars Contributed Most To Current Deficit.From a June 4 post on The Washington Post blog PostPolitics:

In the debate over the nation's rising debt, rhetoric trumps reality. In January 2001, the U.S. budget was balanced for the first time in decades and the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion by 2011. A decade later, the national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

[...]

In fact, 75 percent of the members currently serving in Congress voted for at least one -- and in most cases more than one -- of three policies that contributed to fully one-third of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt: President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.

The post also included the following graphic illustrating the CBO's estimates on how much Bush's tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 2009 stimulus contributed to the current debt:

[The Washington Post, 6/4/11]

CBPP: "[V]irtually The Entire Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Due To Bush Policies, Economic Downturn." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, which was updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers." The report noted:

Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame.  Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4).  Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

The report also graphed the effects of Bush's policies and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the deficit. From the report:

[CBPP, updated 6/28/10, emphasis original, via Media Matters, 4/14/11]

Fox Medical Expert Marc Siegel's History Of Health Care Fearmongering And Misinformation

From Media Matters:

On Fox & Friends, Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel recently seized on a report of drug shortages to fearmonger about "government-controlled rationing" and to baselessly attack the health care reform law. Fox regularly turns to Siegel for commentary on health care reform despite his history of baseless fearmongering and pushing false claims about health care reform.

Siegel Seizes On Report Of Drug Shortages To Fearmonger About "Government-Controlled Rationing"

Siegel Seizes On Report Of Drug Shortages To Claim, "We're Moving In The Direction Of Government-Controlled Rationing." On the May 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Siegel seized on a recent report about drug shortages to claim that the drug shortage is "actually a form of rationing" and that "we're moving in the direction of government-controlled rationing." Siegel later baselessly claimed that government subsidization of the drug development process is "[a]nother example of Obamacare costing us a fortune." From Fox & Friends: 

KILMEADE: So what are doctors doing to counter the drug deficit? With us now is Fox medical contributor and author of this brand new book, it's excellent, called The Inner Pulse, Dr. Marc Siegel. Welcome to the show, I never thought in my lifetime I'd hear about a drug shortage. What's going on?

SIEGEL: It's actually a form of rationing and it worries me because, as I write in my book, you need one-on-one medical care in order to really make people better. And hospitals have a tremendous shortage right now of the most important medications, intravenous, antibiotics, chemotherapy, medicines for cardiac arrest to bring people back. There's a few reasons for this. Number one, they're generic, meaning that they're not making a lot of money off this, the drug companies. Number two, there's an arduous process to sterilize the drugs and number three, our military, rightly so, takes off the top, you know, the ones that are first and foremost: heparin, intravenous, antibiotics, gotta go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan first.

CARLSON: So, could anything, can anything be done to change the trend of having a shortage?

SIEGEL: Well, I'm actually thinking that doctors need to play a very strong role here. We're moving in the direction of government-controlled rationing and I, again, as I write, it's got to be on a patient by patient basis. In my book, I have patients who survive from comas, one because families are saying--a family is saying this patient is going to survive. In another case, it's the nurses and doctors who say so. I'm worried that in the future if there's a shortage of medications patients like that will have the plug pulled on them.

KILMEADE: Can the FDA to say 'listen, there's not enough of medicine x? We need to make more.' Can they mandate that?

SIEGEL:  Absolutely. But look, there's more money. That's more money flooding in from the government in order to subsidize that because the drug companies can't be forced to do it. Another example of Obamacare costing us a fortune. You know, I had a patient that lived with liver cancer for 10 years, they, he would have not gotten the treatments, the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is in the big shortages today because of the fact that it's not making money for the drug companies. They spend a billion dollars in research and development. They have to in order to keep going, keep the drugs that they're pushing out front, the brand name drugs. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/31/11; The Associated Press,5/30/11] 

In Fact, Reporting Points To Normal Market Forces For Drug Shortages, Not Rationing Or Health Care Reform

AP Lists Contamination Recalls, Raw Ingredients, Demand As Causes For Shortages. A May 31 Associated Press article listed numerous potential causes for the shortage, but did not mention "rationing" or the health care reform law as possible causes. From the AP: 

There are lots of causes, from recalls of contaminated vials, to trouble importing raw ingredients, to spikes in demand, to factories that temporarily shut down for quality upgrades.

Some experts pointedly note that pricier brand-name drugs seldom are in short supply. The Food and Drug Administration agrees that the overarching problem is that fewer and fewer manufacturers produce these older, cheaper generic drugs, especially the harder-to-make injectable ones. So if one company has trouble -- or decides to quit making a particular drug -- there are few others able to ramp up their own production to fill the gap, says Valerie Jensen, who heads FDA's shortage office. [The Associated Press, 5/31/11] 

FDA Lists Normal Market Forces As Reason For Drug Shortages. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Drug Shortage Program lists numerous market and business decisions as causes of drug shortages. From the FDA: 

Why are there so many drugs in shortage?

Over the last ten years, the number of shortages has continued to increase.  There are many reasons for this increase in shortages and some of the causes are as follows:

• Manufacturing issues - this may include problems with manufacturing, enforcement activities, raw material shortages, packaging shortages, and other reasons


• Business decisions may be made by firms to discontinue manufacturing of a drug - newer products continue to replace older products due to better safety profiles, better efficacy, more convenient dosing regimens, etc.


• Limited manufacturing capacity - often multiple products are produced on the same equipment which means that an increase in production of one product will usually result in a delay for another product produced on the same production line


• Market concentration - as firms discontinue manufacturing of various products, only one or two firms may remain as producers of a product. [Food and Drug Administration,3/30/11]

Siegel Has A Long History Of Fearmongering, Misinforming About Health Care Reform

Siegel Seized On Story Of Canadian Baby To Fearmonger About Health Care In U.S. On the February 24 edition of Fox & Friends, Siegel used the story of a 13-month old Canadian baby in a permanent vegetative state to fearmonger about health care reform. Siegel claimed that, unlike in Canada, parents in the United States have the freedom to make decisions about their children's health, but that "we're worried about" issues such as health care rationing "happening here." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/24/11]

Carlson And Siegel Fearmonger That Health Care Reform Will Cause "People With Heart Attacks" To Not "Be Seen" By Doctors. On the September 17, 2010, edition of Fox & Friends, Siegel and co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that the coverage proposals in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) could "bankrupt America." Siegel further claimed that health care reform will mean "people with heart attacks are not going to be able to be seen [in the emergency room]" because "it will be loaded with people with Medicaid cards with colds." [Fox News, Fox & Friends,9/17/10]

Siegel Used "Not Scientific" Poll To Attack Health Care Reform. On the March 17, 2010, edition of Fox News' America Live, Siegel cited a 3-month-old email survey which found that 46 percent of primary care physicians would consider leaving their profession if health care reform passed. Siegel claimed that the poll "reflected what was found in an IBD/TIPP poll that was done back in September [2009] whereInvestor's Business Daily also surveyed over a thousand physicians." But even Fox News acknowledged that the poll Siegel cited was "not scientific," and statistician Nate Silver called the poll "simply not credible." [Media Matters, 3/17/10]

Siegel: Task Force Recommendations On Mammograms "Absolutely" About Health Care Reform. During the November 17, 2009, edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Martha MacCallum asked Siegel, "You hinted at something that I want to just close with here. Are you suggesting that there's a link between health care reform and the battle to bring down costs overall and the decision to tell women not to get mammograms?" Siegel responded, "Well, absolutely," and, "[T]his kind of health reform is not what we need. We have the technology and quality of care in the United States. We don't need to see it sacrificed." In fact, as Media Matters noted, the recommendation made by the United States Preventive Services Task Force that fewer women younger than 50 receive regular mammograms was not legally binding on health care providers or insurers; also, the task force made similar recommendations before health care reform was passed, under the Bush administration. [Media Matters, 11/18/09]

Siegel: "[U]nder ObamaCare, Guidelines Will Quickly Become Mandates." In a November 19, 2009, New York Post column, Siegel again used mammogram screenings to claim that "under Obamacare, guidelines will quickly become mandates" and that reform efforts will "create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to 'suggest' things doctors shouldn't do."  From the New York Post:

This week's decision by a government panel to discourage most women in their 40s from having routine mammograms isn't just bad medicine, but also a small taste of what ObamaCare will mean.

[...]

Happily, these rulings from on high don't have much force now. But under ObamaCare, guidelines will quickly become mandates, and patients will routinely face the choice of paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket or accept higher risks of cancer. It will take government bureaucrats years to admit mistakes, if they ever do -- and by that time thousands of women will have needlessly gotten sick or even died of cancer.

All the major "reform" bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to "suggest" things doctors shouldn't do -- and even to penalize doctors who order "too many" tests. [New York Post, 11/19/09]

Siegel Compares War in Afghanistan To The "Bloodbath Going On Over Mammograms." On the December 2, 2009, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Siegel used a controversy over mammogram screening recommendations to claim, "[Y]ou're going to see another war. You have the war in Afghanistan; you're going to see -- there's a bloodbath going on over mammograms." [Fox News,America's Newsroom, 12/2/09]

Siegel On "Rationed Care" Under Health Reform: "[I]n A Way, It's A Form Of Eugenics."Discussing "rationed care" that he said would occur under health care reform, Siegel asserted: "There's going to be more people trying to get in [to my office]. I'm going to have less and less time to take care of them. Reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are being cut. If I'm being paid less, I got to work faster. That means I send more and more people for expensive tests. He's going to try to cost cut, which means he's going to ration care. So he's going to tell me what I can order, what I can't." After co-host Steve Doocy suggested that "unfairly, the elderly are the ones who are going to get shortchanged," Siegel responded: "That's so true. I mean, in a way, it's a form of eugenics: 'Oh, you're not good enough to live.' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/22/09]

Siegel Promoted End-Of-Life Counseling Myth. In an August 3, 2009, New York Post op-ed, Siegel promoted the myth that the House health care reform bill would have required end-of-life counseling for seniors every five years. Siegel falsely claimed that a "prime example" of the health care bill introducing too much medical oversight "comes in the section starting on page 425 of the House bill. This dictates that an Advanced Care Planning Consultation must take place every five years from the age of 65 -- with the intervention of so-called counselors, trained and appointed by the government." As Media Mattershas documented, the bill does not implement mandatory counseling sessions, and Politifact rated claims like Siegel's "pants on fire."  [New York Post, 8/3/09; Media Matters, 3/22/11]

Right-Wing Media's Relentless False Attack: Obama Does Not Support Israel

From Media Matters

Right-wing media have claimed that President Obama attacked Israel in his recent restatement of U.S. policy that a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 borders with agreed upon swaps. These criticisms follow a long series of falsehoods, distortions, and smears advanced by the right-wing media to claim that Obama and his administration are anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Restating Long-Standing U.S. Policy On Israel

Right Wing Media Advance Conspiracy Theory That Obama May Use Libya Precedent To Attack Israel

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Restating U.S. Policy On Israeli Settlements

Right-Wing Media Have Relied On Falsehoods To Suggest Hamas And Obama Are On The Same Page

Right-Wing Media Call Obama And Members Of His Administration "Anti-Semitic"

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Restating Long-Standing U.S. Policy On Israel

OBAMA REFERS TO 1967 BORDERS WITH "MUTUALLY AGREED SWAPS" IN CALLING FOR A "VIABLE PALESTINE" AND "SECURE ISRAEL"

Obama: "We Believe The Borders Of Israel And Palestine Should Be Based On The 1967 Lines With Mutually Agreed Swaps." From Obama's May 19 speech on the Middle East and North Africa:

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won't make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/19/11]

RIGHT-WING MEDIA RESPOND TO OBAMA SPEECH: HE "SIDED WITH TERRORISTS," CONDONED "POTENTIAL GENOCIDE"

CNN's Dana Loesch: Obama "Sided With Terrorists." During her KFTK radio show, CNN contributor Dana Loesch claimed that in his speech on the Middle East, Obama "sided with terrorists" and "people who believe that Israel doesn't have the right to exist." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." Rush Limbaugh said of Obama's speech: "What kind of President urges a country to destroy itself and submit its people to potential genocide?" [Premiere Radio Networks, Rush Limbaugh Program, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Gateway Pundit: Obama "Proposed Giving Half Of Jerusalem ... To Hamas-Fatah Terrorist Alliance." From Jim Hoft's May 19 blog post:

Let's be clear.

Obama today proposed giving half of Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, The holiest Christian Church in the world, The Church of the Holy Sepulchreto Hamas-Fatah terrorist alliance. [Gateway Pundit, 5/19/11]

Ace of Spades: Obama Is "'Endorsing The Terrorists' Key Demand." From a May 19 post on the Ace of Spades blog:

Obama pretty much announced that he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders -- thus endorsing the terrorists' key demand without requiring any substantive concessions on their part. [Ace of Spades, 5/19/11]

Sean Hannity: Obama Supports Radicals. Following the speech, Fox News' Sean Hannity wrote on his Twitter feed, "Radicals now think they have the support of an American President. That's the worst scenario for Israel, our greatest ally in the Mideast":

Beck: Obama's Policy On Israel Ends With "The Destruction Of Israel" And "The Western Way Of Life." Discussing Obama's speech, Fox News' Glenn Beck said:

BECK: Let me tell you how this ends. It ends with the destruction of Israel. It ends with the end of the Western way of life. It is the keystone of the West. You do this, it inflames the Middle East, and I got news for you -- Bill Kristol make fun of me all you want -- a caliphate is established. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Beck: Obama Wants To "Destabilize Israel Even More." On his radio show, Beck "contend[ed]" that Obama's border proposal will "destabilize Israel even more." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 5/23/11, via Media Matters]

Geller: Obama's Middle East Policy Is "Obama's Final Solution." In a May 19 post to her Atlas Shrugs blog, Pamela Geller wrote that Obama was dooming Israel to "Auschwitz borders" and referred to his proposal as "Obama's final solution." From her post:

The "Made in the USA" President proved today, yet again, how carefully he listened and committed to the Islamic Jew-hatred taught to him in his quranic classes while growing up Muslim in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. His call to return to the '67 borders, a return to Auschwitz borders, is a call to jihad. It will incite and inflame the Muslim street.

Obama's foreign policy mimics that of the suicide bomber.

The idea that Israel must take the gas pipe, be reduced to tiny size by this tiny man, while the Muslims have given nothing, negotiated nothing, but instead, waged war and consolidated power between Fatah and Hamas (whose charter calls for the annihilation of Israel), is Obama's final solution.

I pray Netanyahu tells him to kish meir en tuchas. [Atlas Shrugs, 5/19/11]

Krauthammer: Obama Is "Tearing Up Bush-Era Agreements." During the May 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer accused Obama of "mak[ing] the biggest concession of the entire Arab-Israeli negotiations in 50 years" and falsely claimed he is "tearing up Bush-era agreements." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Hannity: Obama Has Thrown Israel Under "A Bus Full Of Suicide Bombers." During the May 19 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated that Obama has thrown Israel under "a bus full of suicide bombers," adding: "I wonder if the members of the Nobel Committee over in Oslo are scratching their heads tonight wondering why one of their Peace Prize recipients is abandoning a key democratic ally." [Fox News, Sean Hannity, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Morris: If Israel's Security "Is An Important Factor In Your Life, You Have No Business Supporting Barack Obama." From the May 19 edition of Fox News' On the Record:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): Now let me ask a collateral issue that is of less importance than the security of any nation or of our allies or anything but the collateral issue, and that's the political impact here in the United States. And, you know, we have an enormous population here in this country, especially in Florida where you are -- who are -- who spend an awful lot of time thinking about Israel. What does this do to him politically?

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): Well, it's a question of the values of each pro-Israeli voter, whether they're Jewish or not. If the maintenance of the security of the state of Israel is an important factor in your life, you have no business supporting Barack Obama. It's that simple. Until now, Obama has pressured Israel on settlements, pressured them into negotiations, and those have all been within the range -- kind of the pro-Palestinian range -- but within the range of acceptable past U.S. policy. But, now, he has literally embraced the language of the Palestinians. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

• Dick Morris: Obama Is Asking Israel "To Commit Suicide." Later on the same program, Morris claimed that Obama is "literally" asking Israel "to commit suicide." [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

O'Reilly Guest Claimed Obama "Has Completely Reversed" U.S. Policy Toward Israel. During the May 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney, claimed that "in one foul swoop, [Obama] has completely reversed American foreign policy. He has in one speech told the Jewish community that he is going to renege on his promises that he made to Israel. And that just basically leads to a state of confusion." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/20/11, viaMedia Matters]

IN FACT, OBAMA'S STATEMENT IS IN LINE WITH PAST U.S. REMARKS ON ISRAEL

Former Israeli PM Olmert: Israelis Must "Return To The Core Of The Territory That Is The State of Israel Prior To 1967." On the 13th anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- who was assassinated in 1995 by an Orthodox Jew reportedly opposed to the Mideast peace process Rabin was intent on brokering -- then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated in 2008: "We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then." From Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took advantage of yesterday's special Knesset marking the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to call for territorial withdrawals in all disputed areas and to denounce violence on the part of Jewish settlers.

"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then," he said.

[...]

Olmert also said that, "Every government will need to tell the truth, which unfortunately will require us to tear out many parts of the homeland in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." Addressing the settlers, he said: "You, too, will have do carry out a moral reckoning and reach a decision." [Haaretz, 11/11/08]

George W. Bush: "Any Peace Agreement ... Will Require Mutually Agreed Adjustments To The Armistice Lines Of 1949 To Reflect Current Realities." From a 2008 statement by Bush while visiting Jerusalem.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue. [Statement by President Bush, 1/10/08]

• "1949 Armistice Line" Is Another Way Of Referring To Pre-1967 Borders. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine as the "1949-1967 Armistice Lines." [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 5/19/11]

George W. Bush: "Any Final Status Agreement Must Be Reached Between The Two Parties, And Changes To The 1949 Armistice Lines Must Be Mutually Agreed To." From Bush's statement during a May 26, 2005, press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas:

BUSH: Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

The imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the roadmap. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life. [Press Conference with Presidents Bush and Abbas, 5/26/05]

In 2004, U.S. House Approved A Return To Borders That Reflect "Mutually Agreed Changes" To "The Armistice Lines Of 1949." House Concurrent Resolution 460, sponsored by then-Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) and approved by the U.S. House in 2004, stated:

Whereas the United States is hopeful that a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be achieved;

Whereas the United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well-being as a Jewish state;

Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has proposed an initiative intended to enhance the security of Israel and further the cause of peace in the Middle East;

Whereas President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in a dialogue with respect to this initiative;

Whereas President Bush, as part of that dialogue, expressed the support of the United States for Prime Minister Sharon's initiative in a letter dated April 14, 2004;

Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. [H. Con. Res. 460, 6/23/04]

NBC's Gregory Notes That Previous Presidents Have Framed Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Around 1967 Borders. During the May 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, NBC's David Gregory stated: "I think we have to put some things in context here. It is not unusual for an American president in the past decade or more to frame a peace process around the '67 borders." [MSNBC, Morning Joe,5/20/11, via Media Matters]

Wallace: 1967 Borders Have "Kind Of Always Been The Unofficial Idea For the Basis For An Agreement." During the May 20 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace acknowledged that the 1967 borders have "always been the unofficial idea of the basis for an agreement" between Israel and Palestine. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/20/11, via Media Matters]

PROMINENT ISRAELIS AND AMERICAN JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS APPLAUDED OR ENDORSED SIMILAR PROPOSALS

Jerusalem Post: Opposition Leader Livni "Said Obama's Plan Was Clearly In Israel's Interests."A May 19 article in The Jerusalem Post stated:

MKs on the Right expressed outrage on Thursday night at US President Barack Obama's call for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, in an exchange of territory for security.

[...]

"Barack Hussein Obama adopted Yasser Arafat's staged plan for Israel's destruction, and he is trying to force it on our prime minister," Likud MK Danny Danon said. "All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to 1967 borders without solving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: Tell Obama to forget about it."

Environment Minister Gilad Erdan, also from the Likud, who as a minister close to Netanyahu must be more diplomatic, said on Channel 2 that according to Obama's approach, the Palestinians would receive what they were demanding on borders before negotiations begin.

"Once they have everything from the start, they have no reason to make any concessions," Erdan said.

But opposition leader Tzipi Livni said Obama's plan was clearly in Israel's interests, while the diplomatic stalemate that she believes was brought on by Netanyahu is not.

"On his visit, Netanyahu must display the leadership necessary now to create the conditions necessary to restart negotiations with those who are ready to end the conflict," Livni said. "Only a real Israeli initiative with content that can receive American and international support can be an answer to the current dangers and opportunities." [The Jerusalem Post, 5/19/11]

Israeli Generals, Former Ambassadors Run Ad: "Recognizing A Palestinian State Based On The 1967 Borders Is Vital For Israel's Existence." According to the organization J Street, 18 retired Israeli generals, "[o]ver 5 former ambassadors, consul generals, and directors of the foreign ministry," and 27 Israeli prize laureates signed a letter that was reportedly published widely in Israeli papers, titled in English, "Recognizing a Palestinian State Based On the 1967 Borders is Vital for Israel's Existence." J Street paid for the statement to be run in English in The New York Times. From the statement:

We, the citizens of Israel, call on the public to support the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state as a condition for ending the conflict, and reaching agreed borders on the basis of the 1967 borders. Recognition of such a Palestinian state is vital for Israel's existence. It is the only way to guarantee the resolution of the conflict by negotiations, to prevent the eruption of another round of massive violence and end the risky isolation of Israel in the world. [J Street, 5/18/11]

American Jewish Committee "Praised President Obama's Call Today." The American Jewish Committee issued a statement praising Obama's comments, specifically citing the president's comments on a "two-state solution":

"President Obama has sternly warned the Palestinians, and the international community, to stop this senseless drive to try to achieve a state without any negotiated agreement with Israel," said AJC Executive Director David Harris.

"The parameters of a two-state solution are just as clear today as they were when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walked away from the peace talks last September," said Harris. "The Palestinians must return now to close the deal." [American Jewish Committee, 5/19/11]

ADL: "We Support The President's Vision Of A Negotiated Israeli-Palestinian Settlement." The Anti-Defamation League also praised Obama's speech, stating:

We welcome President Obama's compelling speech on the priorities for American policy in the Middle East. We applaud his strong outlining of the principles which motivate that policy, including supporting the universal rights of free speech, equality and religious freedom, opposing the use of force and political repression, and promoting political and economic reforms. These are a reflection of American values and promote American interests.

[...]

We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel. [Anti-Defamation League,5/19/11]

Jewish Council For Public Affairs: We "[Join] In The President's Vision Of Two States For Two Peoples." From a May 19 statement released by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an American Jewish advocacy group:

"The JCPA joins in the President's vision of two states for two peoples. We hope that the Palestinian leadership, one committed to peace with Israel and nonviolence, will soon agree to join with Israel in direct negotiations. The President's strong expressions of support for Israeli security; repudiation of efforts to delegitimize Israel; recognition that Hamas currently is not an acceptable peace partner; and his rejection of unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, are welcomed," said JCPA Chair Dr. Conrad Giles. [Jewish Council for Public Affairs, 5/19/11]

Right Wing Media Advance Conspiracy Theory That Obama May Use Libya Precedent To Attack Israel

OBAMA AUTHORIZES MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA TO HEAD OFF HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

Obama Orders U.S. War Planes, Sends Other Support To Head Off "Looming Humanitarian Crisis" In Libya. From Obama's March 28 address to the nation on Libya:

In the face of the world's condemnation, [Moammar] Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. [WhiteHouse.gov,3/28/11]

RIGHT-WING MEDIA'S RESPONSE: OBAMA WILL "THREATEN USE OF U.S. MILITARY FORCES" AGAINST ISRAEL

Frank Gaffney: "The Gadhafi Precedent: Could Attack On Libya Set The Stage For Action Against Israel?" In a Washington Times piece titled, "The Gadhafi Precedent," Frank Gaffney discussed Obama's decision to join the multilateral effort under UN Resolution 1973 to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. Gaffney wrote that the "Gadhafi Precedent" could be "used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel." Gaffney theorized that the need to "protect" the Libyan civilians could be used to justify "the use of force to protect the 'Palestinian people' and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis." From The Washington Times:

There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here's how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council's recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians' gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a "mammoth force" of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.

[...]

The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to "liberate" its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the "Palestinian people" and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.

[...]

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States' long-standing role as Israel's principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled "coalition" military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank - and beyond, if necessary - in order to fulfill the "will of the international community." [The Washington Times, 3/21/11]

Fox Nation: "Op-Ed: Could Attack On Libya Set State For Action Against Israel?" Fox Nation highlighted and linked to Gaffney's column under the headline: "Op-Ed: Could Attack on Libya Set Stage for Action Against Israel?." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 3/22/11]

WorldNetDaily: "American Military Targeting Israel?" In a piece highlighting Gaffney's article, WorldNetDaily senior staff writer Aaron Klein wrote: "Could President Obama's decision to sidestep Congress and strike Libya as part of an international coalition put the U.S. on a military collision course with Israel?" He further stated: "While the prospect of American or Western forces confronting Israeli troops may seem remote, one Middle East policy expert is warning the precedent set by Obama in agreeing to target Libya opens the door to other possible United Nations-backed confrontations, including perhaps one day with Israel." [WorldNetDaily, 3/22/11]

Beck: Administration's "Responsibility To Protect" Provision Could Be Used Against Israel. On the March 29 edition of his Fox News show, Beck referred to uprisings in the Arab world, claiming that "our administration is siding with the wrong side." Beck further said that, in contrast with the administration, he "stand[s] with Israel." He also suggested that the Obama administration is "pushing the Responsibility to Protect Act," which could lead to the destruction of Israel. [Fox News, Glenn Beck,3/29/11, via Media Matters]

IN FACT, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PROMISED "UNWAVERING ... SUPPORT" FOR ISRAEL

Obama: "The United States Is Going To Be Unwavering In Its Support Of Israel's Security."Following an attack in the West Bank in 2010, Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following comments:

OBAMA: I want everybody to be very clear: The United States is going to be unwavering in its support of Israel's security and we are going to push back against these kinds of terrorist activities.

And so the message should go out to Hamas and everybody else who is taking credit for these heinous crimes that this is not going to stop us from not only ensuring a secure Israel but also securing a longer-lasting peace in which people throughout the region can take a different course.

I also want to express the deepest condolences of the American people to the families of those who were gunned down. And I want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu, during a very difficult time for his country, still being so committed to the cause of peace that he is here with us today.

Prime Minister.

NETANYAHU: Well, thank you, Mr. President, for expressing what I think is the sentiment of decent people everywhere, in the face of this savagery and brutality.

Four innocent people were gunned down and seven new orphans were added, by people who have no respect for human life and trample human rights into the dust and butcher everything that they oppose.

I think that the President's statement is an expression of our desire to fight against this terror. And the talks that we had, which were, indeed, open, productive, serious in the quest for peace, also centered around the need to have security arrangements that are able to roll back this kind of terror and other threats to Israel's security. That is a fundamental element, an important foundation, of the peace that we seek and work for.

And I appreciate, Mr. President, your efforts to advance this peace for us and for our neighbors, for our region, and I think we can say, for the world. [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/1/10]

U.S. Acted On Shared Israeli Concerns Over Iranian Weapons. In 2010, Reuters reported that the Obama administration committed to upgrading Israel's Arrow missile shield to deal with the threat of long-range ballistic missiles from Iran and elsewhere:

The Arrow III will allow Israel "to deal with the threat of ballistic missiles with long range" and will give it "the ability to shoot down weapons of mass destruction outside the atmosphere," the ministry said in a statement. Israel, which describes its Arrow system as a defense against Iran, says the upgraded version will cap off its multi-tier air defenses.

The Arrow is jointly produced by state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries and the American firm Boeing Co. and has absorbed close to $1 billion in direct U.S. funds since its 1988 inception.

The Israeli air force said last year that the Arrow III would take more than four years to complete and that would depend on what resources were made available for the project. [Reuters, 7/25/10]

The U.S. Vetoed A Security Council Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements. From The Washington Post:

The Obama administration Friday cast its first-ever veto in the U.N. Security Council, blocking a Palestinian-backed draft resolution that denounced Israel's settlement policy as an illegal obstacle to peace efforts in the Middle East.

[...]

But Friday, the administration stood far apart from even its closest allies. Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement arguing that the resolution would have advanced the peace process.

It was the first time the U.S. government has used its veto in the Security Council since 2006, when the George W. Bush administration vetoed a resolution calling for a halt to Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. [The Washington Post, 2/18/11]

• After Veto, Israeli Prime Minister Thanked Obama Administration For Support.Following the Obama Administration's veto of the UN Security Council resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated: "Israel deeply appreciates this decision and we remain committed to advancing peace both with our neighbors in the region and with the Palestinians. I believe that the US decision makes it clear that the only way to peace is direct negotiations and not through the actions of international bodies, which are designed to bypass direct negotiations." [Prime Minister's Office, Israel, 2/20/11]

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Restating U.S. Policy On Israeli Settlements

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STATES ITS OPPOSITION TO NEW ISRAELI SETTLEMENT CONSTRUCTION IN WEST BANK

Obama Administration Repeatedly Calls On Israel To Halt New Settlement Construction. The Obama administration has repeatedly called on Israel to halt construction of new settlements in the West Bank. The Obama administration has argued that the continued construction is antithetical to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestine. [ABC News, 3/10/10, Associated Press, 3/15/11]

RIGHT-WING MEDIA: OBAMA IS SUPPORTING "INTIFADA" AGAINST ISRAEL BY RESTATING U.S. POLICY REGARDING SETTLEMENTS

Fox Nation: Obama "Slaps Israel Again." Fox Nation reprinted the beginning of an Associated Press article and used the headline, "Obama Slaps Israel Again," referring to the Obama administration's continued rebuke of Israeli settlements.

From the Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 3/14/11]

CNS News Column: "This Is The Obama Intifada." In a syndicated column for CNS News, Ben Shapiro wrote, "When President Obama is unhappy about his inability to convince Americans to nationalize health care, he incentivizes Palestinian Arabs to violent uprising," adding that the Obama administration's response to Israel's announcement "was far too well-rehearsed for it to have been triggered by something equivalent to a Housing and Urban Development dispute in the United States." Shapiro continued:

This is the Obama Intifada. It is he who has suggested that the Palestinian Arabs have legitimate grievances, that Israel is the victimizer, and that the United States will stand aside and allow violent atrocities by Arabs to go forward without comment. He wants this Intifada, and he's got it.

The Obama Intifada will serve a dual purpose: it will knock health care off the front pages, and it will provide a "crisis" for Obama to solve. If a few Jews get killed, Obama doesn't truly care. What's a few eggs if you're frying up a socialized health care omelet? What's a few Jews if you can win another Nobel Peace Prize?

Nothing, to President Obama. All that matters is his personal victory, even if America and her allies lose. [CNS News, 3/17/10]

Geller On Obama Administration's Opposition To Settlement Construction: "Call to End Obama's Intifada." In a post to her Atlas Shrugs titled, "Action Alert: Call to End Obama's Intifada," Geller urged her readers to "Join Christians United for Israel in their surge against the President's intifada against Israel." She then quoted from the group's statement, which read:

The Obama Administration has reacted to this announcement by creating the worst crisis in relations with Israel in decades. First Vice President Biden condemned the announcement in unusually harsh terms. Then, over the weekend, Secretary of State Clinton and advisor David Axelrod escalated the rhetoric still further. Today, Middle East envoy George Mitchell indefinitely postponed his trip to the region. Where will it end? [Atlas Shrugs, 3/16/10]

Jawa Report Headline On Obama Administration Opposition To Settlement Building: "The Obama Intifada." A Jawa Report post titled, "The Obama Intifada," included numerous links to stories and blog posts about the Obama administration's position on settlements, adding, "This too shall pass, by which I mean the current US administration." The Jawa Report post was a replica of an entry on the Internet Haganah blog carrying a similar "Obama Intifada" headline. [Jawa Report, 3/16/10]

IN FACT, THE U.S. HAS A LONG-STANDING POLICY OF OPPOSING NEW ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS

In 2005, Condoleezza Rice Reportedly Stated That Israeli Settlement Plan Was "At Odds With American Policy." In a March 2005 interview with the Los Angeles Times, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that Israel's plan to expand its settlements in the West Bank at the time was "at odds with American policy." From the Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Israel in unusually sharp terms Thursday, warning that its plans to expand an Israeli West Bank settlement was "at odds with American policy" and could threaten progress toward peace with the Palestinians at a critical moment.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Rice said Israeli explanations of plans to add 3,500 housing units to the Maale Adumim settlement east of Jerusalem were "not really a satisfactory response." [Los Angeles Times, 3/25/05]

President Bush: Israel Must "Get Rid Of Unauthorized Settlements." Before a three-day visit to Israel in January 2008, then-President Bush stated that he expected Israel to "get rid of unauthorized settlements":

Q Unauthorized settlement, it is something which -- an issue which is between the United States and Israel for a long time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we expect them to honor their commitments. The Israeli government has said that they're going to get rid of unauthorized settlements, and that's what we expect. That's what we've been told.

Q Not before you come, you know.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be on the -- that will, of course, be an agenda item. But Prime Minister -- both Prime Ministers with whom I have worked understand our position. Both have agreed, by the way, of unauthorized settlements. [Bush White House archives,1/2/08]

Bush's Ambassador To Israel: All U.S. Administrations Have "Argued Strongly Against Israeli Settlement Activity." In an essay published in Middle East Policy, Princeton Middle Eastern Policy Studies professor Daniel Kurtzer, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Bush, wrote: "Every U.S. administration since 1967 has argued strongly against Israeli settlement activity." [Middle East Policy, accessed on 3/14/11]

Right-Wing Media Have Relied On Falsehoods To Suggest Hamas And Obama Are On The Same Page

Limbaugh Suggested Hamas Supported Obama. In June 2008, Limbaugh stated: "I will guaran-damn-tee you there will not be a terrorist attack before the election. And you know why there won't be one? Because they want Obama elected." He later asserted, "Hamas has endorsed Obama. Hamas has endorsed Obama. You think they're going to do anything to upset the apple cart of Obama's election? Why do you think they've endorsed Obama? Because they want a very strong ally for Israel in the White House?" In fact, after Obama declared his support for Israel, a Hamas spokesman reportedly said: "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win." [Media Matters, 6/24/08]

Hannity And Steyn Falsely Suggest Obama Supports A Role For Hamas In Peace Negotiations Under Hamas' Current Charter. In June 2009, Sean Hannity asked syndicated columnist Mark Steyn, "Did you notice, in the speech that [President Obama] gave in Cairo -- now for those that don't know, Hamas, a terrorist organization that has in their charter, you know, a pledge for the destruction of Israel -- that he says Hamas can play a role in the future of the Palestinian people. Did you catch that?" Steyn replied in part: "Yes, it's very interesting. That whole speech essentially subscribed largely to the Arab view of the Israeli state." In fact, during his address earlier that month at Cairo University, Obama stated that to "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations," Hamas must "put an end to violence" and "recognize Israel's right to exist." [Media Matters, 6/8/09]

With Absolutely No Basis, Geller Claimed Obama Was "Taking ... Cues From Hamas." On Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, David Asman encouraged guest Geller's baseless claim that the Obama administration is "taking their cues from Hamas and passing it on to the British government" by instructing British Prime Minister David Cameron to "blame Israel" for the flotilla incident in the Gaza Strip. She cited a "highly placed confidential source ... in the U.K" for her assertions. [Media Matters,8/19/10]

Beck Falsely Claimed Obama Was "In Lockstep" With Hamas' Leadership On Building Of Lower Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center. Beck falsely claimed that Obama's comment that Muslims have "the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan" was "in lockstep" with a statement by a member of Hamas' senior leadership arguing that the mosque should be built on the spot where it was proposed. [Media Matters, 8/17/10]

Crowley Wondered If Obama Might Have Sympathies Toward Hamas And Hezbollah. From the September 30, 2010, edition of Fox Business' Money Rocks:

CROWLEY: Yeah, and look during the campaign we had this conversation almost every day about the kinds of people Barack Obama was associating with, whether it was Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi. Remember, Barack Obama spoke at an event honoring Rashid Khalidi who is a very far left radical, um, Islamist. He spoke at an event, the Los Angeles Times had tape of that event, they would not release it. Why? What was on that tape? What was he saying? In terms of Israel, in terms of Islamists, in terms of Hamas and Hezbollah. We have no idea? And look, we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, you don't want to think that the President has these kinds of sympathies, well then release tape and show us that there's nothing incriminating there. [Fox Business, Money Rocks, 9/30/10, via Media Matters]

Right-Wing Media Call Obama And Members Of His Administration "Anti-Semitic"

WND's Klayman: Religious Freedom Is "Under Attack By Our 'Muslim' President And His Fellow Anti-Semites." In his May 21 WorldNetDaily column, Larry Klayman wrote that Obama "has joined with Palestinians to now knock off Israel." Klayman also wrote that "[w]e need to protect our religious freedoms, which are under attack by our 'Muslim' president and his fellow anti-Semites and anti-Christian haters." From Klayman's column:

Emboldened by increased popularity brought about by the killing of Osama bin Laden, Barack Hussein Obama, our first "Muslim" president, has joined with Palestinians to now knock off Israel. In a speech delivered not only to intimidate but also again embarrass Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just prior to his state visit to Washington, D.C., the "mullah in chief" demanded that Israel give back all the land it acquired in the 1967 war to the Palestinians, thus compromising the Jewish state's national security. This would mean ceding all of the West Bank, including but not limited to East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians, allowing Israel to be split in two in the event of a quick successful assault by Arabs to cut bifurcate the nation. It would also mean that Christian and Jewish holy sites, from the places where Jesus was crucified and resurrected to the sacred wailing wall, would fall into the control of Muslims hostile to our Judeo-Christian roots and culture.

This rank "chutzpah" by Obama is not isolated. Since the beginning of his presidency two and a half years ago, he has steadfastly unmasked his disdain for Jews and Christians, first by giving a pandering "Cairo" speech apologizing to the Arab world for American "atrocities," then bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia, canceling the White House National Day of Prayer celebration and instead feasting the Arab holiday of Ramadan, endorsing the Ground Zero mosque, and last but hardly least using the death of Osama bin Laden to effectively argue that al-Qaida's terror threat is over and that now we can have "healing" with the Muslim world -- despite its having done nothing to bring the master terrorist to justice. It would appear that Obama identifies more with his father's Muslim faith than his own feigned and politically convenient alleged Christianity.

[...]

We need to mobilize Hollywood to tell the story of Israel and its importance for the nation. We need to preserve our our way of life. We need to protect our religious freedoms, which are under attack by our "Muslim" president and his fellow anti-Semites and anti-Christian haters.

Hollywood is the key to get the masses to understand that we must all help Israel before it is too late and it ceases to exist. And, Obama must understand that he will lose support from his past Jewish voters and will not be re-elected if he harms Israel and compromises its security. For if Israel is compromised and goes under, so too will our nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage. [WorldNetDaily, 5/21/11]

Beck Claimed That Obama Administration Is "Openly Deliver[ing]" "Out-of-Line Anti-Semitic Comments." On his Fox News show, Beck asserted that "members of [President Obama's] administration ... openly deliver blatantly insensitive and highly out-of-line anti-Semitic comments." Beck was referring to deputy national security adviser John Brennan who had used the word "Al Quds" to refer to Jerusalem. In fact, "Al Quds" is the Arabic term for Jerusalem and has been used by President Ronald Reagan's liaison to the Jewish community as well as former Israeli Prime Minister (and current Israeli Defense Minister) Ehud Barak. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/1/11, via Media Matters]

Geller: " 'Kick A Jew' Days ... Are Part Of This Growing Evil Evil Unleashed With An Anti-Semite In The White House." In a December 14, 2009, post, Pamela Geller wrote:

It's as if the floodgates of hell have been thrown open. The moratorium on the holocaust is officially over and all the savages are free to incite, hate and destroy. Clearly those "Kick a Jew" days discussed here and here in schools are part of this growing evil Evil unleashed with an anti-semite in the White House. [Atlas Shrugs, 12/14/09]

• Geller: "I Do" Think Obama Is Anti-Semitic. During the July 27, 2010, edition of Fox News' Hannity, Sean Hannity asked Geller if she thought Obama is anti-Semitic. Geller responded by saying "I do." Although Hannity, asked Geller why she pressed such a "hard charge" he refused to challenge Geller. Instead Hannity fearmongered about "anti-Semitic rhetoric" that was creating a "frightening level" of "talk about wiping Israel off the map." [Fox News, Hannity, 7/27/10 via Media Matters]