">

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 (/) 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

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


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.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


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.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share