AIM Report: John Edwards vs. John Edward - August A
AIM Report | August 25, 2004
If he’s truly for women’s rights, as he claims, Edwards should be asked by the media whether his record of dubious lawsuits has put women in more danger.
John Edward is the name of a popular TV "psychic" who makes millions of dollars by "reuniting people in the physical world with their loved ones who have crossed over" to the next. Edward claims to communicate with the dead.
John Edwards is the name of the Democratic candidate for vice president who has made millions of dollars by filing lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, raising the cost of health care and malpractice insurance and driving doctors out of business. He won a case by pretending to be a psychic.
The case involved filing a lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, a victim of cerebral palsy. Because of her affliction, she could barely walk or speak. At the trial, as the New York Times put it, Edwards "recreated" her voice. In fact, he acted as a psychic channel for her thoughts and beliefs, telling a jury that she's "inside me and she's talking to you." The emotional ploy worked. The jury awarded $6.5 million.
The United Cerebral Palsy Association says the disorder is associated with the development of the brain, which starts in early pregnancy and continues until about age three. One risk factor, near the end of a long list of risk factors, is prolonged loss of oxygen during the birthing process.
Jill Lawrence of USA Today reported that the Campbell girl suffered from cerebral palsy "as a result of hospital personnel ignoring signs that she was in trouble in the womb…" That's what Edwards wanted the jury to believe. The implication is that the doctor should have delivered her earlier with a Caesarean operation. But if he had, she probably still would have developed cerebral palsy because the vast majority of cases has nothing to do with what a doctor or hospital does during delivery.
Marc Morano of CNS News cites evidence that Edwards relied on "junk science" in the cerebral palsy suits. Adam Liptak and Michael Moss of the New York Times put it somewhat differently, noting in a story last January that Edwards was accused "of relying on questionable science in his trial work." They noted that, in response to the legal judgments Edwards and other lawyers have won, doctors and hospitals are increasingly using fetal monitors to detect distress and resorting to Caesarean deliveries.
The Times reporters explained, however, that "…there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery. The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins."
It can thus be argued that Edwards and other "Learjet lawyers" have been partly responsible for a dangerous increase in Caesarean deliveries. The dangers of this procedure, which is major abdominal surgery, include infertility and bladder injury for women. If he's truly for women's rights, as he claims, Edwards should be asked by the media whether his record of dubious lawsuits has put women in more danger.
The "Terrorism Expert"
Edwards' career as a trial lawyer has raised eyebrows. But Kerry's pick of Edwards as a running mate was truly shocking to those familiar with his record as a first-term North Carolina Senator with no chance of winning re-election. He did miserably in the Democratic presidential primaries because many saw him as not qualified to be president. When commentators noted that John Kerry himself had raised an alarm during the primary campaign about Edwards' lack of qualifications, the Washington Post came to the rescue.
On July 9, Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler of the Post wrote a story headlined, "Edwards Sets Self Apart on Foreign Policy," with the subheadline, "Terrorism Was Top Focus Before Sept. 11 Attacks." Suddenly, Edwards became a major foreign policy thinker who saw the terrorism problem coming. This story was undoubtedly why fellow Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu later declared on the ABC "This Week" program that Edwards was a "terrorism expert."
Wright and Kessler reported, "In the summer of 2001, when much of the Republican and Democratic policy community was obsessed with missile defense, Edwards urged more attention to terrorism. The North Carolina senator had such limited luck pitching an Op Ed article on terrorism to major newspapers that the piece, warning of poor cooperation among federal and local law enforcement, ended up in the weekly Littleton Observer, circulation 2,230—four weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks."
Notice the use of the word "obsessed." That's their way of saying that Washington was spending too much time on protecting America's homeland from missile attack. By contrast, the Post told us that John Edwards was way ahead of the curve on the issue of terrorism, which was to hit America hard on 9/11. The implication was that, if we'd only listened to John Edwards, 9/11 could have been avoided.
Wright and Kessler apparently figured no one would take the time to read that Op Ed, which appeared in the Littleton Observer on August 16, 2001. Yes, Edwards did warn of terrorism, as many had. But his article mostly had to do with security at seaports and attacks on computers, so-called cyber terrorism. There was nothing in the piece about airports or hijackers using planes as weapons. There was a statement about more cooperation among law enforcement agencies, but it also praised the FBI, which not only failed to stop 9/11 but has not solved the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. The piece concluded with a plug for a program at a North Carolina University.
This is the kind of column that members of the Senate and House regularly send out to their local papers. It carried the banner, "The People's Senator," which is how Edwards describes himself. It was designed to make the Senator look good to the home folks. Wright and Kessler were really stretching it when they cited this article as proof of Edward's national security credentials. If this is all they've got, Edwards is in real trouble.
Whoopi For Kerry-Edwards
The media's willingness to overlook the hard questions about the Kerry-Edwards ticket was evident in coverage of their $7 million New York fundraiser with Hollywood celebrities. The Washington Post said some of the entertainers "shocked the audience with raunchy remarks," but that Kerry said they represented "the heart and soul of America" Raunchy remarks? This is the paper that went out of its way to identify the "F" word that Vice President Dick Cheney used in a private conversation with Senator Patrick Leahy. But the Post was not quick to run editorials demanding that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release a videotape of the "raunchy remarks" so people could judge for themselves.
The liberal media shied away from the shocking details because they knew the story could help sink the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Defending these offensive remarks as "the heart and soul of America" is a gaffe comparable to former President Ford declaring that Eastern Europe was independent when it was under Soviet control.
The New York Post received a lot of criticism for falsely reporting that Kerry had picked Dick Gephardt as his running mate. But it was the New York Post that broke most of the details of the "raunchy" fundraiser, and these facts have turned out to be true in dramatic fashion. This became one of the biggest campaign stories yet because Kerry and Edwards have been traveling around the country claiming they're in touch with American values.
Reporting on the performance by Whoopi Goldberg, Deborah Orin of the Post said, "Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted that she'd refused to let Team Kerry clear her material." That last part didn't get Kerry off the hook, however, because he proceeded to say that Goldberg and the other performers represented the "heart and soul" of America. It was only later, when a firestorm erupted, that the Kerry campaign offered some mild criticism of the performers.
As Orin noted, "Kerry could be seen laughing uproariously during part of Goldberg's tirade—and neither he nor Edwards voiced a single objection to its tone when they spoke to the crowd." Kerry cannot claim he didn't know what might take place. Goldberg is known as vulgar and crude. She released a 1988 album, distributed by MCA, that included a rendition of the Star Spangled Banner with liberal use of the "F" word. The routine consists of Goldberg sprinkling profanity in the lyrics of the national anthem. It is so disgusting as to make a normal American sick to his or her stomach. But this was her idea of comedy.
The Kerry-Edwards fundraiser took place in New York, and New York Times reporter Jodi Wilgoren said it featured "off-color jokes" about Bush. We'll be waiting in vain for the Times and the rest of Big Media to call for the release of the tapes of the event. The media wanted to let the story die, realizing the dramatic impact these tapes could have. In this case, the public doesn't have a right to know.
SENATE HONORS SOVIET SPY
Under prodding from Senator Jeff Bingaman, the Senate of the United States on June 24 passed a resolution honoring a Soviet spy. You missed that development? We couldn't find any coverage, either. But it happened when Majority Leader Bill Frist brought to the floor a resolution (S. Res. 321) by Senator Bingaman to recognize the "loyal service" of J. Robert Oppenheimer of America's Manhattan project that produced the atomic bomb.
But Herbert Romerstein, a former professional staff member of the House Intelligence Committee and co-author of a book on Soviet espionage, The Venona Secrets, says, "There isn't any question that Oppenheimer was a traitor to the United States and doesn't deserve any of the honors that these people [in the Senate] want to give him."
Oppenheimer served as director of the Los Alamos laboratory during the development of the atomic bomb. Romerstein says we know he was a Soviet spy based on two valid sources. One is the American interception of communications by the Soviet intelligence service during World War II. The code name for that interception was Venona. They identify and describe the activities of Soviet agents. The second source is the Soviet spymaster Gen. Pavel Sudoplatov, who, when he fell out of favor with the Soviet establishment, wrote a letter to the then-head of the Soviet Communist Party, Yuri Andropov. Sudoplatov boasted about his achievements, including getting information on the U.S. atom bomb. One of the critical sources of information for the Soviets, Sudoplatov said, was J. Robert Oppenheimer. Sudoplatov had no reason to lie because he knew that Andropov could easily have verified this information.
Romerstein says there are not enough Venona intercepts to know exactly what Oppenheimer gave the Soviets, "except that they [the Soviets] were not in contact with people for frivolous reasons. They were in contact with members of the American Communist Party such as J. Robert Oppenheimer so those people could give them classified information. That's what they wanted and that's what they got."
So how and why did the Senate honor him? Romerstein, who worked on Capitol Hill for 18 years, notes that the resolution honoring Oppenheimer was passed by unanimous consent when it was likely that few Senators were even on the Senate floor. Out of the 100 Senators, he said, there probably aren't five of them who know anything about Oppenheimer. But that doesn't get Senator Bingaman off the hook. He calls Oppenheimer an "atomic patriot" and probably assured Frist that any questions about Oppenheimer had been resolved in his favor. Bingaman's office refused to return our telephone calls.
One factor may have been a controversial development that occurred during the Clinton administration, when a statement from FBI Director Louis Freeh was released, taking issue with the evidence that Oppenheimer had knowingly supplied classified information to the Soviets. However, this was before the Venona secrets were released, confirming Oppenheimer's espionage activity.
The Bingaman resolution doesn't just honor Oppenheimer's "loyal service." It directs the Secretary of Energy to observe the 100th anniversary of his birth "with appropriate ceremonies, activities, or programs at the Department of Energy and the Los Alamos National Laboratory." So taxpayer dollars are being directed toward an event designed to honor this traitor.
This may not bother Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. He gave a speech last November hailing the "wizardry" of Oppenheimer and others "who shaped the course of World War II and gave us a nuclear deterrent that helped prevent global conflict during the Cold War."
He neglected to mention, of course, that Oppenheimer was also part of a group that betrayed our secrets to our enemies, making it a far more dangerous world in the decades to come.
Controversy followed Oppenheimer for decades. He lost his security clearance after the war amidst charges he was a communist—charges that he denied. Professor Gregg Herken, formerly of the Smithsonian Institution, says the evidence clearly shows that Oppenheimer lied about his Communist Party membership. But Herken is not convinced Oppenheimer spied for the Soviet Union. Two others, Professor Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird of The Nation magazine, who have written a forthcoming book on Oppenheimer, even dispute that he was a communist.
Romerstein says it is apparent that Herken doesn't understand the evidence that the Communist Party USA was a totally owned subsidiary of the Soviet Communist Party that received funding every year from KGB channels. The leadership of the party had the job of identifying those party members who would be useful to the Soviets for spying. And no Communist Party member contacted during World War II to spy for the Soviet Union turned them down. They all agreed to do so because "communists were Soviet patriots. They were not American patriots," he says.
The Nation magazine, Romerstein points out, is notorious for continuing to believe in the innocence of Alger Hiss, who was convicted of perjury for denying he was a Soviet spy and was the first acting secretary-general of the United Nations.
Efforts to clear the names of other traitors continue.
The Communist Party's People's Weekly World recently ran an interview with Robert Meeropol, son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were convicted and executed for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union.
He declared, "I'm going to vote for Kerry"and that, "…I want Kerry to get as many votes as he possibly can…" He's voting for Kerry, he says, because "this cabal of Bush and his cronies are so dangerous…" He fears "right-wing domination" and an "authoritarian government" in the U.S.
Honoring A Convicted Felon
Meanwhile, a group of elected California Democrats, the California Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, honored convicted felon Wen Ho Lee, the former Los Alamos scientist who was accused of, but never charged with, spying on behalf of Communist China. He served nine months in jail.
Lee was eventually indicted on 59 counts of mishandling classified nuclear-weapons data. As former Energy Department intelligence chief Notra Trulock noted in an AIM Report, "The indictment followed the discovery that Lee had been transferring the equivalent of 400,000 pages of classified nuclear weapons information to an unclassified computer network and a set of portable magnetic tapes." The case was settled through a plea bargain in September 2001. Lee pled to one count of tampering with "restricted data"—nuclear weapons design information.
Former California legislator Howard Kaloogian warned against the liberal politicians passing any resolution in his honor on the floor of the state assembly. His "Move America Forward" organization said it was astonishing that politicians would have "no problems honoring an individual who…copied scores of classified material and U.S. secrets. Evidence still suggests Lee may have been involved with espionage activities to benefit China." As a result of the controversy, the liberal politicians decided to honor Lee with their "Profile in Courage" award at a private dinner in a hotel.
Regarding that additional evidence, Trulock points out that a federal prosecutor who reviewed the Clinton administration's handling of the case concluded there was sufficient "probable cause to believe that Wen Ho Lee was an agent of a foreign power, that is to say, a United States Person currently engaged in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of the PRC which activities might involve violations of the criminal laws of the United States…"
In view of this evidence, why would politicians honor Lee? They probably believe much of the press coverage about the case. Many in the media portrayed Lee as a tragic victim of the government, a victim of racism and ethnic profiling.
In a story defending Lee, L.A. Chung of the San Jose Mercury News brought up another controversial case: "Many years ago, I was assigned to write about Larry Chin, a former CIA analyst who had been convicted of spying. He committed suicide in jail two weeks after his conviction in 1986. I dutifully went to the Peninsula cemetery where his family had gathered…He was proud to be an American, his daughter said, and he thought he was doing some good for U.S.-China relations. In his obituary, he was of course reduced to the first American convicted of spying for China."
A communist spy who did good for America? That's what Bingaman seems to be saying about Oppenheimer. This is the kind of doubletalk that diverts attention from the continuing dangers posed by spies and traitors in our midst.
The problem was demonstrated yet again when Los Alamos announced in mid-July that it had lost two classified computer disks, the third time secret material had disappeared from there during the last eight months.
What You Can Do
Send cards and letters to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
Mr. Richard Cohen
The Washington Post
1150 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071
Secretary Spencer Abraham
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
Secretary Tom Ridge
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
CLIFF'S NOTES
by Cliff Kincaid
DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG: 7/16/04
IT SEEMS AT TIMES THAT JOHN EDWARDS IS AT THE TOP OF THE DEMOCRATIC Party ticket. Edwards was not only put forward as "handsome and sexy," in order to appeal to women, but he has been cultivating the press for years. On CNN's Reliable Sources program, host Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post admitted the press got "carried away" with the Edwards selection. Roger Simon of U.S. News & World Report said, "The press loves John Edwards. John Edwards has worked very hard to make the press love him for more than a year. I mean, he has taken reporters to lunch. There have been dinners at his house. His wife, who is a very smart and capable campaigner in her own right, has also worked the press very hard."
ONE OF THOSE JOURNALISTS WAS WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST RICHARD COHEN, WHO told his readers that he had lunch with Edwards and his wife at their "house in Washington" back in 2002. That house is a $3 million Georgetown mansion. It is one of three multimillion dollars homes that Edwards owns. But Cohen's purpose wasn't just to show us how important he is. He came away convinced that Edwards had a "passion for social justice," that Edwards wanted to "make amends" for how the South once treated blacks. It's fascinating, however, that Cohen did not tell us what, if anything, Edwards had done in the legal profession over the course of a lucrative career of two decades to bring about justice for blacks. Cohen did not ignore the nature of Edwards' legal career, insisting that Edwards was a "trial lawyer who sued the pants off rich corporations and lousy doctors, making them pay for maiming people in the grand cause of profit." As we point out in this AIM Report, however, the claim that Edwards went after "lousy doctors" is open to question. His new reputation as a "terrorism expert" is also questionable. We suggest sending a postcard to Cohen about other journalists who were wined and dined by Edwards.
EDWARDS' HOME-TOWN PAPER, THE RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER, HAS DONE THE RESEARCH ignored by the national press. The paper reported that, "One Charlotte obstetrician quit her practice after losing a $23 million suit that was handled by Edwards. The St. Paul Group of Minnesota, the main medical malpractice carrier in the state, stopped offering insurance to obstetricians, citing high settlements. Dr. David Newman, a Charlotte obstetrician, says trial lawyers such as Edwards are a major reason that malpractice insurance premiums are rising so rapidly. Faced with annual increases of 25 to 30 percent, Newman said he has cut his OB-GYN practice in half to reduce his liability exposure." In Maryland, the state's largest malpractice insurance company announced its intention to raise doctors' premiums by 41 percent, on top of last year's 28 percent hike. Maryland obstetricians and gynecologists are already quitting or leaving the state. Medical liability insurance costs are rising for hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living programs, adult day-care operators and nurses. Where's the "social justice" in that? The national press also ignored how Edwards' chief fundraiser, Dallas trial attorney Fred Baron, raised about $7 million for Kerry when Edwards dropped out of the presidential race. Edwards directed his lawyer buddies to raise big bucks for Kerry. Obviously, this impressed the Massachusetts Senator, who already enjoys the backing of billionaire George Soros.
KERRY IS RECEIVING SIGNIFICANT BACKING FROM THE ARAB-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported that 54 percent of eligible Muslim voters said they would vote for Kerry, while 26 percent favored Nader. The major media in the U.S. did not report the results, perhaps because they are potentially embarrassing to Kerry. Referring to CAIR's voter registration campaign, Kari Huss of MSNBC reported, "To the extent that the get-out-the-Muslim-vote effort succeeds, it will largely benefit the Democrats because it is energized by anger over the Bush administration's Patriot Act and what is perceived as an anti-Muslim bias behind the Iraq war and Israeli-Palestinian policy." Pollster John Zogby noted that a survey of Arab American voters in four critical states—Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania—found that only 30 percent would vote for Bush, with Kerry getting 49 percent. The Muslim and Arab-American vote could tip this election to Kerry. In an appeal to this constituency, the Democratic Party platform has called for the development of a new strategy for "public diplomacy" in the Arab and Muslim worlds to alleviate distrust of America. Congressional Democrats backing Kerry released a 90-page document that includes a "Marshall Plan" for the Arabs in the Middle East. The U.S. would put up over $100 billion for this. Bribery is supposed to placate the terrorists.
IN OUR SECOND STORY IN THIS AIM REPORT, WE SCRUTINIZE THE ACTIONS OF THE U.S. Senate in honoring Soviet spy J. Robert Oppenheimer. Senator Frist brought the measure up for a vote, but he did this as a courtesy to Senator Bingaman and was probably assured it was non-controversial. We are recommending that you send the enclosed postcard to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, who has also praised Oppenheimer. The nomination of one-term Michigan Senator Abraham as Energy Secretary was a surprise, given his lack of experience or qualifications in the energy field. Arab-Americans, who are strong in Michigan, lobbied for his appointment. Abraham's tenure has been marked by a series of scandals in the nuclear labs. He should have warned Frist about going ahead with Bingaman's resolution. He should certainly do something about it now.
IN REGARD TO THE FOREIGN THREAT, FORMER U.S. GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST STEVEN Hatfill has filed suit against the New York Times and columnist Nicholas Kristof for smearing him as the anthrax killer. The evidence suggests that al Qaeda carried out the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. But the FBI, under the influence of liberal Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy and left-wing special interest groups, used the media to target Hatfill because of his conservative views and background. They made him into another Richard Jewell, the security guard falsely blamed for the Olympic Park bombing who then collected millions of dollars from the media in defamation lawsuits. Hatfill, identified as a "person of interest" but never charged in the anthrax case by the government, spoke at one of our AIM conferences and we did our best to hold his irresponsible accusers accountable. Thanks to those of you who sent Kristof one of our postcards warning him about his columns in this case. He failed to correct the record and now he and his employer have been sued. This could be worse for the Times than the Jayson Blair scandal.
IN ANOTHER SCANDAL, SALON.COM REVEALED THAT AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL IN THE Homeland Security Department, Faisal Gill, was removed from his post when the FBI discovered that his resumé had omitted his association with indicted terrorist Abduraham Alamoudi. Both had worked for the American Muslim Council. Incredibly, Gill was then reinstated. Another department official, Laura Callahan, was forced out after it was discovered that her academic credentials were bogus. We suggest sending a postcard to Secretary Tom Ridge. We can't win the war on terrorism unless we have the right personnel in place.
For Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid
Editor
0 Comments | Post a Comment
