Not two days after getting his clock cleaned in the first debate, George Bush is back at his old tricks, misrepresenting what John Kerry said:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - President Bush said on Saturday Democrat John Kerry's debate remark that U.S. preemptive military action should be subject to a "global test" would give other nations a veto over American national security decisions.
. . .
Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
. . .
Bush called it the "Kerry doctrine" and summed it up this way: "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use troops to defend ourselves." The friendly crowd responded with boos for Kerry.

"Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions," he said.

There are, of course, two things Bush gets wrong in this assessment.

First, "pre-emptive" war and defending ourselves are not necessarily the same thing at all, as Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq amply demonstrates. Second, as a Kerry spokesman pointed out today, "The global test is not asking for a permission slip. It's making sure that your decisions stand up to scrutiny and are backed by facts."

The "global test" Kerry was referring to was not a poll of world opinion, and it was not asking for permission. He was referring to a course of action in which "your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

In other words, he's talking about the same thing he's always talked about: only taking action when there's a darned good, legitimate reason and you've made those reasons clear.

Mr. Bush is once again lying about his opponent and lying about the war in Iraq. But it's all he has.

Those who follow such things know that Fox News is hardly the "Fair and Balanced" news source it claims to be. In the past two years, they've been rocked by scandal after scandal throwing light on the clear right wing, pro-GOP slant they bring to their reporting.

The first incident that comes to mind is a court case in February, 2003, in which Fox News argued (successfully) that they had the right to lie to and deliberately mislead their viewers:

A Florida Appeals court ruled on February 14 that it is legal for press organizations to lie, conceal, or distort information. The decision, which reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of Fox Television journalist Jane Akre, declares that no law is being broken if false information is given in a television broadcast.

In the August 2000 trial, Akre charged she was pressured by management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information in a story about the use of growth hormones in dairy cows. The six-person jury was unanimous in concluding that Akre was fired because she threatened to report the station for pressuring her to report the false information.

Fox’s attorneys’ arguments failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case dismissed since there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the airwaves.

In a written decision, the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

(More here)

In March of this year, when the Richard Clarke story was breaking, Fox News released the transcript of an interview with Clarke that had been conducted "on background" (meaning Clarke was not to be identified). Clarke's statements from the interview were taken out of context and used in an attempt to discredit him and the damning things he was saying about the Bush administration at the time. Apart from the fact that the White House released the transcript, Fox News apparently requested permission to release Clarke's name, which raised serious ethical questions regarding Fox. Clarke's interview with Fox was done with the understanding, between Clarke and Fox, that he would not be identified. Yet Fox News sought the permission of the White House to abgrogate that understanding in an effort to do damage control for the Bush administration.

In July of this year, a slew of internal Fox News memos came to light that brought into stark relief just how much the "news" network deliberately slants its coverage.

At around the same time, Britian's Office of Communications cited Fox News for deliberately spreading misinformation (which is against the law in the UK).

And now, thanks to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, we have cut-and-dry evidence that Fox News' chief political correspondent has virulently anti-Kerry views, and feels comfortable about expressing them internally to other Fox News staffers:

Is Fox News literally making stuff up out of whole cloth about John Kerry?

I don't expect much from this Republican operation. But this does seem to break new ground.

If you go to the front page of the Fox News site, there's a link right there up front to "Trail Tales: What's that Face".

. . .

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.

. . .

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.

. . .

"I'm metrosexual — he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.

It has now been revealed that Cameron (the author of the piece) made up these quotes as part of a "joke" and forwarded them. They were "accidently" included in the piece that appeared temporarily on Fox's site.

Folks, this isn't a "joke". I know of employees at actual news outfits that get in trouble merely for having political signs in their yards. Yet Fox News sees fit to employ people, in positions to heavily influence political reporting, with known political biases on par with those found at "Free Republic" and "Little Green Footballs"? Employees who express such views to each other, and joke amongst themselves about it?

Fox News likes to pretend that they're the "Fair and Balanced" ones because it muddies the waters, potentially fooling some uninformed people into taking their word for things. But the facade is getting harder and harder to maintain...