Anonymous WND Attack on Clinton Conflicts With Fellow Clinton-Hater Topic: WorldNetDaily
A June 13 WorldNetDaily article quotes an anonymous "long-time aide" to the Clintons as saying that "Bill and Hillary Clinton had a secret pact to first take turns as governor of Arkansas, then as U.S. president, but Bill at the last minute reneged on his end of the deal."
The blinking red light here is that the source is anonymous. That person is further described in the article as a "confidante, who has been with Clinton from the start" and a "well-placed source," but no explanation is offered as to why this person demanded -- and WND granted him/her -- anonymity.
This is a reminder that WND has no reservations about jettisoning what little journalistic integrity it has in order to advance its political agenda, a key component of which is a white-hot hatred of the Clintons. Remember what WND editor Joseph Farah himself has said about quotes from anonymous sources: that they're "usually quotes made up out of whole cloth to help make the story read better."
Nevertheless, WND has no reservation about resorting to anonymous sources when it deems necessary. For example, it used an anonymous source in 2002 to claim that the Clintons were mean to their pets.
The WND story continues:
In 1990, Bill Clinton was supposed to retire as governor of Arkansas and support his wife in that role, the long-time aide told WND in an exclusive interview. But he changed his mind about giving up the post and kept his decision from Hillary.
"Bill screwed Hillary over when he announced his plans to run for re-election in Arkansas," said the aide, who insisted on anonymity.
"He was supposed to step aside and let Hillary run for governor," he said.
"But he didn't tell Hillary about his change of plans, and she heard it when she was sitting behind him when he made the announcement."
This conflicts with the record of that time told by a different Clinton-hater, Dick Morris. From his 2004 attack book "Rewriting History":
As it came to seem less likely that Bill was going to run for governor [in 1990], another lost chapter in Hillary's life transpired: The first lady of Arkansas decide that she would try to become governor. ... With a giddy expectancy she began planning her own run for office.
They asked me to conduct a poll to assess her chances of winning, and I greed.
But the results that came back were devastating, and they would have a crucial impact on Hillary's political development: According to the poll numbers, she couldn't win. It wasn't that people didn't like her. In fact, she was quite popular. But voters just didn't feel she could be her own person as governor. They worried that she would just be a placeholder for Bill, a warm body to keep the governorship in the family -- who would step aside should her husband's presidential race fall short.
There was some precedent for the idea -- but it was the wrong kind of precedent. when Alabama's term limits law had made Governor George Wallace retire in 1966, he persuaded his wife, Lurleen, to run in his place. After she died in office (and her term was completed by the state's lieutenant governor), he came back for eight more years in office. Now, as we discussed hillary's potential candidacy, I made a big mistake: I referred to the Arkansas voters' reaction as "the Lurleen Wallace factor."
They [the Clintons] actually insisted that I take a second poll, reminding the respondents more explicitly of her achievements (which Bill listed for me at tedious length). But it was no use. The voters just refused to see Hillary as anything but Bill's puppet.
In other words, by Morris' account, Hillary didn't run for Arkansas governor in 1990 because polling showed she couldn't win, not because Bill pulled a switcheroo on her in public.
Morris' account is Carl Bernstein's Hillary bio, which the WND article described as stating that "does not allude to any betrayal, though, and suggests Hillary simply changed her mind about running." WND did not note that Morris is the source for Bernstein's account, nor, strangely, did it note that Bernstein wrote the book, identifying it only by title. Similarly, WND identified the Hillary book by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, "Her Way," only by title and not mentioning the authors, repeating that book's claim that the Clintons had a "secret pact of ambition" without noting that questions have been raised about that claim.
(We would add that Morris is a likely possibility for WND's anonymous source since 1) this account conflicts with what he said publicly and 2) he works for the competition, NewsMax.)
So, which Clinton-hater are we to trust? WND's anonymous source (who can be assumed to be a Clinton-hater simply by virtue of collaborating with WND), or Dick Morris?
As we've seen with Joe Scarborough, the conservatives at NewsBusters deal harshly with fellow conservatives who deviate from the orthodoxy.
It happens again in a June 13 post by Mark Finkelstein, who bashes conservative Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby for daring to voice opinions on immigration that don't conform to conservative opinion. Finkelstein writes that Jacoby's column "could just as easily have been written by his erstwhile Globe colleague Thomas Oliphant, the quintessential effete East Coast liberal" and -- just as Finkelstein colleague Tim Graham suggested Scarborough was suffereing from Stockholm syndrome from hanging around all those liberals at MSNBC -- asks, "Is liberalism contagious?" concluding: "Has Jeff acquired some fuzzy liberal thinking via osmosis? Could it be time for him to take a Beantown break and recharge his conservative batteries elsewhere?"
Nowhere does Finkelstein allow for the possibility that Jacoby -- as a fellow conservative deviating from the conservative norm -- might have a point worth looking into. Finkelstein specifically attacks Jacoby's statement that a Mexico border wall would be "a Berlin-style wall of our own": "As commentators from Rush to Rich Lowry have pointed out, the Berlin Wall was built to keep its people in -- to render them prisoners in their own country. The border fence is there to keep people out. And any country that doesn't control its borders will eventually cease to be a country. It's disappointing that Jacoby doesn't acknowledge this." As Berlin proved, a border wall is fraught with symbolism, and Finkelstein shows no recognition that a U.S.-Mexico border wall can arguably be seen the same way.
GOP-Appointed Judges Aren't Hacks -- But Clinton-Appointed Judges Are Topic: NewsBusters
A June 12 NewsBusters post by Robert Knight led readers to a piece by Jan LaRue for the Knight-headed, MRC-operated Culture & Media Institute complaining about a Washington Post article on the Bush administration's politicization of the hiring process for immigrantion judges. In response, both Knight and LaRue cited the qualifications of a single immigration judge; Knight added, "If he’s a hack, we could use more hacks."
Knight and LaRue might want to drop an interoffice e-mail to Brent Baker, who used a June 11 NewsBusters post (and June 12 CyberAlert item) to similarly complain that network didn't note that two judges who ruled against the Bush administration's "policy of holding a sleeper cell suspect at a military brig without redress in civilian courts" were Clinton appointees.
In other words, to apply Knight and LaRue's line of reasoning, Baker is saying that all Clinton judicial appointees are hacks. But if it's OK to assume that Clinton appointees are ipso facto hacks, why isn't OK to assume that Bush appointees are as well? It's the same thought process, right?
Indeed, while Knight and LaRue were eager to detail the qualifications of a single judge in an attempt to show that the exception proves the rule, Baker pussyfoots around the qualifications of the Clinton appointees he clearly detests, linking to their bios only to show that they were indeed appointed by Clinton -- though one, Roger Gregory, was a recess appointment that President Bush renominated in 2001, which suggests by the magic Republican nomination method that he must not be a hack after all (unless a Clinton nomination stains the nominee with some sort of hackery taint that can't be removed even by the purifying power of a Bush nomination). Baker offers no evidence, other than who appointed them and issuing a ruling that contradicts a president he supports, that these judges are hacks.
So Knight and LaRue may want to have a little chat about double standards with Baker -- unless they believe that all Clinton appointees are ipso facto hacks as well.
Klein Repeats Unverified Attack on Peres Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a Jun 12 WorldNetDaily article reporting that "some" have accused Shimon Peres of "invoking the name of God to pander to the crucial religious vote," Aaron Klein repeated unverified accusations of "anti-Jewish quotes made by Peres to the media." As we've detailed, Klein declared them "purported" quotes without offering any evidence that Peres did, in fact, say what he is accused of saying to the context in which the word were allegedly said.
Klein also quoted "Rabbi Joseph Garlitsky, chief rabbi of Center Tel Aviv" attacking Peres: "Peres' relationship with God is something that is personal to him. But until he repents, until he comes out and says he made major mistakes with the Oslo Accords and with upholding PLO Leader Yasser Arafat as a partner for peace, and with urging withdrawals and land giveaways, bringing massive bloodshed to the Jewish state, he is not allowed to be president." But in a November 2005 WND article, Klein identified him (spelled "Gerlitzky") as chairman of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace -- a conservative group that has repeatedlyattacked Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In other words, this is a political attack on Peres that Klein has refused to properly identify as such.
Interesting that Klein is suddenly roused to attack the non-conservative Peres when he couldn't be bothered to report on the rape scandal involving conservative Israeli President Moshe Katsav. Can you say bias?
We've previously noted that xenophobic Ralph Hostetter has a certain, shall we say, animosity toward Asian immigrants, ostensibly because they "bring a different culture to America."
Hostetter ratcheted that up a bit in a June 8 NewsMax column, in which he called for the U.S. to "repeal the infamous 1965 Immigration Act with its provisions that favor Asian immigrants five to one over Anglo-Europeans."
We wonder about Hostetter's hostility toward Asians, given that most other anti-immigration conservatives have chosen Hispanics as the ethnic group to demonize. Perhaps he needs to do an entire column on the Asian menace to explain the issue to his readers -- and while he's at it, explain whether he supports a return to the racist, eugenicist 1924 immigration laws that banned all Asian immigration to the U.S. as "undesirable."
MRC: Immigration Coverage Not Slanted Enough Topic: Media Research Center
In a June 11 MRC "Media Reality Check," Rich Noyes complained that network coverage of the immigration reform bill refused to parrot conservative talking points (not in so many words, of course). The offenses:
CBS "profiled an illegal immigrant working as a housekeeper." Gasp! Immigrants can't be treated as human!
Reporters "matter-of-factly used the positive adjective 'reform' to describe the Senate bill, but only twice did reporters refer to it as 'amnesty.' " Horrors! Of course, Noyes doesn't mention that "amnesty" is a preferred right-wing term for the bill, or even explain why "amnesty" should be used "matter-of-factly."
Noyes complained that 'Most reports (75%) uncritically described the bill as one that 'would toughen border security' " without explaining why it purportedly doesn't.
Noyes also complained that "The costs of illegal immigration were mentioned just twice," but in citing one accounting of those costs, a Heritage Foundation report estimating that the costs "could be more than $2.5 trillion over the next two decades," Noyes neglected to note that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative group that opposes the current immigration bill.
Noyes concluded: "The networks’ paltry coverage makes one wonder if they are still equipped to adequately cover big debates like immigration, or if that job has already been yielded to energetic talk radio." So, "energetic" is now some euphemism for "conservative bias"?
CNS Suddenly Decides Mice Are Good Research Subjects Topic: CNSNews.com
An April 11 CNSNews.com article by Patrick Goodenough bashed Sen. John Kerry for citing research which he said had used embryonic stem cells to "cure" a mouse -- but, Goodenough wrote, "the mouse wasn't cured, and the research he referred to fell far short of the scores of treatments already being carried out using non-controversial 'adult' stem cells." (As we've noted, that claim about adult stem cell treatments is highly misleading.)
In contrast, a June 7 CNS article by Katherine Poythress enthusiastically reported on "three different group studies" that "document the successful creation of stem cells without destroying human embryos." But you have to read farther down to learn that human cells were not involved; the research involved mice.
Interesting change in tone there -- mice were unreliable as a research subject potentially extrapolated to humans when they support the idea of embryonic stem cell research, but are directly applicable when supporting non-embryonic research (indeed, there's no evidence at this point that the procedure in question would work on humans).
More Agenda-Hiding and Unverified Claims from Aaron Klein Topic: WorldNetDaily
A June 11 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein reported a statement by the Rabbinical Congress for Peace that Shimon Peres is an "existential threat" to Israel. As per usual, Klein does not mention that the Rabbinical Congress for Peace is a right-wing group that, among other things, urged an uprising to bring down the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Also per usual, Klein does not permit the target of the congress' proclamation to respond to it.
Klein also uses his article to further attack Peres, which he has done in the past:
Peres has multiple times been accused of making anti-religious statements.
A list of purported anti-Jewish quotes made by Peres to the media were recently plastered around religious communities by a group calling itself the Committee for Jewish Holiness.
Among the documented Peres statements listed were:
"What King David did was not Jewish."
"The rabbis are deceivers."
"There is nothing to be proud of in Jewish history."
But though he called the statements "purported," Klein makes no effort to verify the accuracy of the statements attributed to Peres, let alone detail the full context of those statements if indeed they are accurate. Klein also fails to offer any further information on the Committee for Jewish Holiness, suggesting that it too, like the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, is a right-wing group. (We know that Klein prefers to whitewash the backgrounds of the right-wing groups he reports on.)
Finally, Klein buries the controversy surrounding former Israeli president Moshe Katsav, noting only that he "lost his position amid a rape scandal." Nowhere does Klein note that Katsav is a member of the conservative Likud party. As we've noted, Klein has all but ignored the Katsav scandal, something Klein likely would have not done had Katsav belonged to, say, Olmert's Kadima party.
Huston's Selective Criticism of Thompson Critics Continues Topic: NewsBusters
A June 9 NewsBusters post by Warner Todd Huston criticized a Los Angeles Times article noting that Fred Thompson "is lending his voice to radio commercials for a company that says it fights identity thieves and that was co-founded by a man accused of taking money from consumer bank accounts without permission." Huston called the article "one lame attempt to cast Senator Thompson in a bad light. And it is another example of the MSM looking to stick a pin in Thompson's big poll ratings, it appears."
Once again, Huston fails to note that it's not only "the MSM" that has reported criticism of Thompson and, in fact, it was conservatives such as NewsMax and MRC sister site CNSNews.com that have led the way in "sticking a pin in Thompson's big poll ratings." And WorldNetDaily has now joined in with a June 10 article claiming that " Doubts continue to swirl over Fred Thompson's faith even among members of his own church," citing a professor at a private religious school who "issued a challenge on the Internet to anyone who can come up with evidence that Thompson, now an actor, is active in the Church of Christ." And in a June 11 WND column, Vox Day declares that Thompson "is actually one of the less Conservative candidates" and is "pro-choice."
If Huston is going to attack criticism of Thompson, shouldn't he attack all criticism of Thompson? Or does conservative media get a pass?
In a June 9 NewsBusters post on former TV anchor Bree Walker buying Cindy Sheehan's "Camp Casey" land in Texas, Noel Sheppard writes, "The next time someone tells you that there aren’t any liberals in the media, make sure to point out the following to said person."
Nice straw man there, Noel. First, nobody is credibly arguing that liberals don't work in the media; the debate is over whether liberals advance their views through their news reporting, something for which Sheppard offer no evidence that Walker did while she was an anchor. Second, Walker no longer works in "the media" as a news anchor; as Sheppard himself notes, she is now a " 'progressive' talk radio host" (yes, "progressive" is inexplicably in scare quotes).
By the same standard, Sheppard should also be attacking another radio host, Melanie Morgan, for trying to buy Sheehan's land through her Move America Forward group. But apparently Sheppard doesn't apply the same rules of conduct to conservatives as he does to liberals.
One hot topic on the ConWeb of late -- mainly to deflect attention from Scooter Libby's conviction and sentencing on perjury and obstruction charges -- is discussion of the idea (if not fervent hope) that Valerie Plame committed perjury when she testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform earlier this year that she did not "recommend" or "suggest" that her husband, Joseph Wilson, take a fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002 to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been trying to buy uranium. The claim is based on a recently released memo by Republicans on the committee. The claim has been championed across the ConWeb:
A May 25 National Review article by Byron York claimed the memo "show[ed] Mrs. Wilson suggesting her husband for the trip."
A May 26 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard cited York's article to suggest that Plame "committed perjury."
A June 1 NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd mentioned "the recent allegation that Plame perjured herself in congressional testimony," linking to Sheppard's post.
A June 1 NewsMax article by Ken Timmerman claimed that "The Valerie Plame e-mail shows without any doubt that she recommended her husband for the mission in Niger." Timmerman repeated his claim in a June 8 FrontPageMag article. Timmerman's personal website goes on to claim that Plame "was hoping" that the memo "would remain classified" and that it "shows beyond any doubt who sent Joe Wilson to Niger in Feburary 2002."
But does it? To coin a phrase, it depends on your definition of "recommend." The key passage from Plame's memo that Timmerman, Sheppard, et al., have touted as the smoking gun is this:
So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
Timmerman, et al's definition of "recommended," it seems, is based on proactiveness on Plame's part -- that Plame approached CIA officials with the idea of sending Wilson to Niger and intensely lobbied for him to go on the trip. In fact, as the memo states, it was the CIA that first "approached" Wilson.
While Plame goes on to state Wilson's qualifications for such a trip, the fact that she immediately states afterward that she was "hesitant to suggest anything again" shows that she was hardly lobbying for Wilson, as does her statement that she sought the "thoughts" of others on the issue.
Despite what Timmerman, et al, claim based on this memo, it's not clear at all that Plame did anything more than respond to queries from CIA higher-ups. Plame did not initiate the idea of sending Wilson, and her "recommendation" was tepid at best and came only after the CIA first approached her with the idea.
In other words, it's a differing view of events, not the clear-cut perjury Timmerman, et al, want you to believe.
Horowitz Misleads on Professor Email Case Topic: Horowitz
In a letter emailed June 1 to NewsMax's subscriber list, David Horowitz wrote the following regarding his "National Campaign for Academic Freedom," inm which he attacks "radical leftists" at colleges who have "made careers out of their anti-American beliefs" and will "go to any extreme to crush their enemies -- even ruining livelihoods":
Take, for example, the outrageous action undertaken by the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) system against Professor Walter Kehowski.
Last fall, as Thanksgiving Day approached, Kehowski emailed his colleagues the text of George Washington's "Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789" along with a link to the webpage where he'd found it - conservative writer Pat Buchanan's web log.
In a very short time, five faculty members filed complaints, claiming Kehowski's email was "hostile" and "derogatory" because of the link to Buchanan's website.
Just days ago Chancellor Rufus Glasper placed Kehowski on leave and recommended his firing. That's right. They want to fire a professor for sending colleagues an email of the text of our first president's Thanksgiving address and because that email had a link to a conservative's website.
Well, no. As we've detailed, Kehowski has a long history of history of promoting inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, as well as a long history of violating the school's email policy. Indeed, the Arizona Republic has reported quoted school district chancellor Rufus Glasper as saying that Kehowski has "continued to disregard district policies despite previous sanctions and directives. Kehowski was suspended without pay for five days in September 2005 for a similar violation."
In other words, it's not about Kehowski sending an email that linked to Pat Buchanan's website (which is tame given that anti-immigrant and white "racialist" sites such as VDARE and American Renaissance have joined Horowitz in taking up Kehowski's cause). It's about Kehowski repeatedly violating the conditions of his employment.
Will Horowitz tell the full truth about Kehowski? Don't count on it.
Graham Complains of 'Liberal Media' Terms on Abortion Topic: NewsBusters
So Tim Graham is annoyed, in a June 7 NewsBusters post, that the New York Daily News uses what he calls "a very typical liberal-media template" for abortion related terms, avoiding the use of "pro-life" and "pro-abortion." Nowhere does Graham explain that it is inaccurate to do so, or even how it is a "typical liberal-media template."
Perhaps Graham could share with his readers the style guide from that MRC's CNSNews.com on the subject. As we've detailed, CNS regularly uses "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" (as well as overall biased coverage of the abortion issue). Is that not a "typical conservative-media template"? Aren't those terms more skewed and less accurate than, say, "abortion foes" or "pro-abortion rights" (the Daily News' preferred terms)?
Or is this yet another of those instances where only the "liberal media" is biased and, as the MRC oftensuggests, there is no such thing as conservative media bias?
NewsBusters Still Won't Acknowledge Conservative Criticism of Thompson Topic: NewsBusters
Warner Todd Huston devotes a June 7 NewsBusters post to dissecting at length a New York Observer article on Fred Thompson, declaring, "Well, it didn't take long for the MSM to start their attacks on Fred Thompson now that he is in the race."
Nowhere does Huston acknowlege that, as we've pointedout, conservatives beat the Observer to the punch in, um, punching Thompson. Not only has NewsMax bashed Thompson, NewsBusters' sister MRC website CNSNews.com has highlighted conservative attacks on Thompson.
Isn't that more newsworthy than "the MSM" criticizing him? Huston apparently doesn't think so. Or do these articles magically not exist in Huston's eyes because conservatives would never attack Thompson?
The 1965 Immigration Reform Act, the creation of radical, far-left "Down With The Establishment" ideologues hellbent on reversing what had been an effective and manageable system of legalized immigration into the United States since 1924, were steering the civil rights juggernaut smack dab into the heart of traditional America. In its wake, the ideologues, partnered with like-minded members of Congress, destroyed a rational quota system that, according to FrontPageMag.com's Ben Johnson, "had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population," and was serving the nation well.
So, what is this wonderful 1924 immigration law that was so "effective and manageable" that Dougherty would apparently like to go back to it? According to Wikipedia:
The Immigration Act of 1924, which included the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act or the Johnson-Reed Act, was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration to the US of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America.
Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.
The act halted "undesirable" immigration with quotas. The act barred specific origins from the Asia-Pacific Triangle which included Japan, China, the Philippines, Laos, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia, Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Malaysia. It barred these immigrants because they were deemed to be of an "undesirable" race. As an example of its effect, in the ten years following 1900 about 200,000 Italians immigrated every year. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, only 4,000 per year were allowed. At the same time, the annual quota for Germany was over 57,000. 86% of the 165,000 permitted entries were from the British Isles, France, Germany, and other Northern European countries.
The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
So, Dougherty would see immigration laws that are favored by racists and eugenicists? It would seem so.
Oh, and Ben Johnson, whose 2002 FrontPageMag article Dougherty approvingly cites, similarly fails to mention the racist and eugenicist aspects of the 1924 law.
UPDATE: WND has been critical of the 1924 immigration law when that suited its purposes. From an April 5 WND column by Logan Paul Gage of the anti-Darwin, anti-evolution Discovery Institute:
In the run-up to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, Congress relied on eugenics arguments and even heard testimony from an "expert eugenics agent." The intent was to restrict the access of Italians, Jews and other "defectives" to American shores. In the Executive Branch, Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson promoted eugenics through the American Breeders Association.
So, WND, which is it? Was the 1924 immigration law bad because it was based on eugenics, or was it good because it kept brown, yellow and/or swarthy people out?