Boo to al-Hurrah
Plus Fred Thompson, trial lawyers and more.

Monday, May 7, 2007 12:01 A.M. EDT

Paul Gigot: This week on "The Journal Editorial Report," mad TV. How U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing terrorist propaganda on the Arab satellite network Al-Hurra. Plus, the Republican presidential candidates hold their first debate, but the man with the most buzz was nowhere to be seen. Will Fred Thompson get into the race, and when? And trial lawyers funneled millions of dollars into the Democrats' effort to retake Congress. Find out how they are being paid back, right after these headlines.

When it launched in 2004, the U.S.-taxpayer-funded Al-Hurra satellite network was to be a voice of moderation in the Arab world. But under new leadership, the channel, seen in 22 countries across the Middle East, has taken a decidedly radical turn, airing puff pieces on Holocaust deniers and speeches by known Islamic terrorists. Journalist Joel Mowbray has led the pack on this story, and he joins me now in the studio with more.

Joel Mowbray, welcome.

Mowbray: Thank you.

Gigot: You say Al-Hurra is not fulfilling its moderate mission in the Middle East. Give our audience some examples of what it is broadcasting.

Mowbray: Well, it's not even so much a moderate mission as a truth and information mission, right? We are the ones that are supposed to be counteracting the propaganda that is rampant in the Arab world. Instead, though, we are putting on things like interviews with al Qaeda operatives, such as Mohammad Hanji, who's in Bahrain, where on Nov. 26 of last year, we interviewed him, and he said that 9/11 brought him great joy because it rubbed America's nose in the dust.

A week and a half later, they put on a speech by Hassan Nasrallah, the held of Hezbollah, and by the five-minute mark in the speech, by the way, Nasrallah was saying to the people firing the guns in the air in celebration, "Don't fire your guns. Don't waste your bullets. Save them for where they belong, the chest of the enemy, the Israeli enemy."

Gigot: Tell us about coverage by the network of the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. They covered that?

Mowbray: Yeah, they did. It was--it was actually astounding. I just got hold of the transcript about a week ago.

We all remember Ahmadinejad hosting this conference in Tehran with all these famous Holocaust deniers and Dave Duke. And Al-Hurra was there to cover it, but shouldn't have covered it the way they did, because they did basically, as you said, a puff piece. They went out and said, "Well, here is what David Duke had to say about his praise for Ahmadinejad." And then they said, "Here is what the French historian says, that there's no evidence there were gas chambers used in the Holocaust."

There was no rebuttal. There's no independent debunking. These guys were put on almost like an infomercial.

Gigot: But look, some people would say, if you are supposed to cover the truth in the Middle East, these are authentic Middle East voices. Why would you want to close them off from a network like this? What's your response to that?

Mowbray: Well, those are the guys who have every other network available to them. We're not just trying to be another Arab network; we are trying to be the truth and information network. That's the reason I say, it's not even a moderate voice. You know, is controversial in America to deny the Holocaust. In the Arab world, it is controversial to suggest the Holocaust happened. OK, that's how different it is. We are there to combat that.

Gigot: Now, these broadcasts are in Arabic. Do you speak Arabic?

Mowbray: No.

Gigot: How did you get the tapes and transcripts of these?

Mowbray: Through sources I was able to get DVDs of the broadcasts. And I had two different Arabic translators review the broadcasts and then agree on a final transcription that I used for quoting in the piece.

Gigot: All right, now, Al-Hurra is governed by something called the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is supervised by the State Department; it's about six or seven individuals.

Mowbray: Yeah. Six individuals, plus Karen Hughes.

Gigot: Plus Karen Hughes, who is the undersecretary of state who deals with these kinds of things.

Mowbray: Right.

Gigot: Why are they--how are they supervising this, and do they know this is happening?

Mowbray: You know, the Broadcasting Board of Governors--it's like six chiefs, no Indians. You have former titans of industry who are doing, in this congressionally created panel that is quasi-independent--no one's clear exactly of their status. And they didn't know about Larry Register before--the longtime CNN guy who made all these changes when he was hired, November of last year. They didn't know about any of this stuff before my first Journal--

Gigot: Larry Register, a former CNN producer who went to Al-Hurra last November. And you're saying that's when--when he joined the network, that's when there was this turn in their reporting.

Mowbray: Yes, everything changed. Paul, within his first month on the job, you had the -Qaeda interview and the Hassan Nasrallah speech. He also lifted the ban on terrorists. And, by the way, in the meeting where he told his staff he was lifting the ban on terrorists, he said, "So for example, you could interview somebody like my close personal contact, Mahmoud al-Zahar," who is the No. 2 guy in Hamas. The reason, by the way, he is no longer the leader of Hamas is he's too radical for Hamas. This is the guy close to Larry Register.

Gigot: By the way, we should tell our audience that Mr. Register is welcome to come on this program any time to talk about this, so it's an open invitation.

But Karen Hughes, who is the president's friend and political appointee, does she know what is going on? What's been her response to your reporting?

Mowbray: She certainly knows now. She went before Congress on April 19 to a congressional hearing, and she got a bipartisan earful. And she responded by saying, "I've heard nothing but rave reviews and high praise for Larry Register." And she makes a point of stressing that she has friends in Israel who are quite priced with Larry Register. Maybe that's true, but you know, I've talked to a lot of people in Israel, Paul, and most of them remember his time with CNN when he was covering Israel, and they don't remember it fondly. So maybe he does have friends over there and that's entirely possible. But that's beside the point.

The record stands for itself. Within six months on the job, he has done a 180 on a network that used to--by the way, his Muslim predecessor did cover the Holocaust by doing things like interviewing Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, and by covering, live, the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Gigot: Have you asked Mr. Register for an interview? And has he granted it?

Mowbray: I have asked everybody involved in the story for an interview. Almost no one has talked. Larry Register--I got him on his cell phone, and he said he couldn't talk. I said, "I just need two minutes." He said, "I don't have two minutes at any time."

Gigot: All right, now, Congress is getting into this. Where is this going next?

Mowbray: Yeah. Congress right now--there is a letter going around the House Foreign Affairs Committee signed--top signed by Robert Wexler of Florida and Dan Burton of Indiana.

Gigot: Republican, a Democrat--

Mowbray: A Democrat and a Republican, right. And you're looking at probably at least 15, maybe even almost 20 at this point, people who have signed on to the letter. It's a letter going to Condoleezza Rice asking her for an investigation, the thing the Broadcasting Board of Governors should have done. The day after my story ran March 12, the first one, the BBG met, and they voted 5-1 not to investigate, and instead to write a letter where they accused me of generalized inaccuracies--generalized deceptions, without actually citing a specific deception or inaccuracy.

Gigot: No. We ran their letter to the editor after your first piece. OK, so we're going to follow this story, and Joel Mowbray, thanks for being here.

Mowbray: Thank you.

Gigot: All right. When we come back, the Fred Thompson factor. He has yet to throw his hat into the presidential ring, but he's third among Republican candidates in some recent polls. Is he running, and when will he announce?

Thompson: I've got a time frame in mind, but I need to have a little flexibility.

Thompson: I am taking this time. I'm talking to some of the smartest people, I think, in the country about some things that are very important to me. I'm taking the time to communicate with the American people. . . . I do sense that there's something different and special going on out in the country right now, and I made be able to answer that call.

Gigot: Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial page deputy editor Dan Henninger, OpinionJournal.com columnist John Fund and in Washington, columnist Kim Strassel.

John, you talked to the Thompson people fairly often. Is he going to run or not?

Fund: I think the odds are over 90%, and if he runs, it'll be a different kind of campaign. He will do a lot of personal campaigning, but probably in large events, like Hillary Clinton has had in Iowa that attract thousands of people. He'll also, I think, harness the Internet, video technology and a lot of other things, like direct email broadcast capability.

Gigot: Fascinating. Usually when a candidate gets in late into a campaign, feels that he has a chance to get in late, it's because he's filling some void in the rest of the field, whether it be on a big issue that's not being addressed or some charisma factor or something like that. What is it that Fred Thompson has that's having him do so well in the polls?

Fund: I think there is a vacuum, because only about 35% of Republicans have a firm opinion of him. But they do sense that there's not a consistent conservative in the race, someone who reminds them, let's say, of Reagan, although obviously not being Reagan. And I think, because of that void, Thompson and other candidates, like Newt Gingrich, are trying to fill it.

Strassel: That was something that really came clear too in this debate this week, which was, just, all of these candidates struggled in their own way to come across. They were trying so hard to present themselves as a Ronald Reagan. But you have McCain. He has issues with global warming, with McCain-Feingold. You have both Romney and Giuliani with issues on abortion and their social issues. And the Republican base is just not happy with what their choices are.

Henninger: Well, I think partly what's going on here has a lot to do with George Bush. I think George Bush has blurred the idea of what it means to be a conservative.

Gigot: You do?

Henninger: Oh, absolutely.

Gigot: I mean, the criticism from the left is he's too conservative.

Henninger: Yes. But you know and I know that Republicans are upset with hill about his big-government initiatives, right? Drugs, No Child Left Behind.

Gigot: Prescription drugs.

Henninger: Prescription drugs, yeah. And yet the war on terror has to some extent trumped all that.

Gigot: Right.

Henninger: And I think Republican voters are trying to reboot. They're trying to decide what do I stand for ,and they're pressing that template against these candidates to try to figure out again what it means to be a conservative Republican.

Fund: Picking up on what Dan said, in the Republican debate, only Duncan Hunter said I, too, like George Bush, am a compassionate conservative. There weren't lot of people joining that call.

Gigot: Well, Kim, Kim Strassel, you said that John McCain had some problems with McCain-Feingold, which is the campaign finance reform that was passed. Fred Thompson supported that. Is he really a genuine conservative?

Strassel: No, I mean, look, one reason why Fred Thompson is doing so well in the polls is because people know him as Arthur Branch, the prosecutor on "Law and Order," who's a very tough guy. But most Americans don't know much about his positions. He was a big supporter of McCain-Feingold. He can probably back away from that. I would imagine he probably will. But it's going to be a much bigger question when he does come out about what his positions are and how he presents himself, because America is still yet to learn about this guy.

Fund: By the way, disclosure: I've been friendly with Thompson for years. There is one rap on him, which he really does have to overcome. He did not exactly light the Senate on fire--but of course the Senate doesn't operate on fire; it operates on molasses--and he had a reputation for being a little lazy.

Now, I think his life has changed since then, so I think people are looking at the old Thompson, but he's going to have to directly address the question, Do you have a fire in the belly? Are you willing to got out and mingle with voters? Are you willing to do what it takes to run for president for a year and a half?

Strassel: But John, do you really think that makes that big of a--I mean, you know, people kind of liked Reagan in this way because he looked more laid back. He didn't come across as this shiny, polished politician. And maybe that's one of Fred Thompson's appeals.

Gigot: He did run the campaign finance scandal hearings in the Senate when he was there during the Clinton administration. A lot of people think he got his clock cleaned by the Clintons on that one, Dan. I mean, is that going to be held against him?

Henninger: I don't think it's going to be held against him at all. I think basically what Fred Thompson has going for him is a large amount of charisma. When he ran for the Senate in 1994, he started out with 17%. He beat his opponent, Jim Cooper, 60 to 34. You know, charisma is just part of public life. If you've got it, you are very lucky, and if he can join that to conservative ideas, I think he's going to be very formidable.

Gigot: John?

Fund: By the way, there's a red pickup truck that he used in the race that Dan mentioned. I think we're going to see the red pickup return in Iowa and Hew Hampshire.

Gigot: John, if he gets in, who of the other candidates who are already in,does he take votes away from?

Fund: The polls show he hurts Giuliani, who's front-runner, who has enormous name ID, so some of that support is soft. And he really damages Mitt Romney, who was making some traction in trying to appear as the ultimate Reagan conservative.

Gigot: How long does he have to get in? How long can he wait?

Fund: Sometime this summer he has to enter. I think his speech in Orange County this weekend signaled he is getting ready to do it.

Gigot: All right, John. Thanks very much.

When we come back, paying off the trial bar. How Democrats are saying "thank you" to the lawyers who bankrolled their big win last November.

Kim Strassel, you've been following this story. How are they doing it? How are the Democrats doing it?

Strassel: Well, you know, the Dems have a little bit more trouble with trial lawyers, because unlike the unions, who they're not embarrassed to go out and just pass blatant legislation on behalf, the trial lawyers, eh, it's a little harder, because Americans don't like trial lawyers. And they have--they know that the trial lawyers have really been a problem for this country and the legal system.

So you're going to see them helping in subtle ways. One very good example of that is hearings. And we got a great example a couple of weeks ago when Barney Frank held a hearing on subprime mortgages. The trial bar has been trying very hard to gin up some lawsuits against investment banks, people up the chain, the real deep pockets behind subprime mortgages. They hadn't made it very far. Mr. Frank's hearing was designed, in one way, to legitimize this idea, to paint some of these guys as bad guys. That helps the trial lawyers in courts. You'll probably see future hearings too, in which they subpoena documents from some of these banks, and then those documents are leaked to the press. They then can become part of the trial that's ongoing.

So there's all kinds of ways that they can help underground by using their power and their attention power in Washington.

Gigot: So you're saying, Kim, this will not be part of one big bill that will be debated in the trial lawyer influence, be debated. It'll be things that are slipped in quietly into language, into different parts--different legislation, difficult bills. Is that how it's going to happen?

Strassel: That's right. Exactly. They're not going to have something that says, OK, we're going to roll back class-action reforms or anything like that, because they're not so stupid as to do that.

But you will have is any little bit of regulation, any new bit of law on any one subject, they're going to have little lines in there that make it easier for the trial bar to sue in this way or that. And that's how they're going to give their help.

Gigot: John?

Fund: Well, we have legal loopholes in the tax law. I think we're going to have legal earmarks now for the trial bar--things slipped in at midnight that nobody pays attention to. And President Bush may try to veto some of them, but if they're part of larger legislation, as you know, without line-item veto he may have to swallow them.

Gigot: Because they'll attach them to bills that he feels he must have--

Fund: Must-pass bills.

Gigot: --whether it be Iraq spending bills, which is where some of them have already been attached. At least that bill was vetoed but for other reasons.

Yes, Dan?

Henninger: Well, specifically, what these things are called is a cause of action. It's a foot in the courthouse--

Gigot: Cause of legal action.

Henninger: Cause of legal action. It's a foot in the courthouse door. And it's a pretty good racket because the industries that get targeted--in her column on this, Kim mentioned that they've wanted to go after pharmaceuticals and oil for years. That's where the money is.

In turn, the targeted industries start giving campaign contributions to the Democrats as kind of protection money. Lay off us. And so they get 'em coming and going.

Gigot: Kim, one thing that puzzles me is Chuck Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York, Eliot Spitzer, the governor, joined Mike Bloomberg recently in saying that legal problems are doing great harm to America's competitiveness in the financial industry, driving initial public offerings and financial business to London and to Shanghai and to Hong Kong. Is Chuck Schumer doing anything about this, this Congress?

Strassel: No, no, he is not. But you've hit on a really important point here, which is as the trial bar's influence grows and as they attack more and more industry, you're having more Democrats who in the past, who have been friendly to the trial bar, realizing that they are doing great damages to the industries that drive their own state engines, economic engines.

Now the problem is that you still have this bloc, in particular of sort of liberal Northeast senators, who get most of their money from the trial bar, and are not willing to publicly buck them. And the party has not had the nerve yet--Chuck Schumer has not had the nerve yet to publicly start condemning any of this.

Gigot: Chuck Schumer is also, Dan, running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, this time as last, and of course those trial-lawyer contributions help finance those Senate campaigns.

Henninger: Yeah, he has to have the money for the campaigns. But McKinsey Associates did a study for him and Eliot Spitzer, which showed that litigation could be costing New York $15 billion to $30 billion a year and driving these companies overseas. That's New York's tax base. It constitutes 15% of the tax base in New York. That's oxygen for politicians in New York. So Chuck Schumer is really in a tight spot.

Gigot: John, are trial lawyers the strongest lobby in Washington? You've been around there a long time and watched it. Are they stronger than the NRA, say, or stronger than the AFL-CIO?

Fund: I think now, absolutely, because they are so much in the center of the Democratic fund-raising machine, and to some extent a few Republicans. Now, you I really do believe, if you look at their power, I mean, it's almost limitless. Fred Baron, who's the former head of the Trial Lawyers Association was once called by The Wall Street Journal as someone who had undue influence in Washington. And he said, "Thank you." He considered it a compliment.

Gigot: That's right. All right, John.

We have to take one more break. When he come back our "Hits and Misses" of the week.

Item one, what do Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and American actor Richard Gere have in common? Dan Henninger is here to tell us.

Henninger: They're shocking people. President Ahmadinejad was seen this week kissing a woman on the hand and embracing her shoulders. It happened that she was about 80 years old. She was wearing thick black gloves. She had a scarf on and was wearing a thick black coat. Nonetheless, one of the newspapers in Iran said this was the most shocking violation of Shariah law since 1979.

Meanwhile in India, Richard Gere was seen embracing an Indian actress, bending over and kissing her, at which point an Indian judge issued an arrest warrant for Richard Gere for violating Hindu law.

Now, in India the judge was quickly exiled several hours away to a little town in the countryside. But the paper in Iran is called Hezbollah. And my advice to President Ahmadinejad is lay off the old ladies.

Gigot: All right.

Next, a hit, believe it or not, for the French, whose presidential run-off election is Sunday. John?

Fund: Well, we just had a Republican presidential debate, which I think was a mosh pit. You had 10 candidates on stage, questions that were completely ridiculous. Even if it had been two candidates, it wouldn't have gone well.

The French, believe it or not, did it right this week for their presidential election. They had a table. They had two candidates. They had two moderators, who barely intervened at all, and the two candidates went at it. It was over two hours long. They went into overtime because they had more questions that they wanted to deal with. It really was focused, exciting, and frankly gave voters a lot of information.

So the next time, I say, maybe we should have different moderators in our debates and perhaps a different format like the French.

Gigot: Yeah, journalists as potted plants, that was an effective strategy.

Fund: Amen.

Gigot: All right, finally, the case of the $65 million pair of pants. Kim?

Strassel: You know, it happens to all of us. You go to the dry cleaners, they lose your item. But in the case of Washington, D.C., administrative law judge Roy Pearson, his local dry cleaners, run by a family of South Korean immigrants, lose one pair of pants, and he sues them for $65 million. Never mind they found the pants. Never mind they offered to settle. He thinks he deserves as much for his pain and suffering.

Now, this gives new meaning to the term being taken to the dry cleaners. But on the upside, it actually might have a good benefit. Separately, a panel in D.C. is deciding whether or not to give Mr. Pearson a new 10-year term as judge. And there's been such a grassroots effort against this that he may not get it. Let all hope that's what happens.

Gigot: All right, Kim. That's it for this week's edition of "The Journal Editorial Report." Thanks to Dan Henninger, John Fund and Kim Strassel. I'm Paul Gigot. Thanks to all of you for watching. We hope to see you right here next week.