Kyl Denies That The Roberts Supreme Court Is On The Side Of ‘Big Business’: It’s A ‘Fradulent Claim’

William Tomasko Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday to discuss Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination. Kyl complained that during the hearing, Democrats attempted to paint the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts as “coming down on the side of big business“: HH: With Chief Justice Roberts, was any review of those documents held by a — for example, the senior minority member of the Judiciary Committee? JK: No. No, not to my knowledge, no. HH: How did the first day go? JK: Pretty much as expected. Republicans raised appropriate questions. It was respectful. She noted that all of her meetings with Senators have been courteous. Democrats primarily not only applauded her for having a wonderful background and being a great person, but also took the opportunity to slam what they call the Roberts Court and its activism in coming down on the side of big business repeatedly at the expense of the little guy. All a fraudulent claim, but that’s what they’re arguing. Of course, the Senate Democrats’ arguments were far from “fraudulent.” The Roberts court has been one of the most pro-corporate in history. A recent study from the Constitutional Accountability Center documented how the court “has a decidedly probusiness tilt.” Demonstrating this bent, the court last week strengthened corporations’ power to force their customers and employees into biased, privatized courts whenever a dispute arises between them. And, the court’s far-right voting bloc famously upended precedent to defend corporations’ supposed right to spend unlimited sums on elections in Citizens United. Today, in a piece on Roberts’ dramatic impact on the court, the New York Times said that decision “showed great solicitude to the interests of corporations.”

Palin encourages followers to read column warning that the BP escrow fund could lead to a Nazi-like dictatorship.

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) lashed out at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Twitter earlier this week, telling him “u lie” for saying that many Republicans agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that the White House shook down BP to create a $20 billion escrow fund to help Gulf families. Of course, Barton’s sentiment is not unique among conservatives, as Palin herself proved today. Taking to Twitter once again, Palin urged, “GOP: Don’t let the lamestream media suck you into ‘they’re defending BP over Gulf spill victims’ bs…” She followed up by urging her followers to “read Thomas Sowell’s article,” which compares President Obama to Hitler:

If followers click on the link they will see that Sowell, under the headline, “Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?” argues that the escrow fund is just like the Enabling Act, which “gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.” On Tuesday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) endorsed Sowell’s ludicrous Hitler-Obama comparison on House floor, calling the columnist “brilliant,” before quoting several lines from the piece. “It’s difficult to overstate how absurd all of this is,” Political Correction noted.

M.C.L comment: I said this yesterday when right wingers want to attack the president they go to the fields and find a couple of black "conservatives" that's willingly to do the dirty work for them. And the conservatives will go see here's a BLACK guy saying something negative against your BLACK guy. If you got a right wing friend(why would you?) or a right wing relative expect to see a Uncle Thomas Sowell article in your email box or Facebook wall in the upcoming weeks.

Fox News is BP oil spill misinformation clearinghouse Myths and falsehoods on the Gulf oil spill

From Media Matters

Fox News' staunch defense of BP

Media Matters has identified numerous instances of media conservatives defending BP on Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, or the radio shows of Fox News hosts. For example:

• BP was victim of a "shakedown." On at least 10 occasions, Fox figures criticized BP's escrow account as an Obama "shakedown" or "slush fund." For example, on the June 21 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, contributor Andrea Tantaros stated that BP had been the victim of a "political shakedown" and a "stickup" to force the company to fund the $20 billion "slush fund."

• Investigations of BP are McCarthyist "witch trials." Fox figures criticized congressional and criminal investigations into BP on at least nine occasions. For example, Glenn Beck compared the congressional BP hearings to the McCarthy hearings, the Salem witch trials, and the Romans feeding Christians to lions.

• Obama administration has "demonized" BP. On at least nine instances, Fox figures attacked Obama for "demonizing" BP. For example, appearing on Hannity, Fox Business host Stuart Varney stated: "The administration's response can be summed up as follows: Demonize BP, seize its assets, raise taxes on energy, and therefore raise prices, pile on regulation, appoint a commission, all to gloss over the failure to deal promptly with the oil spill. And then give us pipe dreams about a green future."

• Conspiracy theories about the oil spill. Media Matters identified at least four instances in which conspiracy theories about the oil spill were raised on Fox's networks. For example, on the May 27 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, host Eric Bolling asked guest Alan Colmes, "Are you sure they didn't let [the oil spill] leak so he could renege on his promise to allow some offshore drilling?"

Myth: Obama waited weeks before responding to the oil spill

CLAIM: Obama "waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin" responding to Gulf oil spill. On the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends, Rudy Giuliani said of the federal government's response to the oil spill: "The government has played a big role in letting us down here as well. And who the heck is -- you know, criticizing President Obama, President Obama's response? I mean, the president waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin a resp- -- he told us in his speech that the federal government was in charge from the very beginning."

REALITY: Timeline of events indicates Obama administration responded almost immediately to the spill. The Coast Guard began responding to the spill hours after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded at 10 p.m. on April 20. Obama was briefed on the incident and dispatched officials to the region the next day.

Gov. Barbour: "The federal government's done more right than wrong" on BP cleanup. On the June 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, asked for his "assessment of how well coordinated the federal, state, and local officials are," former RNC chairman and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said that while "nothing's satisfactory until the well's shut" he thinks "the federal government's done more right than wrong," and "appointing Ken Feinberg, who's got a great reputation that's well deserved, is good for BP and good for the government."

Myth: Moratorium is not needed because oil companies are equipped to handle spills

CLAIM: No need for moratorium to "ensure ... safety," Obama should "undo the harm that he's already done" and lift it. On the June 12 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, anchor Alisyn Camerota asked Palin: "[T]he administration has called for a moratorium on deep-sea drilling until that safety can be ensured. Given all of the problems that we now know, how BP overlooked safety measures, do you support a moratorium until we can ensure the safety?" Palin replied, "No, but we do need to ramp up the oversight" of offshore drilling." Likewise, on the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes urged Obama to "undo the harm that he's already done and lift the moratorium on the existing drilling that was going on in the Gulf."

REALITY: All five major oil companies reportedly share similar spill response plans written by same company, and admit aspects of their plans are an "embarrassment." According to The Washington Post, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil. Additionally, execs for both Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips called an error in both plans embarrassing.

FACT: All five companies reportedly rely on the same companies to draft their response plans and provide containment equipment. According to a June 16 Washington Post report, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil:

The spill response plans for all five companies were written by the same firm, the Response Group. Although it has operations in at least seven cities nationwide, the Houston-based firm's Web site says the company has about 35 employees. (One current assignment: calling 50,000 people who have visited BP offices and getting their e-mail addresses and emergency contact information.)

Additionally, the Post reported that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated that oil companies all rely on one company, Marine Spill Response, to provide containment equipment.

FACT: Three spill plans reportedly listed the phone number of a deceased marine science expert. According the same Post report, three of the five major oil companies operating in the Gulf "listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005" in their spill response plans.

FACT: Exxon Mobil CEO: "We are not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills. In testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 15, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated repeatedly that his company is "not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills.

FACT: Responding to criticism of having a dead expert's info in his company's oil spill response, Tillerson admitted "we need expertise." When Markey questioned Tillerson on the Exxon Mobil plan's inclusion of contact information for a "technical support person" who had been dead for four years, Tillerson acknowledged that it was an "embarrassment" and stated that "we admit that we need expertise." He further stated that just because "Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him."

FACT: ConocoPhillips CEO: "Obviously it is embarrassing" that Lutz's contact information is in the report. At the same hearing, ConocoPhillips CEO, James Mulva, said of the response plan's obvious flaws: "Obviously it is embarrassing." He further acknowledged that "the plans need to be updated more frequently."

Myth: BP was only drilling "out there" because environmentalists and the federal government "made them" do it

CLAIM: BP's deepwater drilling due to environmentalists, federal government "pushed us out there." Several Fox News figures, including Sarah Palin, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Doocy, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, have claimed that, as Hannity put it, BP "should have been in ANWR and shallower waters, and environmentalists pushed us out there." Similarly, Fox News contributors Andrew Napolitano and Bill Kristol, and Fox guest and BigGovernment.com editor-in-chief Mike Flynn have blamed the federal government for, in Flynn's words, "ma[king] them drill in water that deep."

REALITY: Deep-water regions feature vast oil reserves that make such drilling potentially lucrative. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water." The deepwater region of the Gulf has also been identified as "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory."

FACT: MMS said "remarkable increase" in deep-water drilling due in part to "finding of reservoirs with high production wells." According to the MMS: "The deepwater portion of Gulf of Mexico has shown a remarkable increase in oil and gas exploration, development and production. In part this is due to the development of new technologies reducing operational costs and risks, as well as the finding of reservoirs with high production wells."

FACT: Bush MMS reported that the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico." In a 2004 report -- titled Deep Water: Where the Energy Is -- the MMS stated that "our best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and other frontier areas." MMS reported that due to "declining production" in "near-shore, shallow waters" in the Gulf of Mexico, "energy companies have focused their attention on oil and gas resources in water depths of 1,000 feet and beyond." MMS estimated that "the deep water regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 56 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or enough to meet U.S. demand for 7-1/2 years at current rates."

FACT: Bush MMS reported deepwater drilling is "America's Offshore Energy Future," "significant proved reserves" discovered in recent years. In a 2008 report titled "Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2008: America's Offshore Energy Future, MMS reported:

The deepwater GOM has contributed major additions to the total reserves in the GOM. Figure 40 shows the proved reserves added each year by water-depth category. Additions from the shallow waters of the GOM declined in recent years but, beginning in 1975, the deepwater area started contributing significant new reserves. Between 1975 and 1983, the majority of these additions were from discoveries in slightly more than 1,000 ft (305 m) of water. It was not until 1985 that major additions came from water depths greater than 1,500 ft (457 m). From 1998 to 2001, significant proved reserves were added in the 5,000- to 7,499-ft (1,524- to 2,286-m) water depth range. The year 2002 saw the first substantial addition from water depths greater than 7,500 ft (2,286 m).

FACT: NY Times reported BP discovery of "giant oil field" in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico indicated area was "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory." A September 2, 2009, New York Times article reported that "BP announced on Wednesday the discovery of what it characterized as a giant oil field several miles under the Gulf of Mexico," which the Times stated "was another indication that the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico are probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory to bolster domestic oil production." The Times further credited BP's deep-water rigs with having "stabilized domestic production after almost two decades of yearly decline."

Myth: Obama, unlike Bush, "was off on vacation" during crisis

CLAIM: Obama "was off on vacation twice" during oil spill, but Bush did not go on vacation "in the middle of a crisis." On the June 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Giuliani asserted that he didn't think the spill was Obama's "job number one" because Obama was "off on vacation twice" during the cleanup. Giuliani contrasted Obama's vacations with President Bush's and Giuliani's own purported refusal to take vacations during times of crisis. Giuliani made similar arguments on the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends.

REALITY: Bush vacationed during the aftermath of Katrina; Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at WTC after 9-11. Despite Giuliani's suggestion, Bush reportedly made at least three trips to Camp David in the two months after Katrina, and Giuliani himself reportedly spent "roughly twice as long" at, or flying to, Yankees games than at ground zero between September 17, 2001, and December 16, 2001. The Obamas visited Asheville, North Carolina, the weekend of April 23. During that trip, Obama eulogized the 29 workers killed in the West Virginia mine explosion and "met with the workers' families privately before the ceremony," according to CNN. During Memorial Day weekend, Obama traveled to Chicago and was scheduled to deliver his Memorial Day address at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. Due to a thunderstorm, he spoke at Andrews Air Force Base instead.

FACT: Bush vacationed during aftermath of Katrina. In the two months after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, Bush reportedly made at least three separate weekend trips to the presidential retreat at Camp David. Bush visited the Camp David retreat in September 2005 and again during two weekends in October 2005. Three months after the hurricane, news outlets reported that hundreds of thousands of people were "still at loose ends in provisional housing -- many in isolated trailer parks"; "thousands of people were "still unaccounted for"; and "[m]ore than 80 percent of New Orleans's population has not been able to return home."

FACT: Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at ground zero following 9-11. In an August 18, 2007, Salon.com article, Alex Koppelman examined Giuliani's schedule in the 90 days following the attacks and found: "By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 90 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16."

Myth: "Ridiculous" and "offensive" to blame Bush for spill

CLAIM: "Outrageous" to blame Bush for MMS mismanagement leading to oil spill. Fox News figures, including Dana Perino, Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee, have claimed that it is "ridiculous" and "offensive," as Perino put it, to say that the Bush administration's regulatory failures led to the oil spill.

REALITY: Under Bush, MMS relaxed oversight of drilling, ignored safety warnings, downplayed oil spill concerns. The Department of Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG) "found a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies were widespread" in Bush's MMS. In addition, under Bush, MMS loosened rules requiring a blowout plan, dismissed the risk of a massive oil spill in a BP assessment, and failed to report a warning about a vital piece of blowout preventer. Moreover, Bush promoted and sought to expand offshore drilling.

FACT: Bush MMS adopted regulations stating drillers are "in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity." The Washington Post reported on May 25 that the actions taken by MMS "are shaped in part by a 2005 regulation it adopted that assumes oil and gas companies can best evaluate the environmental effects of their operations." The article stated that "[t]he rule governing which information the MMS should receive and review before signing off on drilling plans states: 'The lessee or operator is in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity based on whether the operation is routine or non-routine.'" Rolling Stone magazine reported that these "new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers" to receive an "exemption from environmental review," even though such exemptions were "originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape."

FACT: In April 2008, Bush MMS loosened rules requiring blowout plan. The Associated Press reported on May 5 that a "rule change two years ago by the federal agency that regulates offshore oil rigs allowed BP to avoid filing a plan specifically for handling a major spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project." AP further reported: "The MMS rule change, made in April 2008, says that Gulf rig operators are required to file a blowout scenario only if one of five conditions applies. For example, an operator must provide a blowout scenario when it proposes to install a 'surface facility' in water deeper than 1,312 feet. While Deepwater Horizon was operating almost 5,000 feet below the surface, [BP spokesman William] Salvin said the project did not meet the definition of a surface facility. The MMS official agreed."

FACT: Bush MMS 2007 environmental impact assessment for BP lease dismissed risk of massive oil spill. The Post reported on May 5: "While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout." The Post stated that "In one assessment, the agency estimated that 'a large oil spill' from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a 'deepwater spill,' occurring 'offshore of the inner Continental shelf,' would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall." According to the Times-Picayune, these assessments "paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers."

FACT: Bush MMS failed to respond to 2004 warning about vital piece of blowout preventer. The Wall Street Journal reported on May 3 that "[f]ederal regulators learned in a 2004 study that a vital piece of oil-drilling safety equipment may not function in deep-water seas but did nothing to bolster industry requirements. The equipment, called shear rams, is supposed to seal off out-of-control oil and gas wells by pinching the pipe closed and cutting it." The Journal further reported that "[e]xperts theorize the rams may have failed to work as expected in the Deepwater Horizon disaster."

FACT: Bush MMS ignored warnings about faulty cementing in wells. AP reported on May 24 that numerous MMS reports identified a "poor cement job" as the cause of many offshore accidents, including incidents that took place in 2005 and 2007, "[y]et federal regulators give drillers a free hand in this crucial safety step." AP noted that rig owner Transocean and "independent experts" have pointed to "faulty cement work" as a possible cause of the blowout, and that new rules "in the works long before the Deepwater Horizon" took effect June 3, which "take a conservative watch-and-wait approach and demand only routines already carried out around the industry: a management program with monitoring and diagnostic testing."

FACT: WSJ reported that in 2003, Bush MMS decided not to require last-resort shut-off device. ABC News reported on April 30 that in 2000, MMS "issued a safety alert that called added layers of backup 'an essential component of a deepwater drilling system'." However, according to the Journal, "The industry argued against" mandating a remote-control shut-off switch that serves as "last-resort protection against underwater spills," and "[b]y 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said 'acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly'." The Journal noted that the Deepwater Horizon rig did not have a remote-control device, which is required "in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil," and that "[i]ndustry consultants and petroleum engineers said that an acoustic remote-control may have been able to stop the well, but too much is still unknown about the accident to say that with certainty."

NPR similarly reported that Michael Saucier, MMS regional director in New Orleans, said at a hearing, "I think it was around 2001, there were some draft rules concerning secondary control systems for BOP stacks, and those rules were then sent up to headquarters to continue through the process." The NPR report goes on to state, "But what came back from headquarters were not rules, he said, just notices that 'highly encouraged' companies to use the backup systems. 'There is no enforcement on it,' he said."

FACT: Bush MMS reportedly suppressed scientists' concerns about environmental impact of spills in Alaska. A June 6 Denver Post article reported that an MMS office in Alaska rejected a 2006 analysis conducted by a biologist, which stated that a large oil spill could significantly harm fish populations. The analysis, which would have "required MMS to conduct a more detailed environmental impact statement before auctioning leases in the Beaufort Sea," was rewritten after a supervisor told the biologist that his analysis would cause a "delay in sale 202. That would, as you can imagine, not go over well with HQ and others." The Denver Post further reported, "[c]oncerns raised by another MMS biologist, James Wilder, that the impact on polar bears was not adequately addressed in Shell's Alaska exploration plan, also were rebuffed, according to e-mails."

Myth: Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP cash"

CLAIM: "Largest single donation" "from BP" has gone to Obama. After Palin suggested a connection between "contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Doocy said that "when it comes down to the single largest recipient of BP cash, [Palin is] absolutely right ... it was Barack Obama."

FACT: Obama presidential campaign took no money from BP's PAC. Obama received $71,051 in contributions from BP employees during his presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's presidential campaign received no funds from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A CRP spokesman confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC."

FACT: Donations from BP's PAC and its employees represent 0.01 percent of Obama's total presidential fundraising. Obama raised more than $744 million for his presidential campaign. The $71,051 he received from BP's employees accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total presidential campaign contributions.

Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest." In a May 5 Swampland post, Time's Michael Scherer cited CRP's data and noted that "[i]t is true that ... Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else." Scherer went on to explain:

But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.

FACT: Obama took only $1,000 of PAC money from BP during his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama received $1,000 from BP's PAC during his 2004 Senate campaign. Twenty-one Senate candidates received more from BP's PAC during that election cycle alone.

Myth: Obama admin turned down foreign assistance in dealing with oil cleanup

CLAIM: Obama's refusal to waive Jones Act has prevented international assistance. Fox News' Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly and Oliver North have similarly asserted that Obama's purported refusal to waive the Jones Act has prevented the United States from accepting aid from foreign ships.

REALITY: International assistance is part of Gulf spill response. In an interview on the June 15 edition of Fox & Friends, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated that "foreign entities are operating within the Gulf that help us respond" to the oil spill. Further, in a June 15 press release, the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated, "Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history." The Center further explained, "No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico." The administration has further stated that they would waive the Jones Act if waivers were requested, but that "there are no pending requests for foreign vessels to come into the Gulf."

Myth: Obama admin defied Constitution because it "told" BP to create escrow account

CLAIM: Obama's actions on escrow fund were "not constitutional." On the June 18 edition of Fox & Friends, talking about Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) criticism of the $20 billion escrow account, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "You know, [Barton's] upset that they set up this -- that they told BP, 'I need $20 billion into this fund.' ... He felt as though that was out of the administration's realm. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. That's not constitutional, and they shouldn't go ahead -- go forward with that."

REALITY: BP volunteered to establish account after "negotiation session" with White House in which "[b]oth sides got what they wanted." BP agreed on its own to establish the account as a "voluntary gesture" after negotiations with the White House in which both sides reportedly got what they wanted. Additionally, Dan Farber, director of Berkeley Law's environmental law program, wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers."

FACT: Wash. Post: "Both sides got what they wanted out of the encounter." The Post reported that in the meeting between the White House and BP, "[b]oth sides got what they wanted out of the encounter," noting that "BP, though poorer on paper in the short run, got some much-needed clarity on its long-term liability, plus an explicit statement from Obama that the administration doesn't want to see BP driven into bankruptcy."

FACT: BP announced $100 million to support unemployed oil industry workers as a "voluntary gesture." The Post also reported on June 17 that Obama asked BP "for a voluntary contribution to a foundation that will support unemployed oil industry employees" and that "BP agreed, offering $100 million." The Post quoted BP adviser Jamie Gorelick as saying, "We made clear that we do not think this is a liability for the company. The president said he's concerned about those workers. He asked if there was something we could do as a voluntary gesture."

FACT: Expert said law "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages,' " which could include escrow account. In his June 15 post on the blog Legal Planet titled, "Can Obama Require BP to Form an Escrow Fund?" Farber wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers." Indeed, Section 1005 of the Oil Pollution Act states:

SEC. 1005. INTEREST; PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

(a) GENERAL RULE. -- The responsible party or the responsible party's guarantor is liable to a claimant for interest on the amount paid in satisfaction of a claim under this Act for the period described in subsection (b). The responsible party shall establish a procedure for the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages. Payment or settlement of a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled shall not preclude recovery by the claimant for damages not reflected in the paid or settled partial claim.

Myth: Obama admin unreasonably delayed purchase of Maine company's oil boom

CLAIM: "Red tape puts hold on company's boom making." On June 10, Fox & Friends ran a story criticizing the administration for possibly being "in the dark about" Packgen, a Maine company who's oil containment boom had yet to be approved by BP for use in the Gulf. During the segment, on-screen text read: "Red tape puts hold on company's boom making."

REALITY: Packgen had not previously manufactured boom, reportedly failed "initial quality control test." The Maine company had reportedly not produced boom before and their boom reportedly "differs from other designs being used." BP ordered a trial run of the product before committing to purchase it. The boom later reportedly failed "an initial quality control test."

FACT: Packgen reportedly began manufacturing boom after spill. The Lewiston, Maine, Sun Journal reported on May 19 that Packgen, a Maine company that "makes composite packaging used to contain environmental and hazardous waste," hoped to "capitalize on the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by churning out a much-sought-after oil containment tool known as a boom." The article quoted Packgen's president as saying they were "still pitching (to buyers)" and reported that BP had "sent up a company auditor to check out" the company.

FACT: WCSH6 reported that BP "ordered a trial run" of the product, which "differs from other designs being used." Maine news station WCSH6 reported on June 3 that BP "has ordered a trial run of the product but there is no word of when or if the design will be approved." The article also reported: "It differs from other designs being used because, according to company officials, it creates a tighter seal between pieces preventing oil from leaking past the barrier."

FACT: Boom reportedly failed "an initial quality test." On June 11, ABC News' Jake Tapper tweeted that according to the Coast Guard, the "boom manufactured by Packgen did not pass an initial quality control test." On June 16, Tapper reported that an engineering professor who was hired by Packgen to inspect the boom stated his belief that " 'it certainly will work' in coastal areas in coastal areas, though he 'wouldn't deploy it deepwater'."

Myth: Obama unnecessarily delayed berm plan

CLAIM: Obama did not "respond immediately" to spill because he did not approve the berm plan "right away" On the June 9 edition of Fox & Friends, Perino responded to the statement that "[Obama's] officials responded immediately" to the spill by claiming, "I think Governor [Bobby] Jindal would disagree with the berms that weren't built right away."

REALITY: Army Corps of Engineers studied plan as required by law and expressed concerns over proposal. AP reported on May 24 that "the Corps said it is working as quickly as possible on the emergency permit request -- but still has to follow various steps required by federal law."

FACT: Army Corps reportedly raised concerns that barriers "could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi." AP reported on May 26 that the Army Corps released documents that day that "signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands," but stated that parts of the plan "could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne."

FACT: Army Corps approved portions of the plan "after careful consideration of the available information." On May 27, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that they approved portions of the plan to create sand berms between barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana. The White House approved additional portions of Lousiana's berm plan on June 2.

FACT: Adm. Allen reportedly continued to express concerns about proposal but said "the prudent thing ... was to start a pilot project and keep asking questions." On May 28, AP reported that Adm. Thad Allen "approved portions of Louisiana's $350 million plan to ring its coastline with a wall of sand meant to keep out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill." The article noted that the Army Corps had objected to portions of the plan due to concerns about oil being diverted to Mississippi and that Allen also "said some sections of the berm system would not have kept out oil," as well as potentially "interfer[ing] with cleanup."

Myth: Coast Guard docked oil-collecting barges for no good reason

CLAIM: Shutting down oil-collecting barges was an "amazing screw-up." On the June 18 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly asserted that there had been an "insane," "amazing screw-up in the Gulf cleanup," because the Coast Guard sent several oil-collecting barges back to shore due to questions about safety measures (including life vests and fire extinguishers) on the ships.

REALITY: The ships reportedly did lack the required equipment, and there were also concerns about their stability. The Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong reported on June 18:

Sixteen crude-sucking barges are back in the Gulf of Mexico working to clean up oil, but the Coast Guard is defending its decision to ground the vessels because it couldn't verify whether there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board.

"The Coast Guard is not going to compromise safety ... that's our No. 1 priority," Coast Guard spokesman Robert Brassel told The Daily Caller.

[...]

Brassel said the barges are now "back in operating order."

On Thursday night, the Incident Commander in Houma, Roger Laferriere, decided with the captain of the port in New Orleans to inspect the barges when they realized the ships did not have a certificate of inspection to demonstrate safety equipment on board. Thursday morning, the ships were inspected and grounded because they did not have the proper fire-fighting and life-saving equipment. There were also concerns about the stability of the barges. During the day Thursday, the problems were fixed, and the barges are back out on the water today.

A June 17 statement from the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated that the "vacuum barges were temporarily removed from service after safety concerns occurred including stability and the lack of lifesaving and firefighting equipment." A June 19 statement said that "the owner/operator of the barges asked the Coast Guard to inspect the vessels, some under construction, to ensure they were safe" and that "The Coast Guard inspectors made recommendations to the owner/operator regarding lifesaving and firefighting equipment, vessel stability and egress issues, leaving the decision to continue construction and operations with the owner/operator."

Conservative media defend BP against "shakedowns," "show trials," and environmentalists at least 62 times

From media matters:

Media Matters has identified at least 62 recent instances of media conservatives defending BP, 38 of which occurred on the Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, or the talk shows of Fox News hosts. There were at least 21 criticisms of BP's escrow account as an Obama "shakedown" or "slush fund," 10 attacks on President Obama for supposedly "demonizing" BP, 15 examples of conservatives deriding investigations of the company, 12 claims that environmental regulations are responsible for the spill, and five absurd conspiracy theories about the spill.

Right-wing media portray BP as the victim of a "shakedown"

Napolitano: "That is a classic shakedown." On the June 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano stated of the BP escrow account fund designed to aid Gulf residents affected by the oil spill: "The government doesn't have the right -- we don't know what happened in the Oval Office, but you guys reported, and the vice president did not deny, that he walked in and basically said give us the $20 billion or we will take it from you. That is a classic shakedown. The threat to do something that you don't have the right to do." Napolitano also falsely claimed that "the White House is going to distribute" the money in the escrow account, when, in fact, the fund is to be administered by an independent third party.

Ingraham: "Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point" about BP being victims of the Obama administration's "shakedown." On the June 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, referencing Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) claim that the fund resulted from a "shakedown," Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham stated: "I think that Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point. First of all, this administration has taken a very aggressive, and I would say strong-arm approach, to private industry across the board. ... I would rather have this fund ... administered by the local authorities."

Limbaugh: Obama taught students "how to use the Constitution to shake down corporations ... much like he's doing to BP." On the June 17 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, "In reality, [Obama] didn't teach constitutional law. ... What Obama taught was Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, and how to use the Constitution to shake down corporations through race and grievance lawsuits. That's what he taught students at the University of Chicago. Much like he is doing to BP."

JammieWearingFool: Barton's comments are "the truth." In a June 17 post on his blog, JammieWearingFool wrote: "As an American, I'm ashamed of what's been going on at the White House for the past 17 months. Let's hear it for Rep. Joe Barton of Texas who, I'll remind people, is speaking for himself." JammieWearingFool posted a Dallas Morning News article on the statement and wrote, "Aww, the poor babies can't handle the truth."

Big Journalism: Barton's comments were a "relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively." A June 17 Big Journalism post highlighted Barton's comments and criticized the GOP for not defending him, calling his statement a "relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively."

Gingrich: Obama "is directly engaged in extorting money" from BP. On the June 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich responded to Barton's comments by stating that the Obama administration "is directly engaged in extorting money" from BP.

Hoft: "Of course it was a shakedown. It's the Chicago way." In a June 17 post on his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft wrote: "Of course it was a shakedown. It's the Chicago way. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) apologizes to BP for the Barack Obama's '20 Billion Dollar Shakedown.' Well said, Congressman."

Erickson: "Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown." In a June 17 RedState post, Erick Erickson echoed Barton's statement that the deal was a "shakedown," saying, "Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown." From RedState:

Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown.

The White House threatened criminal prosecution of BP, the President gave a miserably received speech, then he hauled BP into the White House and put the Attorney General in the room with the CEO to stare at him, then the President demanded $20 billion.

It was a shakedown.

WSJ: Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown. In a June 18 editorial, The Wall Street Journal stated that BP "does not deserve the apology" offered by Barton, but the Journal agreed that Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown.

Napolitano: If government sues BP to require company to pay for workers' lost wages, "that's theft." On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Napolitano stated:

NAPOLITANO: The government does not have the authority to -- it has the authority to issue the moratorium, which it will issue for political reasons because it wants to get other oil companies out of there, and get the media's eye off the ball of the White House and onto the ball of BP, but it doesn't have the authority to order BP to pay the salaries of those who would have worked in the absence of the moratorium. Therefore if the government wants BP to do that, it will have to sue BP to do it. It can't order BP to do it, if it does, and it takes the money, that's theft.

Beck: "You can't just change the law" to raise BP's liability cap, asks, "Is that what we fought the Nazis for?" On the May 4 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said "Barack Obama and the leftists, now, in the government, led here now by Robert Kennedy Jr., they're making a push today that that cap should be changed. ... Is there anything like the rule of law here? Is there anything -- do they understand how this works? You can't just change the law all of a sudden." Beck later asked: "Did we go and fight Germany for this? Is that what we fought the Nazis for? Is that why those millions of people died?"

Fund on the BP escrow account: "You better believe it's a shakedown." On the June 19 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund said of the BP escrow fund, "You better believe it's a shakedown" and stated that it "goes around the legal process." He further warned that "the United States can resemble a banana republic overnight with the wrong president in charge," and that the fund "effectively says to foreign investors, 'forget the rule of law.' "

Erickson: BP escrow fund is a "shakedown," congressional hearing "was a show trial." On the June 18 edition of CNN's John King USA, when asked if he agreed that the creation of an escrow fund was a "shakedown," Erick Erickson stated: "Well, yeah, I mean I think it was a shakedown. No doubt British Petroleum cooperated in it just like yesterday was a show trial in Congress."

Fox Nation: "Biden Was The BP Shakedown Artist." Fox Nation reposted an item from the blog Weasel Zippers that characterized Vice President Joe Biden as the "shakedown artist" and the "designated Bad Cop." The post included information from the New York Daily News, which reported: "Biden leaned forward and bluntly informed the Blight Brigade they had no choice: If they didn't do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them."

Buchanan: "There's an aspect of shakedown here." On the June 20 edition of The McLaughlin Group, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan repeatedly stated that there was "an aspect of shakedown" to the meeting between BP executives and the Obama administration. He said that having Attorney General Eric Holder present at the meeting in which the escrow fund was discussed was "like having Luca Brasi sitting across saying, 'I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse.' "

Tantaros: BP "slush fund" is a "political shakedown. It's a stickup." On the June 21 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, contributor Andrea Tantaros stated that BP had been the victim of a "political shakedown" and a "stickup" to force the company to fund the $20 billion "slush fund."

Limbaugh: BP "slush fund" is just like "blackmail." On the June 17 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the BP escrow account could be called a "slush fund, extra-Constitutional," or "blackmail." He stated that the creation of the fund is "exactly how a blackmailer will hit you. You give him once and they keep coming back for more. They've got you. You pay one time and they'll keep coming back."

Sowell compares creation of BP escrow fund to the dictatorial powers of Hitler. In his June 21 syndicated column, Thomas Sowell compared the creation of the BP escrow account to "the German Reichstag pass[ing] a law 'for the relief of the German people.'" Sowell asks "[j]ust where in the Constitution of the United states does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere."

Kilmeade "almost" called escrow account a "slush fund." On the June 22 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade referred to the BP escrow account as a "slush fund." From the broadcast:

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): All right, also Feinberg, the guy in charge of putting out all that money for BP -- that $20 billion BP agreed to hand over -- he's already complaining. He's already saying look, we need to get this cash out quicker to the folks who are in need of that. And, by the way, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than $20 billion. I think his quote was 54 billion? I believe it was. $54 billion he's estimating it will cost.

KILMEADE: And you know with that you only get $5 billion a year in to the sl-- uh, I almost said slush fund --

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Into the kitty.

KILMEADE: Into the kitty. So they're going to need more than that.

Limbaugh praised Barton's BP apology as a "home run." Limbaugh opened his June 21 program by saying that Barton "must have hit a home run out there the way these people are reacting to this, talking about the slush fund, apologizing last week to the BP execs for being shaken down by the regime."

Varney: "Hugo Chavez-like" plan amounts to "seizing private assets" and "hav[ing] the White House politicians run the money." On the June 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said the plan to create an escrow account with BP money for gulf relief will "[t]ake the money right off BP and put in some kind of escrow account and have the White House politicians run the money. Taking -- I mean there's no better word for it. It is seizing private assets and sticking them under the control of politicians." Varney asked "who knows what they're going to spend that money on?" Varney also called the plan "Hugo Chavez-like, is it not, to seize a private company's assets."

Conservatives characterized investigations of BP as "Soviet-style" "show trial"

Limbaugh: BP hearings are a "show trial. ... This is what happened in Stalinist Russia." On the June 17 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said of the House's hearings on the oil spill that "what Waxman and these other Democrats want" out of the BP hearings "is for [BP CEO Tony] Hayward and any other BP exec to say things under oath that they can't possible know one way or the other. This is a show trial. If we were back in the era of Stalin -- this is what happened in Stalinist Russia. It's exactly how show trials work. If you translated this into Russian, folks, this is exactly what would be going on in the old Russia, the old pre-Soviet Union days." He added that the hearings are "purely and simply a fraud."

Krauthammer compared the BP hearings to "Inca ritual slaughter." During the June 17 edition of Special Report, Krauthammer said that "these hearings are always just political theatre," but that he "kind of welcome[s] these rituals. We haven't had a good Inca ritual slaughter since the Goldman Sachs hearings." Krauthammer added that unlike with an "Incan ritual slaughter," "we have a scarcity of virgins," and so "we send up a CEO instead. They whack him around for a whole day and everybody goes home happy. The only difference is that our procedure has less blood, but a lot more talking. And I'm not sure which is preferable."

Kristol: "BP is being persecuted by a demagogic congressional committee chairman." Also on the June 17 edition of Special Report, Bill Kristol stated "BP is being persecuted by a demagogic congressional committee chairman, Henry Waxman."

Savage: "The Democrats have held a Stalinist show trial against BP. ... They're very, very clever devils indeed." During the June 17 edition of his show, Michael Savage stated: "All these Congress vermin do is threaten people and sue people. Secondly, while these hearings have been very informative, I would now like to see an equal set of hearings with the government put on the stand." Savage added: "What they've done here is very clever indeed. The Democrats have held a Stalinist show trial against BP. Perhaps rightly so in part, but what they've really done here is pass the buck. They're very, very clever devils indeed. What they've done is put the entire blame -- that is 100 percent of the blame -- on BP rather than on the Obama administration."

Levin claimed "Soviet-style spectacle" of BP hearings is part of "a huge cover-up." On the June 17 edition of his radio show, Mark Levin pushed a conspiracy theory revolving around the BP hearings, stating that "[y]ou have a huge cover-up going on" because the Minerals Management Service [MMS] must have given BP permission to drill. Levin continued: "So we had a Soviet-style spectacle today where they bring in the CEO, this Tony Hayworth [sic] of BP, and they kick him around like a soccer ball. He's been well schooled by his lawyers, so he's not going to say anything that affects him or his company in a detrimental way. Obama's already said we're looking to bring criminal charges and civil charges and all the rest, so of course he's not going to sit there and sing like a bird, but Congress wants you to think it's really, really busy, it's really on your side, so they go through this spectacle."

Erickson: "Only thing separating" BP hearing from "Soviet show trial" is that Hayward "walked out without any lead in him." In a June 17 RedState.com post, Erickson wrote: "And keeping with the honesty, let's also admit the Congressional hearing was a show trial. The only thing separating it from a Soviet show trial is Tony Hayward, the CEO of British Petroleum walked out without any lead in him. The result, however, will be the same as a Soviet show trial: not a single thing will happen. Nothing."

Beck compared BP hearings to McCarthy hearings, feeding Christians to lions. On the June 18 edition of his radio program, Beck asked during a discussion of the BP hearings, "How do we not see the McCarthy hearings in this and everything else that is going on in Washington?" He went on to criticize the tone of the hearings, stating, "If you have all of the facts, if you can nail them to the wall, there's no reason to get nasty." Beck concluded: "We are in a thugocracy. We are being run by criminals, and we've got a little puppet show just to entertain the masses. Why don't we bring some Christians out and feed them to lions?"

Beck on BP hearings: "[W]e've got Salem witch trials going on in Washington, D.C." On the June 18 broadcast of his radio show, Beck asserted: "Instead of saying to BP, 'Can you do this -- yes or no?' 'What are you doing?' 'How can we help you shutting it down?' Instead, no, no, no, we've got Salem witch trials going on in Washington, D.C." He went on to call the lawmakers involved "thugs and bullies."

Beck: Lawmakers in BP hearing "will be held in front of an eternal judge" and "will be praying" for "the mercy of Guantánamo." During the same June 18 broadcast, Beck attacked the lawmakers, asking, "Why don't you ask these dumb questions after we've stopped the oil leak?" He then said: "All of these people should be not only ashamed of themselves, they will be held in front of an eternal judge for what they have done to this country. ... They will be held in front of an eternal judge and they will be praying, praying, for the mercy of Guantánamo when they face that judge."

Beck claimed "[t]here is no investigation going on" and suggested lawmakers' only expertise is "stealing from the American people." During the same broadcast of his show, Beck said of the federal government's investigation into BP: "They're not investigating. They are making speeches on television. That's all they're doing. There is no investigation going on here." Beck then suggested that the government instead investigate the details of one of his conspiracy theories, stating: "So you want to do some investigation? We have some investigation. You want to do some investigation? Go out -- send an investigator. You people in Washington, I don't even know what you do. What is your expertise besides stealing from the American people?"

Urbanski: "Rush was accurate" in calling hearings "Soviet-style public trial. ... It was horrible to watch." On the June 18 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Douglas Urbanski called the hearings "theater" and then stated: "I think Rush was very accurate when he called it a Soviet-style public trial. You know, in Japan, they commit hara-kiri over things like this. We don't do this in the United States. It was sort of -- it was sort of horrible to watch."

Buchanan: Tony Hayward testimony was "a Stalin show trial." On the June 20 edition of The McLaughlin Group, Buchanan stated that Hayward's testimony was a "Stalin show trial." Buchanan also said that Hayward took "his beating like a man" and was "contrite."

Fox Nation calls BP hearing a "show trial." On June 18, Fox Nation's home page referred to the hearings as a "show trial," and displayed the following text from a Wall Street Journal editorial:

There was in particular no reason for BP to compound its error and agree to spend another $100 million to compensate the oil workers sidelined by the Administration's policy choice to impose a drilling moratorium. BP had no liability for these costs, and its concession further separated its compensation from proper legal order. BP deserves to pay full restitution for the damage it has caused, but it ought to do so via legal means, not under what Texas Republican Joe Barton rightly called the pressure of "a shakedown" yesterday. On the other hand, BP does not deserve the apology that Mr. Barton also offered, though he quickly backtracked when the White House pounced on his comments.

Kilmeade suggests criminal inquiry into oil spill "just tank[ed] the market," asks, "Was that smart?" On the June 2 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated, "The Department of Justice is probing, and for a myriad of reasons, it looks like, into BP and what they've done and what they could have violated." He then suggested that the announcement of the investigations "drop[ped] BP's stock 15 percent" and "just tank[ed] the market," and asked, "Was that smart?" Co-host Steve Doocy replied, "Maybe not, because if they're facing all these lawsuits, suddenly, where's that money going to come from?"

Krauthammer: Announcing criminal investigation into BP oil leak is "entirely unnecessary." On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "It is not so that the administration has not had an effect on the price -- on the share price [of BP stock]. On the day that it was announced that we were going to go after the oil company criminally, there was a collapse of the price, and that was the kind of escalation that was entirely unnecessary."

Conservatives criticize Obama for "demonizing" BP

Varney: The federal government has "demonized" and "looted" BP. Appearing on the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, Varney stated: "BP was prepared to meet all genuine claims, all viable claims. It said frequently it would pay legitimate claims. Not good enough for the government. They have successfully demonized and now looted BP."

Barnes' advice to Obama: "Stop demonizing BP." Discussing public approval ratings of Obama's handling of the spill, on the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News political contributor Fred Barnes said that Obama could "turn those poll numbers around" by ending the six-month moratorium on offshore drilling and "particularly stop demonizing BP."

Newsmax's Kessler: Obama has "confused the good guys with the bad guys by demonizing BP." Newsmax's Ronald Kessler wrote in a June 14 article: "Count on Obama to emerge from the meeting with BP full of bravado, childishly saying he is trying to determine 'whose ass to kick.' " Kessler continued: "But having confused the good guys with the bad guys by demonizing BP, Obama has torpedoed his own efforts."

Hoenig: Congressional hearings are "about humiliating CEOs and demonizing big oil." Appearing on Fox Business Network's Cavuto, guest Jonathan Hoenig commented: "Well, this wasn't about solutions, Neil. This wasn't about cleaning up the oil spill. This is about humiliating CEOs and demonizing big oil, not unlike the Toyota hearings, not unlike the bank hearings. I mean, that was the purpose of today's hearings."

Varney: Obama's response is to "[d]emonize BP, seize its assets, raise taxes on energy." Appearing on Hannity, Varney stated: "The administration's response can be summed up as follows: Demonize BP, seize its assets, raise taxes on energy, and therefore raise prices, pile on regulation, appoint a commission, all to gloss over the failure to deal promptly with the oil spill. And then give us pipe dreams about a green future."

Palin: "[W]e can't afford to demonize" BP. On The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News' Sarah Palin complained that "we can't afford to demonize these energy producers to such an extent, though, that they go under. We do need to work with them, though, but we need to verify everything it is and hold them accountable for all that they have done in this situation."

Crowley: "[T]his is his default position: demonize BP." On The McLaughlin Group, radio host and Fox News political analyst Monica Crowley commented: "Look, this is nothing new coming from this president. He needs an enemy, John. He has demonized the banks, demonized Wall Street, demonized health care companies, demonized Fox News, demonized the Republicans. So it's -- this is his default position: demonize BP, when what the White House should be doing -- there will be plenty of time to assign blame, do the lawsuits, do the culpability. But right now, they should be working as partners to try to plug the damn hole and get the area cleaned up."

Krauthammer: "[D]eclaring war on the oil company, at this time, and in a criminal way, I think is really distasteful." On the June 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer stated of Holder's announcement that he is launching an investigation into the oil spill: "I think what the attorney general did today is somewhat over the line ... I might have missed it but I didn't hear a syllable about what evidence he has of criminal activity here." Krauthammer later said: "So they want to make it look like they are doing something, but declaring war on the oil company, at this time, and in a criminal way, I think is really distasteful. It's not going to help anybody."

Varney: "All it does is divert attention. You demonize and divert attention from your responsibility." Discussing the DOJ investigation on the June 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox Business host Stuart Varney asked: "What good does it do to threaten criminal charges to try to ruin British Petroleum? What good does it do?" He then stated: "All it does is divert attention. You demonize and divert attention from your responsibility."

Fox News' Payne: White House aims "vitriol" at BP but not at terrorists. On the May 8 edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business, Fox Business contributor Charles Payne stated: "A lot of this emanates from the White House. The White House is going to put a boot on the neck of BP, but they never used that kind of vitriol when it comes to Islam, or even terrorism."

Conservatives falsely claim that environmentalists are to blame for BP spill because they blocked "safer drilling areas"

Despite conservative claims to the contrary, increase in deepwater drilling actually due to region's large oil reserves and was championed by Bush administration, oil industry. As Media Matters has documented, both Bush administration reports and the oil industry itself touted the vast reserves of oil available in the deepwater regions of the Gulf of Mexico.

Palin: "Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas." On June 2, Fox News' Sarah Palin posted an entry on Facebook to attack "radical environmentalists" who she blamed for "making drilling more dangerous." Palin stated that the oil spill "proves" that environmentalists' "lies about onshore and shallow water drilling" are "catching up with" them. Palin criticized "extreme 'environmentalists' " for supposedly "hypocritically protest[ing] domestic energy production offshore and onshore." She called their efforts "misguided, nonsensical radicalism," and contends that "there's nothing 'clean and green' about [their] efforts." From Palin's post:

This is a message to extreme "environmentalists" who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing "clean and green" about your efforts. Look, here's the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them. Some of these countries don't like America. Some of these countries don't care for planet earth like we do -- as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.

With your nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you're doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You're not preventing environmental hazards; you're outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.

Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.

[...]

Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There's nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.

Krauthammer: We're drilling deep because "environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coasts off-limits to oil production." In a May 28 column, Krauthammer blasted environmentalists for driving oil companies into deeper waters. Krauthammer concluded that "we [are] drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place" in part because "[e]nvironmental chic has driven us out there."

Doocy: "Back in the day, they used to just drill pretty close to shore," but environmentalists "pushed them out further and further." On the June 3 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated that "back in the day they used to just drill pretty close to shore," but "as the environmentalists said there's a real danger here, they pushed them out further and further." Doocy then cited an editorial in Investor's Business Daily that he said made the "good point" that "questions would this be so tough to cap and stop if it weren't pushed into water almost a mile deep by environmentalists."

IBD: "Environmentalism... help[ed] make" oil spill "possible." In the June 1 editorial Doocy cited, IBD stated, "Environmentalism did not cause the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, but it did help make it possible," and suggested that "if British Petroleum and others were not barred from drilling in ANWR or in the shallower water of the Outer Continental Shelf, we might not be having this conversation."

Limbaugh: "What the environmentalist wackos are making us do is drill down 35,000 feet." Rush Limbaugh claimed on the May 17 broadcast of his radio show: "What the environmentalist wackos are making us do is drill down 35,000 feet, 6.6 miles, when there's oil practically begging to be taken out of the ground in areas that are now off-limits because of U.S. regime regulations."

Kristol: If it weren't for restrictions "after the Santa Barbara incident 40 years ago," we would be drilling closer to shore, "which is probably less dangerous." In a May 2 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol placed blame for the spill on regulations that pushed drilling "50 miles out from the coast." Kristol called himself a "drill-baby-drill person" and went on to suggest that ANWR land be made available for oil extraction, where "there are no waves, there's no ocean," and it is "perfectly easy to drill." Kristol likened the restrictions on drilling in the Gulf to restrictions on nuclear power after the Three Mile Island meltdown, which he claimed even environmentalists agree "was a wild overreaction."

Doocy and Varney agree: "We know why they drill in the deep water, environmentalists pushed them out from the shallow water." On the June 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated "We know why [oil companies] drill in the deep water, environmentalists pushed them out from the shallow water." Varney agreed, "That's why we're not drilling in Alaska, not drilling in the shallow water. We've been pushed out in the deep water where it's difficult and dangerous."

Fox's Napolitano: "The feds decided where [BP's] oil well would be drilled." In the opening monologue of the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, guest host Andrew Napolitano said that the federal government is "able to tell the oil companies where to drill," later adding that "the feds decided where this oil well would be drilled."

Big Government's Flynn: "The federal government made them drill in water that deep." Also on the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, Mike Flynn, editor in chief of Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, said of the BP oil well location: "The federal government made them drill in water that deep, let's be clear about that."

O'Reilly: The environmental movement "absolutely did" contribute to the oil spill. On the June 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly, while commenting on a Time magazine piece, stated, "What Time magazine ignores and what absolutely did contribute to the disaster is the intense environmental movement, which has prevented much shallow water drilling, and the ANWR arctic exploration."

Napolitano: The government made BP "drill in 5,000 feet of water instead of 500." On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Napolitano said the "government made BP drill in 5,000 feet of water instead of 500 feet of water."

Right-wing media invent conspiracy theories about the oil spill

Limbaugh suggested that "environmental whackos" may have blown up oil rig to "head off more oil drilling." On his April 29 radio show, Rush Limbaugh questioned "the timing" of the explosion and said: "Lest we forget ... the cap and trade bill was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist whackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants." Limbaugh added: "[W]hat better way to head off more oil drilling and nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig? I'm just, I'm just noting the timing here."

Perino: "[W]as this deliberate?" On the May 3 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the spill: "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You know, you have to wonder ... if there was sabotage involved."

Bolling falsely claimed it was "nine days before" the leak "was even addressed" and asked, "Did they let this thing leak? ... if they're going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it." On the May 3 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business Network host Eric Bolling said: "The question is ... why the delay in the response? You guys were pointing out, nine days before it was even addressed, 12 days before he made a formal comment. The question is, did they let this thing leak? I mean, BP said maybe a thousand barrels a day, it went to five thousand. Did they let it leak a little bit and say, boy I don't know. I mean, the conspiracy theorists would say, 'maybe they'd let it leak for a while, and then they addressed the issue.' " Bolling added: "It would be a humongous accusation and probably the net result would be no different, but if they're going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it."

Bolling asks if Obama "let" oil rig leak so he "could renege on his promise" to "allow some offshore drilling." On the May 27 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, host Eric Bolling asked guest Alan Colmes "Are you sure they didn't let [the oil spill] leak so he could renege on his promise to allow some offshore drilling?"

Michael Brown on Fox News: Obama wanted oil spill so he could "shut down" offshore drilling. On the May 3 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, former FEMA chief Michael Brown repeatedly suggested that the Obama administration deliberately chose to let the BP oil spill "get really bad" so it would have an "excuse" to "shut down offshore drilling."