" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Commentary Smears Right Web

Commentary Magazine’s Contentions blog recently published an entry from Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in which he attacked Right Web for employing standards “embraced by conspiracy theorists like the LaRouchies, 9/11 revisionists, and Birthers.” He also criticized Right Web’s director and editor on the basis of a stark mischaracterization of a correspondence between the two from November 2009 and called on Congress to investigate PBS Frontline for publishing stories that provide links to Right Web material.

Print Friendly

On March 13, 2011, Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog published an entry from Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in which he attacked Right Web for employing standards “embraced by conspiracy theorists like the LaRouchies, 9/11 revisionists, and Birthers.” He also criticized Right Web’s director and editor on the basis of a stark mischaracterization of a correspondence between the two from November 2009.

Rubin went on to suggest that Congress should consider investigating PBS for having published articles on Frontline’s Tehran Bureau website that link to Right Web profiles, writing that “congressmen might want to ask PBS’s Frontline about the editorial decision to substitute these fake, conspiracy-riddled biographies for the real thing.”

Frontline issued the following response on the web pages that Rubin linked to: “In March 2011, a few months after we originally published this piece, FRONTLINE/Tehran Bureau received a complaint from a blogger who posted on Commentary magazine's web site. The complaint centered on some of the links included in our story—particularly those that took readers to a site called ‘Right Web.’ The Commentary blog post contended that Right Web publishes ‘fake biographies of conservatives.’ After reviewing the matter, we find that the biographies on the Right Web site are not at all fake or fabricated, and seem to be well-sourced. However, we do think it's helpful for our readers to understand this site's particular point of view—and their stated focus on those who ‘promote militarist U.S. foreign and defense policies’—if they choose to click on this outside link for further information.”

Right Web has also responded to Rubin’s claims, sending the following letter to Commentary’s editors. As of March 18, Commentary had not responded to this letter or issued a retraction of Rubin’s erroneous accusations.

Right Web's Response to Commentary

Dear Commentary Editors,

I am the director of the Right Web program based at the Institute for Policy Studies. In a March 13 entry on your magazine's Contentions blog, Michael Rubin attacked both myself and the Right Web project on the basis of a number of spurious accusations. I would like to respond to those accusations, and I hope you will share this response with your readers.  

Mr. Rubin writes: "When challenged about inaccuracies on the dossiers he compiles of 'right wing militarists,' the editor of Right Web e-mailed that even when no evidence supports his allegations, corrections of his slanders would require proving his allegations wrong, an impossible standard that is also embraced by conspiracy theorists like the LaRouchies, 9/11 revisionists, and Birthers."

Mr. Rubin is probably referring to a brief email correspondence I had with him nearly two years ago, when he wrote to challenge Right Web's characterization of him as a hawk on Iran policy who advocates attacking that country. Mr. Rubin informed us that he in fact was opposed to attacking Iran, to which I responded that in our judgment suggesting assassinating a country's leaders—which Mr. Rubin has done—was tantamount to promoting an attack on that country. Nevertheless, shortly after our correspondence, we eliminated the "attack" language in our characterization of Mr. Rubin’s stance on Iran to prevent any further confusion—a far cry from Mr. Rubin's accusation. Mr. Rubin also fails to mention that we very clearly asked him to identify other errors in the profile in order to correct them. He never responded to this request. 

For the sake of complete transparency and because Mr. Rubin has so deeply misrepresented our correspondence, we will share the entire correspondence with anyone who requests it. [The correspondence is available here.]

There are other inaccuracies and misrepresentations in Mr. Rubin's Contentions blog about Right Web. For instance, he accuses Right Web of producing "fake biographies," which he claims PBS wrongfully links to instead of "legitimate institutional biographies." What Right Web publishes are brief dossiers on individuals and organizations—on the left, right, and center—who the program deems to be supportive of hawkish (or, as we put it, "militarist") US foreign policies, with an emphasis on US Mideast policy. The dossiers—or "profiles"—tend to be narrowly focused on a person's track record with respect to US foreign policy. They do not attempt to be comprehensive, nor do they try to mislead readers into thinking that they are somehow "official" biographies. At the top of each profile we state, "Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site." Important to note, the profiles are merely compilations of news items and other publicly available information, provided in a information-driven format that eschews editorializing. In fact, we are so diligent in our efforts to eliminate ad hominem opinion in our profiles that we frequently get letters from readers who support hawkish US foreign policies and wish to send praise to people profiled on our site. 

Also important to point out is that Right Web's profiles (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/) are carefully researched and painstakingly sourced. They are hardly "conspiracy-riddled biographies" produced by "naive or unprofessional journalists," as Mr. Rubin claims. In fact, we do not accuse anybody of anything, we merely report and summarize what has already been published in respected news and opinion outlets, and carefully document our sources. If a contributor to PBS Frontline's website links to a Right Web profile in a story dealing with Middle East politics, that person is simply providing their readers with a resource that will provide much more relevant information vis-a-vis the article in question than would say Mr. Rubin's bio on the website of the American Enterprise Institute. Why this linking activity would merit a congressional investigation of PBS, as Mr. Rubin suggests, is difficult to comprehend.

Finally, Mr. Rubin writes that "Right Web is also among the worst Google manipulators in the political realm." It is unclear to me what this claim means exactly. Some Right Web profiles have proven quite popular, and thus they—including Mr. Rubin’s—have gradually migrated to the top of Google searches. Nevertheless, our total monthly readership is in the low tens of thousands, hardly a major coup in the age of Google, by even the most humble standards.

I would like to reiterate to Mr. Rubin—and also extend to the readers of Contentions—Right Web's offer to correct any mistakes in our profiles, either in Mr. Rubin's or in any of the hundreds of other profiles on our website. 

Sincerely,

Michael Flynn

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share