" />

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.

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 (https://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

Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share