On May 6, Fox News Sunday panelists repeated an emerging myth that legislation Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced she is introducing with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) "to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq" in October 2007 represents -- in the words of host Chris Wallace -- a "big change" for Clinton "who has previously rejected timetables for withdrawal and now supports this idea of rescinding the original authorization to use force." None of the panelists -- National Public Radio (NPR) correspondent Mara Liasson, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume, or NPR senior national correspondent Juan Williams -- corrected Wallace. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted here and here, Clinton's support for revoking the war authorization and for timetables is not new. Clinton's own Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, which she introduced in the Senate on February 16, includes a provision that would "require a new authorization for use of United States military forces in Iraq unless both the President and the Government of Iraq meet certain conditions within 90 days, including the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

As Media Matters noted, The Washington Post published a headline on May 4 -- "Clinton Changes Tone on Iraq; Senator Favors Ending War Authority" -- despite the article's own reporting that Clinton "has expressed support for a similar de-authorization, although not as a stand-alone bill." Similarly, CNN's Bill Schneider falsely suggested that Clinton's announcement that she would join Byrd in introducing the sunset bill represented the first time she has indicated support for ending the authorization of the war.

From the May 6 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: That was Senator Hillary Clinton this week announcing her new plan to try to end the president's power to wage war in Iraq. And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill, and Juan. Well, it's not a new idea, but it is a big change for Hillary Clinton, who has previously rejected timetables for withdrawal and now supports this idea of rescinding the original authorization to use force. Mara, will this get her past her troubles with the left wing for refusing to apologize for that 2002 vote?

LIASSON: It might help her. I think the big question for Senator Clinton is that she has been doing a very careful balancing act in the primary thinking about the general election, leaving herself some kind of running room to move to the center. I question more about what it will do to that effort. I think this probably will help her with whatever problems she has on the left. She said after that speech, she said it would mean that the troops would be out as of October. She said they have no authority to continue, that's the point. That's a pretty short-term, definite end point, which is I thought what she'd always shied away from in the past, saying she just wanted a goal, she wanted a very phased withdrawal, she wanted to leave troops there to fight Al Qaeda, this would be pretty blanket --

WALLACE: I think her staff amended that to say she would authorize some limited role.

[crosstalk]

LIASSON: Yes, her staff amended that to say she would authorize some limited role, but still I think the message for people who were listening to her as opposed to her staff, it sounds like she wants to end this war quite quickly, which I think is movement on her part.

WALLACE: Brit, there really does seem to be a race to the left among -- I mean, I hate to take the phrase of [House Minority Leader] John Boehner {R-OH], but he's right. There is a race to the left by all the Democratic candidates to try to show "I'm tougher against the war than you are."

HUME: Listen, the vote to authorize the war in Iraq is the original sin of this Democratic primary election, and Hillary Clinton is guilty of it and therefore needs to do something to atone for it. And she's tried various things short of saying she regrets her original vote. This is one more step. It is all about positioning herself. It is really not a serious legislative effort. I don't think there's any evidence that this thing could ever, if it passed, survive a veto. But let's remember, Democratic voters have been willing to forgive Clintons of sin in the past and might again this time.

KRISTOL: Brit's more good-humored about this, I must say, than I am. It is so irresponsible when 160,000 troops are fighting in a war, and the head of Al Qaeda says we're going to drive you out -- to stand up on the floor of the Senate and really for patently short-term political reasons. I mean, this is not a serious proposal by Senator Clinton, to say, "Whoops, it's a mistake, let's de-authorize the war that soldiers are fighting and dying in right now." I mean, it's pathetic. If she thinks we should get out, she should propose a serious plan to get out in 30 days or 60 days, not a symbolic ... not give Al Qaeda a symbolic victory, and that's what Senator Clinton's proposal would do. And did last week. It did.

WILLIAMS: And she's the only one involved in political posturing on the war.

KRISTOL: Yes.

WILLIAMS: C'mon.

KRISTOL: You just said that Republicans, against the polls, the Republicans are standing for fighting and winning. Against the public opinion polls.

WILLIAMS: What you see coming from Republicans on the war, I think, is a refusal to deal with the reality, to simply say "Oh, no, we have got to stay there and support our president despite the realities on the ground." That's political posturing. I agree, Hillary Clinton is involved in political posturing because just as Brit said, this has no chance, this is all about her presidential campaign. But when you look at what the Republicans are saying, they are absolutely closing their eyes and pretending that there's not a civil war taking place.

On the May 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider falsely suggested that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had changed her position on the Iraq war during the past week. Schneider suggested that Clinton's May 3 statement that she and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) will introduce a bill "to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq" was a shift from her statement in an April 26 debate that "if I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted" to authorize the war. According to Schneider, Clinton "has gone from explaining her vote to authorize the war ... to pressuring Congress to reverse it."

But contrary to Schneider's report, Clinton's support for revoking the war authorization is not new. As Media Matters for America noted, Clinton's own Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, which was introduced in the Senate on February 16, includes a provision that would "require a new authorization for use of United States military forces in Iraq unless both the President and the Government of Iraq meet certain conditions within 90 days, including the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Moreover, Schneider did not explain why Clinton's support for sunsetting the war authorization is in any way inconsistent with her explanation that if she if she knew in 2002 what she knows now, she would not have voted to authorize the Iraq war at all.

From the May 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

SCHNEIDER: Presidential candidates face different pressures.

STUART ROTHENBERG (editor and publisher, Rothenberg Political Report): Are they going to be pragmatic? Are they going to talk about compromise? Or are they going to play to the base?

SCHNEIDER: In Congress, the pressure is to make a deal. In the campaign, the pressure is to stand firm. Hillary Clinton has gone from explaining her vote to authorize the war --

CLINTON: If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way.

SCHNEIDER: -- to pressuring Congress to reverse it.

CLINTON: It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq.

Schneider's false suggestion that the Clinton had shifted her position on Iraq echoed a May 4 Washington Post headline and a May 4 Republican National Committee press release, which asserted that Clinton had "change[d] tone" on Iraq by calling for the war authorization to be revoked.

From the April 26 South Carolina Democratic debate:

CLINTON: Well, [moderator and NBC Nightly News anchor] Brian [Williams], I take responsibility for my vote. Obviously, I did as good a job I could at the time. It was a sincere vote based on the information available to me.

And I've said many times that, if I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way.

But I think that the real question before us: Is what do we do now? How do we try to persuade or require this president to change course?

He is stubbornly refusing to listen to the will of the American people. He threatens to veto the legislation we've passed, which has been something that all of us have been advocating for a number of years now.

And I can only hope that he will not veto it. And I can only end by saying that if this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will.

From Clinton's May 3 Senate floor statement:

CLINTON. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes October 11, 2007 -- the 5-year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to 1 year, and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the President to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, and the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the President will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution or to refuse to do so for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day.

On the May 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer observed that Washington is "no stranger to sex scandals," then provided viewers with examples of scandals involving only Democrats. During the segment, Blitzer was discussing the "DC Madam" scandal that has already led to the resignation of Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias, the first director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Blitzer listed three sex scandals: former President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky (1998), former Sen. Gary Hart's (D-CO) liaison with Donna Rice (1987), and former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills' (D-AR) involvement with Fanne Foxe (1974). But there have also been numerous -- and more recent -- sex scandals involving Republicans. For example:

• On September 29, 2006, then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned after ABC News asked him about sexually explicit instant messages to underage former congressional pages. The messages, according to ABC News, were "provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts." The House Ethics Committee later decided not to take any disciplinary action against members of the House leadership who had known of emails sent by Foley to former pages, as these were found to be not quite as explicit as the instant messages. One former page, however, described those emails as "sick sick sick sick sick."
• In 1999, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) "long-term" affair with congressional aide Callista Bisek -- whom he later married -- was revealed while he was seeking a divorce from his second wife. In March 2007, Gingrich confessed to the affair.
• In December 1998, during impeachment proceedings against Clinton stemming from the Lewinsky affair, then-House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-LA) admitted to having an extramarital affair. Two days later, Livingston announced he would not seek the speakership and that he would resign from the House in mid-1999. He resigned in March 1999.
• In a November 22, 1992, article, The Washington Post reported that then-Sen. Robert Packwood (R-OR) had made numerous "uninvited sexual advances to women who have worked for him or with him." Investigations revealed more incidents of sexual harassment and also exposed Packwood's secret personal diaries. Packwood eventually resigned from the Senate on October 1, 1995, after the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to expel him.
• In September 1998, Salon.com reported that then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) had engaged in an extramarital affair with Cherie Snodgrass from 1965 to 1969. According to Hyde, the affair ended when Snodgrass' husband, Fred, told Hyde's wife about it. Hyde purported to explain the affair -- which came out amid the Lewinsky controversy -- as a "youthful indiscretion," even though he was reportedly 41 when the affair started. Hyde, as Judiciary Committee chairman, led the successful push to impeach Clinton.

Former Nixon White House Counsel John W. Dean has compiled a list of congressional sex scandals.

From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the May 3 edition of The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Washington, of course, no stranger to sex scandals. Here's a look at some of the ones that grabbed headlines over the years.

Back in 1998, Bill Clinton, impeached after his affair with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, became public; 1987, there was the yacht, Monkey Business, picture of Gary Hart on that boat with Donna Rice, ended his run for the White House.

And back in 1974, many of you will remember a powerful Democrat named Wilbur Mills was caught with a stripper, Fanne Foxe. The relationship became public after a cop pulled Mills' limo over late one night and Foxe tried to flee by jumping into some nearby water [The Tidal Basin in Washington, D.C.]. He resigned as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. She continued stripping.

On the May 3 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, denounced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) -- which was passed by the House of Representatives on May 3 -- because the bill extends hate crime protection to people who are victimized because of their gender identity or sexual orientation -- or as Sheldon put it, "behavior-based sexual orientation." Sheldon cited "the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association," where one can "see the 30 listed -- almost perversions kinds of things about having what is sexually arousing you, like, you're talking about a man who dresses as a woman, talking about the man who's a she-male and ... takes hormones to create breasts and no hair on his chest, and -- or the man who exposes himself."

The House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 by a margin of 237-180. According to a May 3 New York Times article, President Bush is expected to veto it. The article reports the bill would "extend 'hate crime' protection to people who are victimized because of their sexuality" and "make it easier for federal authorities to take part in hate-crime investigations if local investigators are unable or unwilling to pursue them, and it would make federal money available to offset 'extraordinary expenses' associated with such inquiries."

As Media Matters for America noted, on the October 11, 2005, broadcast of Today's Issues, a program on the Christian broadcasting network American Family Radio, Sheldon suggested that Christian therapists believe exorcism is the only effective technique to "release" a person from the homosexual "lifestyle."

From the May 3 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

SHELDON: This bill goes in to the '64 Civil Rights Act and adds two new categories, that is, the category of sexual orientation and the category of gender identity.

REP. MARK KIRK (R-IL): Also disability.

SHELDON: When you go to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association and you see the 30 listed -- almost perversions kinds of things about having what is sexually arousing you, like, you're talking about a man who dresses as a woman, talking about the man who's a she-male has -- takes hormones to create breasts and no hair on his chest, and -- or the man who exposes himself.

BECK: Reverend, Reverend, Reverend, hang on.

SHELDON: Do you understand the point?

BECK: No, I don't think I really do, because my point --

SHELDON: The point is this, Glenn. The point is simply this: that when you include that kind of behavior as special protection, which the '64 Civil Rights has rightly done for race and creed and ethnicity and the others - it's needed for those things, but not for behavior-based sexual orientation.

BECK: Congressman, do you want to respond to that?

On the May 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again purported to find a nefarious link between Media Matters for America and philanthropist George Soros. Responding to an Indiana University study that found that "O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the ['Talking Points Memo'] editorials that open his program each night," O'Reilly stated: "But somehow, some way, their research wound up in the hands of Media Matters, the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros. And guess what? Media Matters issued a press release about the terrible 'Talking Points Memos.' " The "somehow, some way" that Media Matters found out about the research was through an IU press release promoting the study and its results.

On the May 3 show, O'Reilly filled viewers in on what he called "the back story" on the Indiana University study: "Last week we showed you this chart detailing where far-left billionaire George Soros contributes money and how his propaganda machine works its way through the Internet and into the mainstream media. Soros and his gang were furious with that exposition. So we knew blowback was coming. Thus, the Indiana/Media Matters nonsense."

O'Reilly's self-proclaimed "exposition" was the utterly false claim that Media Matters received money from Soros. After Media Matters noted that Soros had never given the organization money, O'Reilly claimed that Soros funneled money to Media Matters through the Tides Foundation. As Media Matters documented, on the April 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly accused Media Matters of lying about its funding and noted that Tides donated over $1 million to Media Matters in 2005, "[a]nd just by coincidence Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005." He then added: "Figure it out." But O'Reilly's conclusion that Soros donated $1 million to Media Matters through the Tides Foundation is false. OSI's donations to Tides were earmarked for several specific programs, and Media Matters was not included on this list. O'Reilly's reference on May 3 to Media Matters as "the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros" represents a complete -- though unacknowledged -- abandonment of his previous claim that Media Matters has received money from Soros. While O'Reilly made that claim, however, on-screen text described Media Matters as "party [sic] funded by George Soros."

O'Reilly purported to complete the Soros-Indiana-Media Matters connection with the following: "By the way, did you know that Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated $5 million to Indiana University? I'm sure that was just a coincidence," suggesting that the study was the result of the donation. O'Reilly is presumably referring to a $5 million donation by the OSI to the school in 2005; in fact, that donation was directed to establish an endowment for the American University of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan, with the U.S. Agency for International Development providing another $10 million. OSI has partnered with IU in other ventures, such as higher education curriculum development in Azerbaijan, preparing Burmese refugees for college, and a degree program for teaching second languages in Kazakhstan.

Further, according to the IU press release on the O'Reilly study, "The researchers received no grant funding for this study."

So the link that O'Reilly was purporting to expose amounts to the following: Soros gave Indiana University $5 million for a project in Kyrgyzstan; researchers in IU's journalism and communications departments produced a study on O'Reilly that has no connection to Kyrgyzstan and received no grant money; and Media Matters learned of the study through the means by which presumably everyone else did -- a press release.

From the May 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Calling people names, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

Did you know that I, your humble correspondent, call somebody a name every 6.8 seconds during my T-Points presentation each evening? Did you know that? That's awful! I should be ashamed. I denigrate somebody nine times every minute. How could I? Now, that astounding analysis, if you want to call it that, comes from three Indiana University researchers. I'm sure they're excellent folks.

But somehow, some way, their research wound up in the hands of Media Matters, the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros. And guess what? Media Matters issued a press release about the terrible "Talking Points Memos."

What the press release did not say, however, is that the Indiana researchers consider pretty much every description to be name-calling. Quoting from the study: "The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional or centrist were treated as name-calling if they were associated with a problem or social ill," unquote. Aha! Now here's the back story.

Last week we showed you this chart detailing where far-left billionaire George Soros contributes money and how his propaganda machine works its way through the Internet and into the mainstream media. Soros and his gang were furious with that exposition. So we knew blowback was coming. Thus the Indiana/Media Matters nonsense.

By the way, did you know that Soros' Open Society Institute donated $5 million to Indiana University? I'm sure that was just a coincidence. Also sure that Soros is very disappointed he didn't get more bang for the buck this time around. Most of the committed left press didn't mention the nutty Indiana paper. Only those truly bought and paid for elements at NBC News and Rosie O'Donnell spit it out there.

[begin video clip]

ROSIE O'DONNELL: Go ahead, Behar, what do you got?

JOY BEHAR: I said do you want to have a fight with O'Reilly because he calls people names every 6.8 seconds apparently. Bill O'Reilly on his show.

O'DONNELL: Yeah, there was an article in the paper. He insults someone or calls someone a name every 6.8 seconds.

BEHAR: Wow!

[end video clip]

O'REILLY: The problem is, Rosie, that no newspaper we could find printed that propaganda. You and Behar got it from Media Matters, your daily source of deception. So once again, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that the radical-left Soros has built a very smooth propaganda machine that has direct access to both the ABC and NBC television networks. Think about that. That is power.

Finally, let's add up the name-calling tonight. Let's see, there was humble correspondent, smear sites, radical left, committed left, nutty, deception, Behar, and Rosie. Wait, wait -- the last two were real names, so that's only six examples of name-calling in three minutes. Far below my average. I must be slipping. That's the "Memo."

On the May 2 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck aired an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: The Climate of Fear." According to an April 30 CNN press release, the special's purpose was to "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming" and "question[] the accuracy of former Vice President Al Gore's claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth of 20-foot sea level rises and the disastrous effects of increased carbon dioxide levels." In addition to the release promoting Beck's special, on three separate occasions, various CNN and Headline News programs hosted Beck to discuss or promote his "special report," without highlighting or challenging his false or misleading assertions on the global warming issue, his attacks on Gore, or his claims of the hype surrounding the issue in his "special report." For example:

• During an interview with Beck on the May 3 edition of American Morning, co-host Kiran Chetry echoed some of his past false claims on global warming, stating that while there is "no denying" global warming is happening, "I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate." Chetry also did not challenge Beck's false attack -- frequently made by other conservatives as well -- that in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore greatly exaggerated worst-case projections of sea level increases.
• Previewing the special on the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom, Beck told host Don Lemon that he is doing the special because "the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea," adding: "I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics." Those comments recall remarks Beck made on the April 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, in which he likened Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. On that program, Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."
• During a discussion of the special on the May 2 edition of CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace, guest host Pat Lalama did not challenge Beck's suggestion that humans may not be the primary cause of global warming. Beck also reiterated his attack on Gore, again comparing the global warming issue to what "people did in the 1920s and '30s with eugenics." Continuing to attack Gore, Beck claimed that "you could put Al Gore into a priest collar, because [the global warming issue] is now the church. It has gone from science to dogma." Beck also said that Gore "is the high priest. You cannot question him."

Media Matters for America noted that Beck's "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" relied heavily on people with energy industry ties and others espousing positions on global warming that have been soundly debunked or rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists studying climate change.

From the May 2 edition of CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace:

LALAMA: Hey, another noted professor came out yesterday in one of the big papers and said, "You know, yes, we should all be responsible, but that, in seven years, there will be another cooling trend." I go to the UCLA movie store to, you know, pick up some movies, and I said to the kid, "What do you recommend?" He goes, "An Inconvenient Truth." and when I said, "No," he goes, "Oh, you must drive an SUV." I mean, it's like, "Oh, my gosh, I need combat pay to work out here in L.A." Why are people buying it willy- nilly?

BECK: I think it's really strange. I think you could put Al Gore into a priest collar, because it is now the church. It has gone from science to dogma.

LALAMA: Right.

BECK: It is -- and I got into trouble saying this earlier today on my radio program, but it's the way I feel: It is the same kind of thing that people did in the 1920s and '30s with eugenics. You take some scientists, and then you silence all of the dissenting voices, and then you make it into a propaganda film, and you keep feeding it to people, through all of your media, and then you introduce it in, not just science class, but art class and English class. And before you know it, there is no dissent on it.

LALAMA: But, you know, are you getting in at all to the psychology of it? I mean, are we -- is it sort of a liberal self-loathing? And, of course, I'm not accusing all liberals of being self-loathing. But it seems that we have to hate ourselves so much for being human, we Americans, that here's another thing to, like, self-flagellate over, like, "Oh, you know, we're ruining our Earth."

BECK: You know, Pat? I think it's partly that, but I also think that it's a good sign with America. It's yet another sign of our compassion. Nobody wants to hurt the Earth. Everybody wants green -- you know, good, clean water, and good, clean air, and a green Earth.

And so we say to ourselves, "You know, I know we can do better in gas mileage. You know, I don't want to throw garbage out. I don't want to throw garbage in the sky." And so what we do is we say, "Well, you know, I feel a little guilty, and maybe we are causing this, so I'll just do what I have to do."

LALAMA: Well, I'm with you, and I'm so glad you're doing this. And I'll make sure my whole family watches. And I might call their teachers, too.

[...]

GORE [video clip]: Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really.

LALAMA: I'm Pat Lalama in for Nancy Grace. Now more with Headline Prime's Glenn Beck.

So, Glenn, is global warming real? It may be, right?

BECK: You know, here's my personal stance on global warming. It's clear that the globe is warming. It's up .7 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years. However, we've gone from global warming to global cooling to global warming. It seems to be a 30-year trend.

Maybe this is -- you know, maybe we're going to go into an extreme warming period or an extreme cooling period. That is what happens. The real question is: Are we causing it? And can we stop it?

The Kyoto Treaty, we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars, and we're not going to stop global warming. They say, if it's fully implemented, and everything, every piece of science is accurate, it will delay global warming another three years in the next 100 years. That doesn't seem like a smart investment.

LALAMA: Right. Hey, what do you make of carbon offsets? Is that bogus? It's kind of the new catch phrase? "I'm changing my light bulbs."

BECK: You know, Pat, what really kills me is there are so many similarities to the Dark Ages and the church. I swear to you, first of all, Al Gore is the high priest. You cannot question him. You cannot question the facts.

LALAMA: I know.

BECK: They are saying that any scientist that disagrees with it is a heretic. He's crazy.

LALAMA: Right.

BECK: And, by the way, you can come to me and buy a special dispensation. You can buy forgiveness.

LALAMA: Hey, I have to wear a bulletproof vest in this town, so you know what it's like, and we'll be watching.

BECK: Oh, I know.

LALAMA: OK, Glenn.

BECK: Thanks a lot.

During the May 3 Republican presidential debate on MSNBC, moderator and Hardball host Chris Matthews said, "[L]et me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously." He asked, "Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?" Later, when he reiterated the question, Matthews asked, "Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially Big Bill?"

Contrary to Matthews' suggestion that the prospect of Bill Clinton back in the White House "might be a negative in the upcoming campaign," according to a March 23-25 USA Today/Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans say Bill Clinton will do "more good than harm" for his wife's campaign. That poll also put President Clinton's approval rating at 60 percent, compared with 38 percent who disapproved, according to a USA Today article on the poll. Additionally, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll -- taken April 10-12 and noted by CNN's Political Ticker weblog -- "If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination and goes on to win the general election in 2008, 60 percent of Americans believe her husband would have a positive effect on her administration, while 30 percent think it would be negative."

The debate question was not Matthews' first recent reference to the fact that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean that the former president would also return to the White House. On the March 23 edition of Hardball, he asserted:

MATTHEWS: This week, we saw the spotlight shone on spouses of the 2008 candidates for president. On Thursday, of course, a sad story. John Edwards announced that his wife's cancer had returned but that he would continue his campaign in full force, with her full help. The New York papers today are reporting that Judith Giuliani has been married three times, not twice, as most of us thought. Plus continued intrigue -- I love that word, it would have been mine, as well -- at what might be called about -- might be called intrigue about having Bill Clinton back in the White House.

Previously, as Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has obsessed over what he has referred to as Bill Clinton's "social life," "personal behavior," "current behavior," and "personal life." Additionally, he has repeatedly referred to the Clintons' marriage as a "sitcom." As Media Matters noted, on the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Matthews referred to the purported terms of the Clintons' relationship as a "sitcom": "We're all supposed to notice this sitcom but not mention it. We're supposed to notice. He always wants us to know he's got AstroTurf in the back of his car. He always wants us to know that stuff, that he's the stud. But we're not supposed to talk about it. He wants us to know it, and clam up, and live with it. That's his attitude towards this."

On the February 23 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "I think the scab has been ripped off so early that Bill is in play now. The New York Times put him in play a few months ago. Now Geffen has put him in play. It just seems to be that we're talking about stuff I didn't think we'd be talking about until next whenever." Matthews was referring to a May 23, 2006, New York Times article by Patrick Healy, noted by Media Matters, and a February 21 column by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in which Dowd reported comments by Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a longtime donor to the Clintons, also noted by Media Matters. When MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford responded that "[a]ll I've seen the Clintons do is gain from this kind of stuff" and The Hill's A.B. Stoddard agreed, Matthews protested, "You don't think people are tired of the sitcom?"

On the February 8 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "Then there's the other part of me that says she'll go right up to the edge, sometime in August of 2008 and the gender thing and the past will kick in and all of a sudden people will go, I don't know. Back to Bill and Hillary again. Back to the sitcom. Back to this."

From the May 3 Republican presidential debate on MSNBC:

MATTHEWS: I want to ask you a question almost as much fun -- I want to get to the next question. I'm sorry, because you can expand on your thought as part of this answer. I asked about raising taxes. It was almost like the Reagan round here. Everybody wanted to do that. I'm sure he was listening to that good thought.

[laughter]

But let me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously. Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

[laughter]

MITT ROMNEY (former Massachusetts governor): You have got to be kidding.

MATTHEWS: No, I'm not.

[laughter]

MATTHEWS: His wife's running, haven't you heard?

ROMNEY: The only thing I can think of that'd be as bad as that would be to have the gang of three running the war on terror: Pelosi, Reid and Hillary Clinton. So I have to be honest with you, I think it'd be an awful thing for a lot of reasons.

MATTHEWS: Senator Brownback?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS): I think it'd be bad because it would mean that Hillary Clinton would be elected, not because of who she is, but because of the policies that she stands for of raising taxes, of not standing up for life, for marriage. I mean, those are what would be bad for the country.

MATTHEWS: Governor, Bill Clinton back in the White House?

JIM GILMORE (former Virginia governor): You know, no, because that would mean that Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States, and where you have been is where you're going to go. And Hillary Clinton tried to socialize medicine in this country -- a very bad idea. You need to keep that in the private sector. And yet she said in their own [unintelligible] debate --

MATTHEWS: Well, we have a razorback ready to talk to you, a razorback from Arkansas. Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially Big Bill?

MIKE HUCKABEE (former Arkansas governor): No one on this stage probably knows Hillary Clinton better than I do --

UNKNOWN: Oh, my.

UNKNOWN: Oh.

[Laughter]

HUCKABEE: -- and I will tell you that it's probably not a good idea to put either of them in the White House.

MATTHEWS: OK.

A May 4 Washington Post article on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) May 3 announcement that she and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) will introduce a bill to "sunset the 2002 authorization of military operations in Iraq," was headlined, "Clinton Changes Tone on Iraq; Senator Favors Ending War Authority" -- despite the article's own reporting that Clinton "has expressed support for a similar de-authorization, although not as a stand-alone bill."

Indeed, Clinton's own Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, which was introduced in the Senate on February 16, includes a provision that would "require a new authorization for use of United States military forces in Iraq unless both the President and the Government of Iraq meet certain conditions within 90 days, including the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

From the May 4 Washington Post report headlined "Clinton Changes Tone on Iraq; Senator Favors Ending War Authority":

Clinton's endorsement of the sunset legislation represents a significant escalation in her opposition to the White House on war policy and signals an effort by Democratic presidential candidates -- including four sitting senators -- to assume higher profiles in the war debate. For Clinton, it is also an opportunity to address what has emerged as perhaps her greatest liability in the Democratic contest: her vote to authorize the war. "If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Clinton, who has expressed support for a similar de-authorization, although not as a stand-alone bill.

Also on May 4, the Republican National Committee issued a press release that cited the Washington Post headline, claiming, "Pressured From Left, Hillary Clinton 'Changes Tone' And Backs Legislation To De-Authorize Iraq War."

On the May 3 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck cited a May 2 New York Post article in claiming that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) threw "a temper tantrum over the size of her private jet." According to Beck, Clinton, prior to an April 27 flight to California, "sent the [Gulfstream II] back, empty, and got a much classier GulfStream III." However, the Post article Beck referred to did not say Clinton "threw a temper tantrum." Rather the Post -- citing only an anonymous "aviation source familiar with Clinton's travel" -- reported that Clinton changed planes because she "didn't like the configuration of the cabin" of the Gulfstream II. After reciting the allegations in the Post article as fact, Beck said at the end of the segment that "this story is either completely wrong and is basically a hit piece by the New York Post or Hillary Clinton has become so warped by unbelievable wealth that she cannot -- no longer relate to money anymore."

From the May 3 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: This is a stupid show. Kim, thanks a lot. Coming up next, Hillary Clinton throws a temper tantrum over the size of her private jet. I'll explain in tonight's "Real Story." That's next.

[...]

BECK: Welcome to "The Real Story."

A week ago today, the Democratic candidates for president got together in South Carolina for the first debate of the primary season, but, you know, what happened on stage really was [snoring] -- the real story is how at least one of these candidates got to the stage.

Hillary Clinton, the champion of the little people, had quite a travel nightmare last week, according to the New York Post. It all started the day after the debate. Hillary had to fly to San Diego, and apparently some staffer had the nerve to charter a GulfStream II for the trip. Now, anybody who is anybody knows a G-II is like a 1972 [Ford] Pinto with wings. I mean, it's garbage.

Most people would be embarrassed, you know, getting out of the limo, walking up the red carpet, well, while a G-II is sitting there, and only one private flight attendant waits to cater your every whim and need. It's craziness.

Anyway, Hillary did what any self-respecting person, especially somebody who loves the little people that much, would do. She sent the G- II back, empty, and got a much classier GulfStream III. Still not a V, but -- she flew that down from Westchester to pick her up.

Now, that's the kind of decision-making that I believe we're looking for in our leaders, but let me back up, because I don't want you to get the wrong impression. On Thursday, the day of the debate, Hillary did actually slum it and take the $4,600-an-hour -- plus fuel -- G-II from Washington to the debate and then back. But then, since she obviously didn't want to be seen with it, she had it fly empty back down to South Carolina to wait for her.

The next day, on Friday, she flew a Hawker 800, big jet, but, honestly, only C-list celebrities would take that. She had that back to South Carolina, where she transferred back to the G-II for a flight to Columbia. Then she decided she didn't like the configuration of that one, so she switched to the G-III and flew that to San Diego, then to San Jose, Reno, Van Nuys, and then back home to her house in Westchester, New York.

Now, total cost for just one cross-country round trip flight on a plane like that is at least $150,000. So you do the math on all those empty jets flying back and forth. I mean, I think that's the most interesting part, when she allegedly flew an empty G-II back to South Carolina.

Quite honestly, it means to me that this story is either completely wrong and is basically a hit piece by the New York Post or Hillary Clinton has become so warped by unbelievable wealth that she cannot -- no longer relate to money anymore.

From the May 2 New York Post article:

Jet-setting Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is a fussy frequent flier who used three different planes in a single day during a recent campaign swing through South Carolina.

The former first lady even grounded one aircraft - a chartered Gulfstream II - in Columbia, S.C., last Friday, demanding a swankier Gulfstream III replacement for a flight out west.

"She didn't like the configuration of the cabin," an aviation source familiar with Clinton's travel told The Post.

And that was after the Gulfstream II pilot dropped Sen. Clinton off at the bustling commercial terminal rather than the secluded area for private planes, sources told The Post.

The Gulfstream III charter had to be scrambled from Westchester County to swoop into South Carolina and carry Clinton off to San Diego for the start of a two-day fund-raising trip to California, flight records show.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately comment yesterday.

On the May 4 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported on the May 3 Republican presidential debate and stated, "Two of the GOP front-runners, Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] and former Governor Mitt Romney [R-MA] tried to one-up each other with their passion to hunt down Osama bin Laden." Berman then aired a clip of Romney saying, "It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die." But Berman did not report the impetus for the question that prompted Romney's comment: On April 26, according to the Associated Press, Romney said in reference to bin Laden, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." In fact, the Romney comment that ABC aired occurred just after John Harris, editor-in-chief of The Politico, asked former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore about Romney's bin Laden comment quoted by the AP, noting, "Senator McCain called that naive." MSNBC host Chris Matthews then invited Romney to "respond to the mentioned reference to you."

From the May 3 Republican presidential debate:

HARRIS: Governor Gilmore of Virginia, when speaking about Osama bin Laden last week, Governor Romney said, quote, "It's not worth moving heaven and Earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Senator McCain called that naive. Who's right?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, respond to the mentioned reference to you --

ROMNEY: Well, of course, we get --

[laughter]

MATTHEWS: -- by Senator McCain.

[laughter]

ROMNEY: Thank you. Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go, and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted upon America.

MATTHEWS: Do we move heaven and earth to do it?

ROMNEY: We'll move everything to get him. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person -- Osama bin Laden -- because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America. This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.

From the May 4 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

BERMAN: Foreign-policy strength was a major theme. Two of the GOP front-runners, Sen. John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney, tried to one-up each other with their passion to hunt down Osama bin Laden.

ROMNEY: It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.

McCAIN: We will track him down, we will capture -- we will bring him to justice, and I'll follow him to the gates of hell.

CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck's May 2 hour-long special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear, purported to present the "other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere." Introducing the show, Beck stated: "I want you to know right up front, this is not a balanced look at global warming." Indeed, Beck relied heavily on people with energy industry ties and others espousing positions on global warming that have been soundly debunked or rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists studying climate change.

Here is a list of those featured:

• Marlo Lewis: Lewis is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an institution funded by the energy industry. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Lewis has said that "global warming is real and humans play a role," but has argued that "[t]rying to do too much to stop warming would be a waste of money better used on new technologies." As The Washington Post reported on March 19, 2006, CEI, "which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a 'major donor' largely as a result of its effort to push that position." According to Lewis' biography on the CEI website, he once appeared on C-SPAN to explain "why taxing the oil industry for 'excessive profits' is counterproductive." On February 10, the Post reported that Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president for public affairs, said that "Exxon's foundation, which he heads, decided in 2005 to cut funding [for CEI], though that came to light only last fall."
  
• Timothy Ball: Ball is a climatologist who is also the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian environmental think tank whose three-person board of directors includes an executive of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in 'energy, environment and ethics." Timothy Egan, High Park Advocacy Group president, is "a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association," in addition to serving on Natural Resources Stewardship Project's board. Ball was previously an adviser to the industry-funded Friends of Science, which, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported in August 2006, was supported by "a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory insiders, anonymous donors and oil-industry PR professionals." Additionally, according to ExxonSecrets.org, Ball has contributed to Tech Central Station. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Tech Central Station Daily is a website that from 2000 to October 2006 was operated by the Republican lobbying firm DCI Group, which, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), is also a "registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm."
  

Ball has consistently repeated debunked claims aimed to cast doubt on global warming. For instance, in November 2004, Ball claimed that global temperatures have "warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." Ball added: "[S]ince 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the 'urban heat island' effect -- that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations -- if you look at the Antarctic, for example -- the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well."

But, as Media Matters has previously noted, several studies have shown that the urban heat island effect is minimal. The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that "[t]he total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values."

• Patrick J. Michaels: Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute; research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; author of two books on global warming, The Satanic Gases and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (both published by the Cato Institute); and editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. According to a 1998 article by Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Norman Solomon, the Cato Institute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. In addition, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, a July 17, 2006, memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) by general manager Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., detailed IREA's financial support for Michaels:

We here at IREA believe that it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists and bring a balance to the discussion. Many scientists have an opinion, but only a minority have any involvement in climatology. We decided to support Dr. Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.). Dr. Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources. He has A.B. and S.M. degrees from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Michaels is the Virginia State Climatologist, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, a Senior Fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute, and a Visiting Scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, DC. In February of this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels. In addition we have contacted all of the G & T's over in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr. Michaels group. We will be following up with the remaining G & T's over the next several weeks.

Michaels has falsely suggested that former Vice President Al Gore endorsed exaggerating the threat of global warming, as Media Matters documented. Further, on the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Michaels repeated a false comparison between Gore's claim that global warming could cause "sea level worldwide [to] go up 20 feet" with a section of the 2007 IPCC report, which, in the scenario Michaels cites, states sea levels would rise about 8 to 18 inches by the end of the 21st century. But as Media Matters has noted (here and here), Gore was specifically addressing what could happen if the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome "broke up and slipped into the sea" at an indefinite point in the future. The portion of the IPCC report that Michaels cited referred only to projected sea-level increases before 2100 based on increases in temperature. Michaels used this false comparison as the basis for characterizing Gore's position as "beyond shrill" and "thermonuclear."

• Chris Horner: Horner is a senior fellow at CEI and author of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (Regnery, February 2007). He has appeared on Beck on at least three separate occasions to attack the "hysterical movement" of environmental activists warning of the threats of global warming (April 23, April 5, and March 21), as Media Matters has noted. For instance, during the April 5 edition of Beck's television program, Horner declared Gore's film to be "pure science fiction," and, among other things, pushed the misleading claim that that "it'll be almost 10 years since we've experienced any warming," and that "it hasn't warmed since 1998." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, according to NASA, 1998 was a particularly warm year because "a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures." Despite the temperature spike that occurred in 1998, the Climatic Research Unit's Global Temperature Record and a surface temperature analysis of 2006 by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) show a general warming trend since 1970. Moreover, a February 2007 NASA Earth Observatory news release states, "By the early 1980s, temperatures surpassed those of the 1940s and, despite ups and downs from year to year, they continued rising beyond the year 2000."

• John Christy: Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Alabama state climatologist. Christy and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. The New York Times reported that when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere.

Christy also contributed an essay skeptical of climate change to Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Crown Publishing Group, 2002). The book was released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

• Bjorn Lomborg: As Media Matters has noted, Lomborg is a "political scientist" at the Copenhagen Business School who, in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001), purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." His conclusion was that the concerns of scientists regarding the world's environmental problems -- including global warming -- were overblown. But in January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that were "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes." Lomborg has repeatedly attacked Gore's documentary and, as Media Matters documented, used a false comparison to suggest that the IPCC "fundamentally rejects" Gore's claim that the world's sea-level could rise 20 feet as a result of warming.
  

In introducing Lomborg, Beck noted that because Lomborg was "not a scientist," but a political scientist. ... I'm not going to ask any science questions." Beck has previously hosted Lomborg on at least two occasions (January 17 and September 21, 2006).

• David R. Legates: As Media Matters has noted (here and here), Legates is associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. His 2006 report, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts," was published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank that has received substantial funding from energy interests such as ExxonMobil Corp. The report concluded that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

Legates' report claimed that "average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Legates attributed this finding to a 2004 report by climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Legates ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years.

• Patrick Moore: Patrick Moore is a former leader of the environmental activist group Greenpeace who has served as a corporate consultant since 1991. His public relations firm, Greenspirit Strategies, specializes in strategic communications for mining, fossil fuels, logging, and nuclear power industry clients. As the Center for Media and Democracy reported, Moore's "past work with Greenpeace has proved an irresistible hook for many reporters" in their coverage of his clients.

Moore is co-chair and paid spokesman for the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CSEC), which describes itself as "a large grassroots coalition that united unlikely allies across the business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor community to support nuclear energy." In fact, as the Columbia Journalism Review reported, CSEC was formed by the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 and continues to receive most of its funding from that body. NEI is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technology industry, and seeks to "promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."

As the Brattleboro Reformer reported on January 16, Moore serves as spokesman for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a nuclear industry front group that seeks to prevent the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. He is also an adviser for the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, a lobby group that promotes the renewal of the operating license for the Indian Point nuclear power plants. According to Jim Steets, spokesperson for Indian Point plant operator Entergy Corp., the company was "instrumental in the founding of New York AREA" and continues to partially fund the organization.

During his appearance on Exposed: The Climate of Fear, Moore touted nuclear power as a clean, safe source of energy. He stated: "That is what actually drives me nuts, is you've got Greenpeace and other major environmental groups saying that the civilization and the environment are going to be destroyed by global warming, catastrophe, chaos, and all of these scary words, and yet they are unwilling to adopt nuclear energy." Beck replied: "Look, America should embrace nuclear power, even if it's to get off the foreign oil bandwagon." Moore has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that there is a link between global warming and human activity. In an open letter to the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, Moore wrote: "Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident." According to The Honolulu Advertiser , he has also claimed that global warming would be beneficial: "In direct opposition to common environmentalist positions, Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees."

Beck also hosted two guests who did not appear to question the scientific consensus relating to global warming, Martin Eberhard and Bill Lord. Introducing Eberhard, the CEO of Tesla Motors, Beck stated: "He probably doesn't agree with anything in this special, except maybe for this: It's ideas like his that are part of the solution." Eberhard did not discuss scientific issues concerning the causes of global warming; rather, he promoted his company's high-performance electric cars, with which, according to Beck, he "hopes to solve two major concerns: the CO2 emissions and, importantly, the male midlife crisis, while looking damn sexy doing it."

Beck introduced Lord as "another guy who probably doesn't agree with one word of this special," and interviewed Lord about his solar-powered home. Lord asserted: "On balance, we probably are generating as much as we use, so essentially it's a net-zero type of situation. We have to pay slightly more than $7 a month."

In a May 3 article, USA Today asserted that just days after President Bush's veto of the $124 billion war funding bill, "Republicans argued that Iraq is an important front in the fight against al-Qaeda militants that began with the Sept. 11, 2001" terrorist attacks. The article then uncritically quoted House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) asking: "Who doesn't believe that if we don't deal with terrorists in Iraq, we will be dealing with them on the streets of America?" Similarly, in a May 1 article on the standoff between Bush and Congress over funding for the Iraq war, the Associated Press uncritically reported the assertion by Matt David, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign spokesman, that U.S. troop withdrawals from Haiti in 2000 and Somalia in 1994 cannot be compared to the current situation in Iraq because "Haitians and Somalians [sic] do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil." However, both the USA Today and AP articles did not report, as several news outlets recently have, that security and terrorism experts have challenged the view that terrorists in Iraq will attack Americans inside the United States once U.S. military forces exit Iraq.

USA Today reported that the House failed to override Bush's war funding bill veto but that "Democrats vowed to continue their efforts to end the Iraq war." The article then quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Boehner:

Congressional leaders from both parties predicted quick approval of emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday, after the House fell 62 votes short of overriding President Bush's veto of a bill setting a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Democrats vowed to continue their efforts to end the Iraq war.

"The Congress will not support a permanent commitment to a war without end," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Republicans argued that Iraq is an important front in the fight against al-Qaeda militants that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Who doesn't believe that if we don't deal with terrorists in Iraq, we will be dealing with them on the streets of America?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The May 1 AP article contrasted Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) effort in 1993 to bring U.S. troops home from Somalia with his claim that setting a date certain for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is "like sending a 'memo to our enemies to let them know when they can operate again'":

In 1993, Sen. John McCain led an effort to cut off funds immediately for military operations in Somalia after a firefight in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. troops. The former prisoner of war in Vietnam brought a hush to the chamber floor when he asked what would happen if Congress failed to act and more Americans died.

"On whose hands rest the blood of American troops? Ask yourself this question," said McCain, R-Ariz.

Congress ultimately agreed to back President Clinton's request to give him until March 1994 to get troops out, with funding denied after that date. In 1999, Congress passed similar legislation prohibiting money spent to keep U.S. troops in Haiti after May 2000.

"When Americans are imperiled, ultimately the president has to bear that responsibility," Clinton said at the time of the Somalia vote.

Now, McCain -- a GOP presidential contender for 2008 -- says setting a date certain on the war in Iraq is like sending a "memo to our enemies to let them know when they can operate again."

The article then uncritically quoted McCain campaign spokesman Matt David claiming that comparing the two conflicts is "intellectually dishonest" because Somalis (whom David labeled "Somalians") were not going to follow U.S. troops home to fight Americans on U.S. soil:

Matt David, McCain's campaign spokesman, said it is "intellectually dishonest" to compare Iraq to Haiti and Somalia because of the volatility now in the Middle East and terrorist threat.

"Haitians and Somalians do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil," David said in a statement.

Yet, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim Bush has repeatedly made about the Iraq war -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerate[s] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland." The article continued: "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States." Moreover, according to a March 18 Washington Post article, "U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts" have said that Al Qaeda in Iraq "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland," as Media Matters also noted.

In addition, like the McClatchy article, a recent report from National Public Radio's All Things Considered explored Bush's oft-used defense of his Iraq war policy -- "If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone. They will follow us to the United States of America." NPR correspondent David Welna noted that "Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated the president's claim, saying if terrorists are not defeated in Iraq, they will follow U.S. troops home." He added that "Utah Republican Orrin Hatch said the same. So did Arizona Republican John McCain."

Welna then cited experts challenging that claim. He reported that retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns considers that warning "propaganda" and that, according to Johns, "[i]t's actually leaving American forces in Iraq ... that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S." Welna also reported that retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric." Welna then featured a clip of Carafano saying: "There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario."

Welna also included a clip of Sen. John Thune (R-SD) arguing that "[w]e've got them pinned down" in Iraq and that the "United States military presence is there, and so, that's kind of where the fight is. And they are where the fight is." Welna then stated that, according to former CIA official Paul Pillar, "that's true," adding: "But only if you assume there's a fixed number of terrorists out there to bedevil the U.S." Pillar was then heard saying:

PILLAR: We are either engaging them or killing them in Iraq, or they're doing something else where we don't have a fixed number, of course. And the longer that we stay engaged in what has become in the eyes of the Islamist jihadists the biggest and foremost jihad, namely Iraq, the more likelihood we will breed even more terrorists.

Welna also reported that, according to Thomas Sanderson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the president and his allies are not likely to stop repeating that terrorists will follow us out of Iraq. That's because, for some, it's politically persuasive." Sanderson then said:

SANDERSON: I do think it has the effect of galvanizing support among a percentage of our population, but I think a lot of people won't buy it in the first place. Or number two: assume that we're already in that pipeline of attacks that the terrorists are planning.

From the April 30 edition of NPR's All Things Considered:

MELISSA BLOCK (co-host): During the recent debate over funding the war in Iraq, some of those opposed to a timetable for a troop pullout repeated something President Bush is fond of saying.

BUSH [audio clip]: If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone. They will follow us to the United States of America.

BLOCK: That was the president a couple of weeks ago at the White House. Among experts, however, there's widespread skepticism about that assertion, as NPR's David Welna reports.

[begin audio clip]

WELNA: Shortly before final passage last week of the war spending bill President Bush says he'll veto, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd [D-WV] rose on the Senate floor. Byrd chided the president for trying, in Byrd's words, to scare the pants off the public by suggesting the bill could lead to death and destruction in America.

BYRD: What utter nonsense. What hogwash.

WELNA: And yet, right after Byrd spoke, Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated the president's claim, saying if terrorists are not defeated in Iraq, they will follow U.S. troops home. Utah Republican Orrin Hatch said the same. So did Arizona Republican John McCain, but in South Carolina, where he'd skipped the vote to campaign for president.

McCAIN: If we withdraw from Iraq, there will be chaos, there will be genocide. They will follow us home and it will be one of the worst challenges America has ever faced as a nation, and we need to see this thing through.

WELNA: Just as McCain fought in Vietnam, so did retired Brigadier General John Johns, a national security expert who helped develop counterinsurgency doctrine there. But Johns considers that "they'll follow us home" warning propaganda. It's actually leaving American forces in Iraq, he says, that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S.

JOHNS: The longer we stay there, the more we're going to create people who will volunteer to come here.

WELNA: That same point was made in the National Intelligence Estimate released last fall, says Senate Intelligence Committee member and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden.

WYDEN: So, if the administration feels that the real concern here is the prospect of terrorists coming to the United States or anywhere else, you ought to think about the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate is reporting that their policies are the ones creating more terrorists.

WELNA: But it's not only liberals like Wyden who questioned whether a U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would be the trigger of a terrorist attack on the American mainland.

CARAFANO: There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario.

WELNA: That's retired Army Lieutenant Colonel James Carafano, a specialist in international security threats at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Carafano calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric.

CARAFANO: It's not that if the United States leaves Iraq that terrorists are going to come to the United States. The problem is if the United States leaves Iraq, the problems aren't going to go away. The problems then are going to go and fester.

WELNA: Still the president's allies in Congress, such as South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune, insists the Iraq war has kept terrorists at bay.

THUNE: We've got them pinned down. I mean, right now they are -- the United States military presence is there, and so, that's kind of where the fight is. And they are where the fight is.

WELNA: That's true, says Paul Pillar, a former deputy CIA counterterrorism chief who now teaches at Georgetown University. But only if you assume there's a fixed number of terrorists out there to bedevil the U.S.

PILLAR: We are either engaging them or killing them in Iraq, or they're doing something else where we don't have a fixed number, of course. And the longer that we stay engaged in what has become in the eyes of the Islamist jihadists the biggest and foremost jihad, namely Iraq, the more likelihood we will breed even more terrorists.

WELNA: Other experts question whether it's even possible to defeat terrorists in Iraq no matter how long U.S. forces are deployed there. Harvard's Jessica Stern thinks terrorists based there may well pose a threat to the U.S., but she says that's because the invasion of that country beefed up Al Qaeda's mobilization strategy.

JESSICA STERN (lecturer in public policy at Harvard University): I think that we really have created a very dangerous situation, and it will probably get more dangerous for civilians around the globe when U.S. troops leave Iraq -- but that will happen whenever we leave Iraq.

WELNA: Still, the president and his allies are not likely to stop repeating that terrorists will follow us out of Iraq. That's because, for some, it's politically persuasive, says Thomas Sanderson of the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies.

SANDERSON: I do think it has the effect of galvanizing support among a percentage of our population, but I think a lot of people won't buy it in the first place. Or number two: assume that we're already in that pipeline of attacks that the terrorists are planning.

WELNA: One thing all the experts agree on is it's not a question of if such attacks will occur, but when.

David Welna, NPR News, the Capitol.

A May 3 Washington Post article, which reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), when speaking to black audiences, "decr[ies] 'anti-intellectualism' in the black community, including black children telling peers who get good grades that they are 'acting white,' " suggested that Obama claims the concept of "acting white" is a sufficient explanation for the achievement gap between black and white students. Staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. -- using wording that suggested Obama had said that the "acting white" schoolyard smear explains the achievement gap -- wrote: "But some scholars assert that even if black kids do say that other black students who excel in school are 'acting white,' it is hardly a sufficient explanation for the achievement gap between black and white students, which remains vast." In fact, in discussing the achievement gap, Obama has emphasized the inequities in school funding in tandem with what he identifies as a need for greater emphasis on educational achievement.

From Obama's March 4 speech in Selma, Alabama:

OBAMA: I'm fighting to make sure that our schools are adequately funded all across the country. With the inequities of relying on property taxes and people who are born in wealthy districts getting better schools than folks born in poor districts and that's now how it's supposed to be. That's not the American way. But I'll tell you what -- even as I fight on behalf of more education funding, more equity, I have to also say that, if parents don't turn off the television set when the child comes home from school and make sure they sit down and do their homework and go talk to the teachers and find out how they're doing, and if we don't start instilling a sense in our young children that there is nothing to be ashamed about in educational achievement, I don't know who taught them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs was something white.

From Bacon's article in the Post:

The concept of "acting white" and worries that African Americans are not pushing their children enough to focus on education have been long-standing concerns of Obama's -- he has mentioned them in several recent speeches -- and issues that many prominent members of the community, mostly notably comedian Bill Cosby, have focused on in recent years.

But some scholars assert that even if black kids do say that other black students who excel in school are "acting white," it is hardly a sufficient explanation for the achievement gap between black and white students, which remains vast. The gap is "not because black 7-year-olds are holding back other black 7-year-olds," said Melissa V. Harris-Lacewell, a professor of African American studies at Princeton University. "This black pathology argument is appealing, but I think he's wrong empirically."

Additionally, the Post article claimed that as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "campaigns for black votes," she "is more likely to assail the Bush administration over its response to Hurricane Katrina -- a particular frustration of many African Americans because that disaster struck majority-black New Orleans." In fact -- putting aside the question of whether there is anything wrong with political figures' addressing issues of particular interest to their audience -- Clinton has consistently addressed the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina throughout her presidential campaign. In addition to criticizing the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina in her speeches in Selma, Alabama, and at the annual convention of Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, Clinton addressed the issue in front of the following audiences:

• In a January 22 live webcast, the first of three live webcasts in which Clinton answered questions from online participants, she said, in response to a question about her plan for recovery in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast: "I don't believe that this president and our government have responded as I would want them to. They have not put in the effort, the money, the attention, and focus that the people in New Orleans and in the surrounding parishes and along the Gulf Coast deserve. ... You know, it's really unimaginable that our country would turn its back on the people who suffered so much. These are our fellow Americans. Many of them don't feel they can even go back home, and I meet people all the time who they themselves and their families are still dislocated. It's tragic that we had such a poorly organized, half-hearted response continue to this day to fail the people in the Gulf Coast area."
• According to a January 26 New York Sun article, in a January 25 speech at the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting, Clinton "decr[ied] the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina" and "said the Federal Emergency Management Agency 'worked in the 1990s but has failed in the last six years.' "
• In a February 2 speech at the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, Clinton cited "the shame of 26,000 victims of Katrina still living in trailers."
• According to a February 12 Newsday article, during a February 11 New Hampshire campaign stop, Clinton was "questioned ... about the president's handling of Hurricane Katrina. She sharply responded, 'I don't see how we could have had a worse response than we've had. We took a national disaster and turned it into a national disgrace. The level of incompetence and corruption is chilling.' "
• At the March 14 International Association of Fire Fighters Bipartisan 2008 Presidential Forum, Clinton called Hurricane Katrina "[a] crisis that really, once again, put firefighters in the forefront." She added: "Just think about what's happening where your brothers and sisters are trying to operate out of trailers, and they're still using ruined equipment that we still haven't replaced. What was a natural disaster was turned into a national disgrace, and we need to get the funds directly where they are needed."
• According to a March 29 New York Sun article on the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department's legislative forum held on March 28, "Clinton lambasted the Bush administration for suspending the Davis-Bacon Act in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and vowed to protect and expand the law if elected president. The bill was first enacted in the midst of the Great Depression in 1931, and labor unions have fought to keep it on the books over criticism that it is too expensive to taxpayers and overly regulatory. ... Citing the administration's action days after Katrina, Mrs. Clinton said President Bush 'just doesn't get it' when it comes to Davis-Bacon, a critique that was echoed by several candidates, including a chief Clinton rival, Senator [Barack] Obama of Illinois."
• An April 14 New York Times article reported that in "her first major policy speech on the campaign trail," presented to "a capacity crowd of about 250 students and faculty members at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College" on April 13, Clinton "attacked the Bush administration for its handling of Hurricane Katrina, the controversy over the replacement of United States attorneys and fraud involving government contractors in Iraq." The Times added, "Mrs. Clinton characterized the current White House as having ''a stunning record of cronyism and corruption, incompetence and deception."

On the May 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Mike DuHaime, campaign manager for Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani: "Who would win a street fight ... Rudy Giuliani or [Iranian] President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, who would win that fight?" Matthews said that the fight would take place "over in Queens somewhere ... a dark night, it's about 2 in the morning. Two guys are out behind the building, right?" DuHaime responded, "I am putting my money on Rudy on that one." Matthews added, "If [Giuliani] wins that notion, he is the next president."

Although this assertion was conditional upon Giuliani "win[ing] that notion," Matthews has previously touted the viability of Giuliani's candidacy without equivocation. On the July 18, 2006, edition of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Matthews predicted that "the next president of the United States will be Rudy Giuliani."

Throughout the interview, Matthews left unchallenged various claims by DuHaime that Giuliani has a "tremendous record" as "somebody who will keep us free from terrorism and safe from terrorism." DuHaime said, in an apparent reference to the September 11, 2001, attacks, that Giuliani "is somebody who has been tested in times of great crisis and obviously come through with flying colors." He also said that Giuliani "has certainly demonstrated an ability to do the job ... in times of terrible crisis."

However, as Media Matters for America has noted, in the book Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 (HarperCollins, 2006) Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett and CBSNews.com senior producer Dan Collins cited several of what they presented as Giuliani's terrorism-related failures before, during, and after September 11. Barrett and Collins wrote that when Giuliani heard about the disaster on 9-11, his "original destination" was the "much-ballyhooed command center he had built in the shadow of the Twin Towers," in the 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building (Page 6). However, when Giuliani arrived, then-New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik "decided it was too dangerous to bring the mayor up to the command center he had so carefully and expensively built" (Page 340). In settling on the downtown location, Giuliani "overruled" warnings from Howard Safir, a previous police commissioner, and Lou Anemone, chief operating officer of the New York police department, not to put the command center at 7 WTC and rejected "an already secure, technologically advanced city facility across the Brooklyn Bridge" (Page 41). Later on 9-11, the 7 WTC building collapsed.

Although Matthews did not ask about these failures, he is familiar with criticism of Giuliani's role before 9-11 and in response to the attacks. The day before DuHaime's appearance, HBO host Bill Maher told Matthews that "the reason why [Giuliani] was on the streets that day is because his office was blown up," and said, "All of the experts told him to move the command-and-control center out of the World Trade Center. He put it in the World Trade Center." Maher added: "He's not a terrorism fighter. He has no credentials in this. In fact, he failed the one time he had an opportunity, just like [President] Bush."

Matthews is scheduled to host the Republican primary debate on MSNBC on May 3.

From the 7 p.m. ET May 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

DUHAIME: He is a tremendous leader, somebody with a tremendous record both as an economic conservative and somebody who will keep us free from terrorism and safe from terrorism. And I think how the debate goes, you will be in more control of that than I will.

MATTHEWS: You're -- well, I don't think I'm in control, because I really do think I can interview the candidates as a group and see whether they go to battle with each other. I'll tell you one thing without getting into specifics, because I want to keep some of this under wraps, but clearly, your guy's the frontrunner, and it must not be a surprise to you that he's taking some incoming these days.

DUHAIME: Well, I think, you know, this is a long campaign, and the American people and Republican primary voters are going to get to see all of the candidates over time. And I'm confident that when they see Mayor Giuliani and his record, they are going to be -- he is going to be a Republican that they are going to be proud to support.

This is somebody who has cut taxes, cut spending, been a true supply-sider as mayor of New York, took one of the -- took a city that many called ungovernable and did a great job cutting crime, getting people off of welfare. And obviously this is somebody who has been tested in times of great crisis and obviously come through with flying colors.

MATTHEWS: Is he going to like it if the other candidates take a shot at him tomorrow night, here?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Is he meaner and tougher than the other candidates?

DUHAIME: I do not know about -- you know, I don't want to necessarily compare him to the other candidates, but this is somebody who has certainly demonstrated an ability to do the job and not shrink away in times that are very tough and situations that are tough in places that -- problems that many people see as ungovernable, and certainly in times where his -- certainly in times of terrible crisis. This is somebody who is certainly tough enough to get the job done. I am certain of that.

MATTHEWS: Who would win a street fight? Rudy Giuliani -- just think of a street fight now over in Queens somewhere. It's a dark night, it's about 2 in the morning. Two guys are out behind the building, right? On a vacant lot. Rudy Giuliani or President Ahmadinejad, who would win that fight?

DUHAIME: I am putting my money on Rudy on that one. I think Rudy is the -- I think Rudy will take that fight.

MATTHEWS: If he wins that notion, he's the next president. That's one to look for. Who is tougher than Ahmadinejad? Because he is our biggest worry right now.

During a discussion with former CIA director George Tenet about his recently released book, At the Center of the Storm (HarperCollins), on the May 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, "everybody in the country [was] behind it, except the kooks." However, 23 senators and 133 members of the House of Representatives -- including a majority of House Democrats -- voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. Media Matters for America has provided a list of these "kooks" below. Additionally, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California on September 23, 2002 -- six months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- former Vice President Al Gore denounced President Bush's Iraq policy, saying, "I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Tenet responded to O'Reilly's assertion that only the "kooks" were against the war by saying: "I don't know about kooks, Bill."

Also, O'Reilly again claimed: "I saw, the night the statue went down, Iraqis looting the armories with nobody stopping that. And I went, 'Whoa! What's that all about?' And it doesn't seem that there was any kind of plan to secure the country after you got him." In fact, as Media Matters noted, on the April 9, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, on the night U.S. Marines assisted in tearing down a statue of Saddam in central Baghdad, O'Reilly made no mention of looting or the difficulty of reconstructing Iraq, though he did ask a guest to comment on plans to "stabilize Baghdad." Rather, during his April 9, 2003, show, O'Reilly hosted several segments listing the "winners" and "losers" of the Iraq war and praised President Bush for "prov[ing] he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do" and for "rid[ding] the world of an evil dictator." O'Reilly attacked many opponents of the invasion, such as "Saddam enablers" Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Jacques Chirac, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, plus "newspapers who wrongly predicted doom" and "the hysterical Hollywood celebrities who voiced strident protest, [and] obviously, have lost much credibility."

Nay votes in the Senate (21 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent):

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)

Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Jon Corzine (D-NJ)

Mark Dayton (D-MN)

Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Bob Graham (D-FL)

Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

James Jeffords (I-VT)

Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Carl Levin (D-MI)

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Jack Reed (D-RI)

Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Paul Wellstone (D-MN)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Nay votes in the House of Representatives (126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent):

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)

Thomas Allen (D-ME)

Joe Baca (D-CA)

Brian Baird (D-WA)

John Baldacci (D-ME)

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Gresham Barrett (R-SC)

Xavier Becerra (D-CA)

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)

David Bonior (D-MI)

Robert Brady (D-PA)

Corinne Brown (D-FL)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Lois Capps (D-CA)

Michael Capuano (D-MA)

Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)

Julia Carson (D-IN)

William Clay Jr. (D-MO)

Eva Clayton (D-NC)

James Clyburn (D-SC)

Gary Condit (D-CA)

John Conyers Jr. (D-MI)

Jerry Costello (D-IL)

William Coyne (D-PA)

Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

Susan Davis (D-CA)

Danny Davis (D-IL)

Peter DeFazio (D-OR)

Diana DeGette (D-CO)

Bill Delahunt (D-MA)

Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)

John Dingell (D-MI)

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)

Mike Doyle (D-PA)

John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN)

Anna Eshoo (D-CA)

Lane Evans (D-IL)

Sam Farr (D-CA)

Chaka Fattah (D-PA)

Bob Filner (D-CA)

Barney Frank (D-MA)

Charles Gonzalez (D-TX)

Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)

Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

Earl Hilliard (D-AL)

Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)

Rush Holt (D-NJ)

Mike Honda (D-CA)

Darlene Hooley (D-OR)

John Hostettler (R-IN)

Amo Houghton (R-NY)

Jay Inslee (D-WA)

Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)

Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)

Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Dale Kildee (D-MI)

Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI)

Jerry Kleczka (D-WI)

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

John LaFalce (D-NY)

James Langevin (D-RI)

Rick Larsen (D-WA)

John Larson (D-CT)

Jim Leach (R-IA)

Barbara Lee (D-CA)

Sandy Levin (D-MI)

John Lewis (D-GA)

Bill Lipinski (D-IL)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

James Maloney (D-CT)

Robert Matsui (D-CA)

Karen McCarthy (D-MO)

Betty McCollum (D-MN)

Jim McDermott-D-WA)

Jim McGovern (D-MA)

Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)

Carrie Meek (D-FL)

Gregory Meeks (D-NY)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)

George Miller (D-CA)

Alan Mollohan (D-WV)

Jim Moran (D-VA)

Connie Morella (R-MD)*

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Grace Napolitano (D-CA)

Richard Neal (D-MA)

Jim Oberstar (D-MN)

David Obey (D-WI)

John Olver (D-MA)

Major Owens (D-NY)

Frank Pallone Jr.(D-NJ)

Ed Pastor (D-AZ)

Ron Paul (R-TX)

Donald Payne (D-NJ)

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

David Price (D-NC)

Nick Rahall (D-WV)

Charles Rangel (D-NY)

Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)

Lynn Rivers (D-MI)

Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)

Bobby Rush (D-IL)

Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN)

Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Thomas Sawyer (D-OH)

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Bobby Scott (D-Virginia)

Jose Serrano (D-NY)

Louise Slaughter (D-NY)

Vic Snyder (D-AR)

Hilda Solis (D-CA)

Pete Stark (D-CA)

Ted Strickland (D-OH)

Burt Stupak (D-MI)

Mike Thompson (D-CA)

Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

John Tierney (D-MA)

Edolphus Towns (D-NY)

Mark Udall (D-CO)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

Nydia Velaquez (D-NY)

Pete Visclosky (D-IN)

Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Diane Watson (D-CA)

Melvin Watt (D-NC)

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

David Wu (D-OR)

From the May 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: In our final segment tonight with former CIA director George Tenet, we take a look at the mess in Iraq.

I still believe it was a noble effort to try to bring the Iraqis freedom. I still believe the U.S. military has performed magnificently. But, like you, I just don't understand why things were not better planned out. George Tenet explains some of this in his book, At the Center of the Storm, but not enough. So I called him on it.

[begin video clip]

O'REILLY: We go in, all right, everybody in the country is behind it, except the kooks.

TENET: I don't know about kooks, Bill.

O'REILLY: Believe me, at that point, it was running 80-85 percent --

TENET: OK. Anyway --

O'REILLY: -- in the polls.

TENET: Go ahead.

O'REILLY: OK. Now, we overthrow him. The military campaign goes well -- you didn't run the military campaign, the Pentagon did -- and he's done. And he's out. But you know what I saw? I saw, the night the statue went down, Iraqis looting the armories with nobody stopping that. And I went, "Whoa! What's that all about?" And it doesn't seem that there was any kind of plan to secure the country after you got him.

On the May 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer did not challenge White House press secretary Tony Snow's claim that President Bush "never argued" that "somehow Saddam [Hussein] was involved in September 11th," nor his assertion that "[w]e've never made that argument." Blitzer also did not challenge Snow's suggestion that Al Qaeda had a "relationship" with Saddam and that the fact that "Abu Musab Al Zarqawi [was] on Iraqi soil" was evidence of such a connection. Yet as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here here, here, and here), President Bush and other administration officials have frequently claimed a connection between Saddam and the September 11, 2001, attacks, including the specific assertion of such a link in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. Moreover, neither the 9-11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, nor, more recently, a report from the Inspector General of the Defense Department found any evidence that Saddam ever had an "operational relationship" or cooperated with either Al Qaeda or Zarqawi.

Media Matters for America noted that on April 30, Snow made a similar claim that went unchallenged by Good Morning America co-anchor Chris Cuomo. Snow asserted that "there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam Hussein to September 11."

During the interview on The Situation Room, Blitzer noted that former CIA director George Tenet said in his new book At the Center of the Storm (HarperCollins) that "there was never any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda." Snow responded by suggesting that Zarqawi's presence on "Iraqi soil" demonstrated a relationship with the Iraqi government. Snow then claimed that neither Bush, nor his administration, ever linked Saddam to the attacks on September 11:

BLITZER: All right. In recent days, George Tenet in his new book says there was never any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda, and now we all know they've never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, two basic points justifying the war that clearly did not materialize.

SNOW: Well, let's take a look at both of them. Number one, it's interesting, people have done a number of things to try to parse Al Qaeda and the relationship with Saddam Hussein. You did have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Iraqi soil. And apparently [Abu Ayyub] Al Masri, the man that everybody is trying to get right now as the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was there also, at least in 2002.

But having said that, one of the things the president never argued -- a lot of people have attributed to him -- is that somehow Saddam was involved in September 11th. He wasn't. We've never made that argument.

However, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have frequently tried to link September 11 to Saddam's regime:

• Bush linked Iraq to September 11 in a March 21, 2003, letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and president pro tempore of the Senate, as Media Matters previously noted. In the letter, Bush stated that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

• In an October 7, 2002, speech, Bush stated:

BUSH: We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

• On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Additionally, the 9-11 Commission found "no evidence" that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda "developed into a collaborative operational relationship," and a September 8 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." Also, on April 5, the inspector general of the Defense Department declassified a report that reviewed the pre-Iraq war intelligence gathering activities of the department's Office of Special Plans, run by then undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas J. Feith. While the report states that the actions of Feith's office were "inappropriate," it also reports that "[t]he Intelligence Community discounted conclusions about the high degree of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida," adding that it is "noteworthy" that the post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein and other former high ranking Iraqi government officials "as well as document exploitation by [the Defense Intelligence Agency] all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as The Washington Post reported.

From the May 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: All right. In recent days, George Tenet, in his new book, says there was never any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda, and now we all know they've never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, two basic points justifying the war that clearly did not materialize.

SNOW: Well, let's take a look at both of them. Number one, it's interesting, people have done a number of things to try to parse Al Qaeda and the relationship with Saddam Hussein. You did have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Iraqi soil. And apparently al-Masri, the man that everybody is trying to get right now as the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was there also, at least in 2002.

But having said that, one of the things the president never argued -- a lot of people have attributed to him -- is that somehow Saddam was involved in September 11th. He wasn't. We've never made that argument.

But let's face it. Saddam was part of the terror network. He was paying bounties to people who were killing Israelis. He was somebody who made it absolutely clear that he was going to try to do what he could to contribute to the terror network. That part remains unquestioned.

The second thing is, as far as weapons of mass destruction, one thing George Tenet does not argue is that intelligence at that time didn't show that there were weapons of mass destruction. Everybody agreed. Democrats went to the floor of the Senate and said, "There are weapons of mass destruction. We must not wait for the threat to be imminent. We must strike."

We had Democrats in the House of Representatives do it. We had members of both parties. So what's happening now is that people somehow are trying to attribute bad motives to an intelligence community, which worldwide had come to the conclusion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't, and that's one of the reasons why we've reformed the intelligence community.

BLITZER: The State Department, in its annual report yesterday, said that terrorism worldwide is up 25 percent this year as opposed to the previous year. It looks like the situation is not going in the right direction.

On the May 3 edition of CNN's American Morning, during a discussion about CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck's May 2 hour-long special, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," co-host Kiran Chetry stated that there is "no denying" global warming is happening, but added, "I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) share the consensus view that, as stated in a June 2006 NAS report, "[H]uman activities are responsible for much of the [planet's] recent warming."

In February, the IPCC released its fourth assessment report, which found:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-produced] greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. [The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.]

Later in the interview, Beck repeated a false attack frequently made by conservatives that in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), former Vice President Al Gore greatly exaggerated worst-case projections of sea level increases. Beck told Chetry, "It is important to have ... a reasonable conversation on this without the, you know, shock waves of 20 feet of sea level rise." As Media Matters noted, this characterization of Gore as an alarmist is based on the false claim that the IPCC's assessment of a likely rise of 23 inches contradicts Gore's claim. But the IPCC projection involved rising sea levels as they are affected before 2100 due to "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates" -- not the melting or breakup of the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome at an indeterminate point in the future, which is what Gore was discussing in the film.

Beck's appearance on CNN was his second in two days to discuss his special. As Media Matters noted, Beck appeared on the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom and told host Don Lemon that he is doing the special because "the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea," adding: "I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics."

Chetry ended the interview by announcing, "I guess I just made a programming decision that we're going to run [Beck's special] again at some point."

From the May 3 edition of CNN's American Morning:

CHETRY: A recent poll showed about 60 percent of Americans think that global warming has started, and --

BECK: Yeah.

CHETRY: -- there's a very small amount who think it's never going to happen. Is the debate about the -- I mean, we have gone up, point -- what is it? -- .7 degrees?

BECK: Yeah, about .7 degrees Celsius. Look, there is no --

CHETRY: So there is no denying it's happened. But I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate.

BECK: Yeah. There are three -- there are three questions -- really, kind of four. There's -- has the globe gotten warmer? Yes, it has. That's undeniable. Is this a lasting effect or is this just a cycle? That's still up for debate. The next one is: Is man causing it?

And the fourth one is: If man is causing it and the other three are true, then are we able to stop it? Even there, some scientists say it's already too late. There's a lot of debate.

CHETRY: Right. But we're pretty smart people, and if we can figure out ways to not destroy our planet, shouldn't we at least try?

BECK: Oh, of course we should. Nobody -- I mean -- I want clean air. I want water. I mean, I think this is -- it's obscene to say that people who are on the other side of the debate don't want a clean planet.

I have children, and I think about -- I think about all of the issues that we're facing today as a generational issue. I mean, I don't want to leave our planet in a worse shape for our children. It's not about us. As we get older and have children, it becomes less and less about us and more and more about our children. We should do the right thing. But when you can --

CHETRY: What are people going to get when they watch your special?

BECK: Well, the special was last night. I hope they just got a look at the other side, enough to where they say, "Wait a minute. Let's use reason here. Let's not silence dissent." It is important to have a conversation and important to have a reasonable conversation on this without the, you know, shock waves of 20 feet of sea level rise.

CHETRY: And I guess I just made a programming decision that we're going to run it again at some point.

BECK: Oh, good. Go for it.

CHETRY: Glenn Beck, always great to talk to you. Thanks a lot.

BECK: Great to talk to you. Bye-bye.

On the May 3 edition of MSNBC Live, host Lester Holt referred to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as "[a] senator with a maverick reputation." Media Matters for America has noted numerous instances in which media figures have uncritically called McCain a "maverick" or cited McCain's "maverick reputation" without noting the numerous instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment on issues large and small, as Media Matters has documented.

From the May 3 edition of MSNBC Live:

HOLT: Pete Wilson, we are out of time. But, Governor, thank you so much for spending time with us. It was good talking with you.

FORMER GOV. PETE WILSON (R-CA): Pleasure, Lester.

HOLT: A senator with a maverick reputation whose support of the war in Iraq may hurt him, but new polls say John McCain has taken the lead in some key states. What's at stake for Senator McCain? What does he need to say tonight? We're going to talk to his wife, Cindy, in just a moment.

A May 2 front-page Washington Times article headlined "Syrians bolstered by visit of 'good American' Pelosi" asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who recently visited Syria to meet with President Bashar Al-Assad, may have become "[t]he second most popular politician in Syria." The article noted that the "White House criticized her visit," but did not mention that a Republican -- Rep. David Hobson (OH) -- was part of Pelosi's delegation, as Media Matters for America noted. Nor did the article report that a Republican-led delegation met with Assad three days before Pelosi's visit and that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with him a day after. As evidence that Pelosi's visit had "warmed Syrian hearts with her trip last month to Damascus," the Times quoted a "Damascus laborer," a Damascus resident "who spoke on the condition of anonymity," and "an Iraqi woman who has emigrated to Syria," all of whom were unnamed in the article.

The Times article was the latest in a series of Times stories making baseless accusations against Pelosi, making Republican claims without challenge, or echoing Republican talking points, as Media Matters has documented.

The Washington Times article was discussed on the May 2 edition of MSNBC's Tucker when host Tucker Carlson, after reading a comment from an anonymous Syrian quoted in the Times story, said: "Wow! Nancy Pelosi. Trips have consequences, don't they? At least according to this person." In response, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, asserted that the delegation "was a mutually beneficial trip for Mr. Assad and Mrs. Pelosi." Neither Carlson nor Stoddard noted the Republicans who recently traveled to Syria.

From the May 2 Washington Times article:

The second most popular politician in Syria these days may be an American: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The California Democrat warmed Syrian hearts with her trip last month to Damascus, an event that people still share with visiting Americans as conversational currency.

"Nancy Pelosi is good, yes?" asked a Damascus laborer who found himself sitting next to an American at a greasy gyro stand this week. "Nancy Pelosi, good American."

Pictures of Mrs. Pelosi and Syrian President Bashar Assad -- officially Syria's most popular citizen -- still turn up on the local news channels, especially during coverage of the dispute between President Bush and Congress over the Iraq war spending bill.

Mrs. Pelosi's two-day visit to Damascus was a major news event here. Camera crews trailed her as she bought sweets in the ancient Hamadieh souk, made the sign of the cross at what is thought to be the tomb of John the Baptist and donned a black abaya to visit the historic Omayyad Mosque.

Mrs. Pelosi, 67, is praised as "a friend of Syria," and that makes her more influential than Oprah Winfrey and more appealing than the old Hollywood movies shown on satellite television.

Many Damascus residents say her private visit with Mr. Assad and senior ministers shattered Washington's attempt to isolate the regime.

"She was enormously popular here, a hero," said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions."

Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi's trip "bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won't work."

More than burnishing the regime's image in Syria, Mrs. Pelosi is seen as the well-dressed woman who stood up to President Bush, possibly the most unpopular figure in the Arab world after former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The White House criticized her visit, both on the constitutional grounds that she was usurping executive powers and on policy grounds that she was undermining months of diplomatic efforts.

Mrs. Pelosi said she raised substantive issues with Syrian leaders, urging them to stop insurgents from entering Iraq, help win the release of Israeli soldiers thought to be held captive by Lebanese and Palestinian militias, and end Syria's support for terrorist groups.

But nobody talks about that now.

"I love her," said an Iraqi woman who has emigrated to Syria. "She's a grandmother, so handsome, so cute. I see myself, my old self, in her."

Despite the lingering personal affection, few expect U.S. policy to change as a result of Mrs. Pelosi's visit.

"She is a different face of America, but she does not have ideas, any solutions," the Iraqi woman said. "I watch TV all day, and I know that only the faces change."

From the May 2 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: Washington Times today, A.B., has a piece how Nancy Pelosi, one of the most popular people in Syria -- the number-two most popular person in Syria. Let's put the quote up here. This is from an average Syrian on the street. Quote: "She was enormously popular here, a hero [...] This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions. [Pelosi's trip] bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won't work."

Wow! Nancy Pelosi. Trips have consequences, don't they? At least according to this person.

STODDARD: I mean, I think this was a mutually beneficial trip for Mr. Assad and Ms. Pelosi. She's big in Demascus, and that's big for her. And she knew exactly what was going to happen on this trip. She wasn't going to change policy, she was going to get criticized by Republicans and by the White House, and she was going to show President Bush that she can start a big -- you know, make waves, get the debate going, and get a lot of attention, and that's what she did. And it doesn't surprise me in the least that they're calling her a hero there.

CARLSON: Right, I'm not surprised at all.

On the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom, while previewing his May 2 special, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck told host Don Lemon that he is doing the special because "the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea," adding: "I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics." Those comments recall remarks Beck made on the April 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, in which he likened former Vice President Al Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. On that program, Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."

Beck continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." He added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."

Later in the interview, Beck addressed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called Beck "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate." In response, Beck said: "[P]eople who question global warming, they're called Nazis. They're put right up next to Holocaust deniers." However, Lemon did not note Beck's own invocation of Hitler to describe Gore's global warming campaign. In addition to his April 30 comments, as Media Matters for America noted, on the March 22 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck likened Gore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for Gore's statement, during his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, that he would initiate a "mass persuasion campaign" to urge Congress to act on climate change.

Further, on the June 7, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Beck compared Gore's documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), to Nazi propaganda. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "[W]hen you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening" in An Inconvenient Truth.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom:

LEMON: Glenn Beck -- boy, are you asking for it. He joins me now from New York. Listen, I got to start right out. If the scientific consensus says, Glenn, that global warming is a reality and we need to move past the debate into action, why even do this hour-long special? Why are you asking for it?

BECK: There's a couple of reasons: First of all, the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea. I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics. The global consensus is fractured in several different areas. Some people believe that global warming is happening. It's pretty easy to tell, you know, all you have to do is check the thermometer. Then there are those who say, yes, but man caused it; others say man didn't. Those who say either way, yes on that one, then you have to say, how do we solve it? And it is fractured all across, and we're talking trillions of dollars.

I am doing this special mainly because it frightens me that we that live in a world where I'm called by RFK Jr. a fascist, and when The Washington Post asked him, "Why did you call Glenn Beck a fascist?" he said because I heard him question global warming a couple of weeks ago.

LEMON: But Glenn, do you think that that is a general consensus, that one person said it, not everyone is saying or calling you a fascist in all of this.

BECK: No, no, no. You could -- has RFK Jr. called you a fascist? There are people that call global warming deniers -- that's an interesting quote, because I don't even deny global warming is happening -- but people who question global warming, they're called Nazis. They're put right up next to Holocaust deniers.

LEMON: And then -- but there are people, Glenn, who are going to say you're not denying that global warming is happening. There is not one consensus about why it's happening -- some people say it's greenhouse gases and all the pollutants we're putting in the air -- but Glenn, wouldn't you agree that it takes people a lot to change?

BECK: Sure.

LEMON: Don't we have to scare people a little bit that maybe you shouldn't drive, you know, your SUV so much? Maybe you should take the train or take public transportation --

BECK: No, I think we should --

LEMON: -- or use a hairspray so much? Don't you think that we need to scare people a little bit so that we do get back on track with the earth?

BECK: You know what? I got to tell you something: The world is a scary enough place with just the truth. I think we should start telling people the truth. You know, I'm perfectly willing -- I watched the Al Gore movie, and I looked at it and I said, "You know what? If these things are true, then we do need to change. I'll drive a Prius gladly. I just want to know what the truth is. And that's all we're looking for.

You know what? This is a bookend to the Al Gore movie. On the website at cnn.com, where it talks about the special, we've provided the link to the Al Gore movie. You should watch both sides. When have we said, ever in America, ever in the world, that we should only have one side of an argument? We should listen to all of them.

LEMON: So, you believe folks should watch that, but you're not saying it's necessarily they should take that as whole. They should look at the other side, correct?

BECK: It's one side.

LEMON: And just -- you know you mentioned the Al Gore movie. Did you hear about the removal of Bibles from this one hotel?

BECK: I think this is the most appropriate thing --

LEMON: What do you think of that? They're putting Al Gore's book over the Bible?

BECK: Science has become religion for some people, and it is amazing -- many politicians -- Al Gore is one of them, the U.N. is another -- we should just have them get out of the suits and put a collar on -- a priest's collar on -- because I think we are entering the Dark Ages where these new priests are saying, "Science cannot question -- no one can question what the current belief is today."

LEMON: Yeah, and I think some people would say -- and I think there is a general consensus on this, that we've gone too far when we think that science is bad, because science actually has made major influences and has helped diseases and cured all kinds of things.

BECK: There's -- science is great.

LEMON: Yeah.

BECK: We just have to keep in perspective they're the butter is bad, butter is good people.

LEMON: Yes. Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with preservatives, sometimes. It helps you keep the -- all right. Glenn Beck, always a pleasure to have you.

BECK: Thank you, sir.