The Wall Street Journalistically Dishonest; Squash Ted Olson

  • February 22nd, 2001 -- The Scoop on Hugh Rodham

  • Top Five Reasons why Hugh Rodham (Hillary's brother) getting $200,000 (now returned) to lobby in favor of pardons
    and commutations for convicted drug trafficker Carlos Vignali and herbal supplement king Almon Glenn Braswell ain't as bad as it looks:

    5. Hugh Rodham won't need those secret payments from
    Marc Rich anymore.

    4. Gives Jack Quinn someone to look down on.

    3. Even drug traffickers need a break sometimes.

    2. Makes clear Bill ain't the only one with a loser

    1. Gets that whole Marc Rich thing outta the

  • February 22nd, 2001 -- The Spy Connection

  • Hey! Wait a second! Do I have to connect all the dots here?
    Remember the laptop that went missing from the State Department
    last year? Maybe Hanssen snagged it!!!

    According to href="">this article
    just posted on MSNBC: "From February 1995 until January,
    Hanssen was the FBI's senior representative to the State
    Department's Office of Foreign Missions, where he oversaw an
    interagency counterintelligence group."

    So maybe the problem wasn't Madeleine Albright running a
    loosey-goosey, slipshod operation. Maybe it was Louis Freeh
    sending a spy over to help "oversee" State Department

    Louis, good goin' dude!!!

    P.S. Could Hanssen have been connected to that href="
    99/ps991208e.html">Russian diplomat who got caught
    working on an eavesdropping device outside State Department
    headquarters back in '99? Sure, why not? Put that on the
    list too.

    P.P.S. Do you have any reason to believe, or does it even
    make sense, that Hanssen could have been involved in either
    one of these incidents? No idea. But, hey, we're talkin'
    about Louis Freeh here so we can use his rulebook, no? Let's
    wait and see what href="
    eb20.html">Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb come up with.

    Robert Philip Hanssen seems so href="
    eb20.html">obviously guilty that the only mystery
    remaining now in this espionage case is who Louis Freeh will
    find to pin the blame on, and how he'll do it.

    Washington is filled with people who have mastered the
    art of "failing up." But no one has mastered this art quite
    as well as Louis Freeh.

    As the master profilographer David Plotz href="
    p">explained last fall, what's most fascinating about
    Freeh is not that his agency has managed to blow so many of
    the high profile cases it's been involved in over recent
    years (Waco, Richard Jewel, Wen Ho Lee, etc.). The real
    intrigue is that he's managed to pass almost all of it off
    as someone else's fault. Who takes the fall for this screw
    up? Janet Reno? Bill Clinton? Denise Rich? Bernie Sanders?
    Who? Think fast! Who?

  • February 22nd, 2001 -- The Wall Street
    Journalistically Dishonest
  • Last Friday, John Fund of
    The Wall Street Journal editorial page went on the
    aldo Rivera show to chat about the brouhaha surrounding
    the Marc Rich pardon.

    At one point, in exasperation, Rivera asked Fund, "Have
    you apologized yet for the (false) stories about White House
    vandalism? Have you apologized?"

    Here's the interchange that followed. . .

    FUND: I never ran -- I never ran any stories about

    RIVERA: Have you apologized -- has your newspaper
    apologized for the stories about. . .

    FUND: We never -- we never referenced it.

    Now, my understanding of this back-and-forth is that Fund
    first denied that he had ever written about the prank story.
    And when he says "we", he's talking about The Wall
    Street Journal
    editorial page and its public online
    incarnation"> So
    in the second run-through he's denying that the editorial
    page had ever played up Prankgate.

    So is this true? They'd didn't even mention it? Please!
    Not even close. How about the predictable Peggy Noonan on
    January 26th href="
    5000493">"Back to Normal"or Tunku Varadarajan on January
    29th href="
    ?id=85000506">"No Joke"? Or do only unsigned pieces
    count? Well then how about this piece, also from January
    26th href="">"Gary
    Aldrich Was Right"?

    An editorial zinger to drive the point home?

    Nope. I think this one speaks for itself.

  • February 22 -- Squash Ted Olson. Please.

  • Okay, let's run down the official Top Ten list of reasons
    why the Senate should reject href="
    ">Bush's nomination of href="
    =02925">Ted Olson to be Solicitor General.

    So href="
    ig.shtml">Anton, a drum roll please. . .

    The Top Ten reasons the Senate should neg Solicitor
    General nominee Ted Olson are. . .

    10. Made his legal career attacking and dismantling
    federal environmental and anti-discrimination laws.

    9. Successfully argued one of the greatest href="
    =US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-949">miscarriages of
    justice in American history.

    8. Just href="
    =02925">squints too damn much.

    7. Too big a bud to Kenneth Starr.

    6. What would the big polluters and tobacco
    companies do without him?

    5. Helped prep the Paula Jones legal team for their
    appearance before the Supreme Court.

    4. One degree of separation from former federal
    prosecutor/Clinton-hating freak/Dan Burton
    crony/Hillary-bashing author href="
    =02925">Barbara Olson is just too close!

    3. Spent mid-1990s organizing and overseeing
    multi-million dollar anti-Clinton dirty tricks campaign
    called href="
    /index.html">the Arkansas Project.

    2. Because it's the right thing to do.

    1. 'Cuz it would just feel so damn good.

    This Washington Memo adapted from Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points