Following Colorado Media Matters item, Rosen acknowledged using Bill Clinton quote from a source that provided it "out of context"

Summary: Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen admitted on his February 12 broadcast that during his February 1 program he had used a quotation from former President Bill Clinton that his source for the quote had taken "out of context." On the earlier broadcast, Rosen repeated the false claim that Clinton stated, "We have to slow down our economy to fight global warming," as Colorado Media Matters noted -- but Rosen did not provide the actual quote.

Following a February 4 Colorado Media Matters item noting that Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen had echoed a false claim that former president Bill Clinton stated, "We have to slow down our economy to fight global warming," Rosen acknowledged on his February 12 broadcast that his source for Clinton's quote -- the Drudge Report -- had taken it "out of context."

As Colorado Media Matters noted, Rosen told his listeners on February 1 that he was going to share "a quote from Bill Clinton ... where he talked about what we can do to mitigate global warming is to slow down our economy." Although Rosen stated that Clinton "actually said that," Rosen never provided the actual quote during his broadcast.

On February 12, Rosen admitted having read Clinton's quote, which came from a speech the former president made at a January 30 rally in Denver, "in very summary fashion" on the Drudge Report, where "Clinton was taken out of context." Rosen added, "So, in fairness to Clinton, he wasn't proposing that we slow down our economy. He was saying if we did that, it wouldn't solve the problem, because other nations in the world wouldn't follow suit. Fair enough."

Media Matters for America noted that in a January 31 post on his ABCNews.com blog, Political Punch, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper falsely suggested that Clinton advocated "slow[ing] down our economy" as a strategy to combat climate change. The Drudge Report linked to Tapper's post under the similarly misleading headline, "Bill Clinton: 'We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy' to Fight Global Warming ..."

From the February 12 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: I want to tie something that Bill Ritter has said on several occasions in with something that Bill Clinton said just a week or two ago. Governor Ritter talks about this new energy economy we're going to develop in Colorado. I talked to, at least briefly, with Paul Chesser about that in the last hour. And we may well -- excuse me -- we may -- that's hard to say. We may well create a new energy economy, and we may have to do that out of necessity. But it's not necessarily beneficial economically. The example I gave was, we could have a new agricultural economy based on labor replacing technology. And that would no doubt create jobs, but they'd be far less inefficient jobs than would be the case if that labor were better applied to some area in our economy where they could operate more productively. Get rid of all of the tractors, and have people engage in stoop labor. A new economy for sure, but not an economy that would enhance our standard of living, it would detract from our standard of living.

Bill Clinton did an interview with -- let's see -- ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, and offered something that was picked up by Matt Drudge and sent out on the Drudge Report. And when I first saw this -- and I guess this was a couple of weeks ago -- in very summary fashion, the quote that was going around was, Clinton saying as follows -- this was how it was summarized in this posting on Drudge: "We have to slow down our economy to save the planet from global warming." Well, subsequently, I had a chance to read the entire quote in context. And Clinton was taken out of context. But what he said in full context ties into the point I'm trying to make about a new economy not necessarily being a better economy.

The first part of his quote read, "And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich countries -- would say, OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions, 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren. We could do that." And that's where the first reports ended. Well, what he said immediately after that is relevant. He said, "But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China, and India, and Indonesia, and Vietnam, and Mexico, and Brazil, and the Ukraine, and all of the other countries, will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this" -- and by do this he means save the planet and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions -- "The only way that we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's the only way that it will work." So in fairness to Clinton, he wasn't proposing that we slow down our economy. He was saying if we did that, it wouldn't solve the problem, because other nations in the world wouldn't follow suit. Fair enough.

But then when he simply asserts that if we adopt his global warming strategy or the strategy of others, and "prove it's good economics," and that "we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren," there's a key assumption in there. And that is that it is good economics. And again, in order to save the planet -- and I don't buy into this for a second, because I don't believe that human activity plays a very significant role in climate change.

—C.H.