Media Matters looks at just how many times news organizations (like The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times) & Conservative know-nothings (Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Stephen Hayes) have not only been wrong in their prediction, but have blatantly tried to spread false information & right-wing propoganda.
The most recent example from the WSJ analyzed by Media Matters:
On newspaper opinion pages and in recent appearances on cable news, conservative commentators have criticized President Obama's reaction to unfolding events in Iran. However, in considering what kind of platform to offer these commentators' criticisms, the media should remember their previous discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about foreign policy issues, particularly the Iraq war.
One prominent example is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which stated in a June 18 editorial: "Now the President who likes to say that 'words matter' refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control." And in a June 15 editorial, the Journal wrote, "President Obama came to office promising the world's dictators an open hand in exchange for an unclenched fist. ... [Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has repudiated the President's diplomacy of friendly overture. It turns out that the 'axis of evil' really is evil -- and not, as liberal sages would have it, merely misunderstood. The [Iranian] vote should prompt Mr. Obama to rethink his pursuit of a grand nuclear bargain with Iran, though early indications suggest he plans to try anyway." The editorial asserted that if a report in The New York Times was correct, "then Mr. Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter and the mullahs will play him for time to get their bomb.
Current statements on foreign policy:
On May 31, Kristol said on Fox News Sunday that "it might be worth doing some targeted airstrikes to show the North Koreans -- instead of always talking about, 'Gee, there could be consequences,' to show that they can't simply keep down the -- keep going down this path." And in a June 16 Weekly Standard blog post, Kristol wrote of Iran: "Question for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs: As 'things' have continued to unfold, is President Obama now willing to condemn the brutal actions of a violently illiberal regime? If not, what would the regime have to do to generate clear moral and political condemnation from our 'deeply troubled' president?"
In testimony delivered February 7, 2002, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Kristol said: "[A]s in Kabul but also as in the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions of Iraq in 1991, American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators. Indeed, reconstructing Iraq may prove to be a less difficult task than the challenge of building a viable state in Afghanistan." Kristol continued: "The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity -- one President Bush sees clearly -- to transform the political landscape of the Middle East."