Fund Smears Cole with Barrage of Lies
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal editorial page has published a large number of falsehoods about me.
The most egregious is this:
' He calls Israel "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." '
This a lie. I never said that. Try googling it. (All that comes up is the circular allegation I said it, never sourced. It never comes up on my site, because I did not say it, or say or imply anything like it.)
I did say that then-Israeli policies of assassinating people like Sheikh Yassin were dangerous to US interests in the Middle East. Since those policies also inspired such sympathy with Hamas that they went on to win the recent elections, the policies were dangerous to Israeli interests, too.
I presume Mr. Fund will apologize for libelling me and smearing me in an apparent attempt to interfere with my professional life.
That he can't get something so basic right, of course, says it all about the rest of his screed, during which he also accuses me of being a racist bigot for complaining about the then influence of Ariel Sharon and the Likud line on Bush administration policy toward the Middle East.
Mr. Fund should take it up with the Republican Party. Look at former National Security Council adviser under Bush senior, Brent Scowcroft: "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft told London's Financial Times. "I think the president is mesmerized."
Then Secretary of State Colin Powell told W. that Douglas Feith, the number 3 man in the Pentagon was a "card-carrying member of the Likud." Powell also routinely referred to the Neocons in the Pentagon as the "Gestapo."
Fund calls me "anti-Israel." I have a funny way of showing it, if so. What he really demands is not that I be pro-Israel, but that I support Bibi Netanyahu. Why should I, Mr. Fund? Explain that to me.
Mr. Fund goes on to attempt to link me in some way with the Taliban. I am mystified by that particular smear. What similarity, exactly, does he see between an American member of the Democratic Party who voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry, and the devotees of Mullah Omar?
Fund inaccurately says that I am alone among academics in arguing that the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the Israel lobby should be given a hearing. He ignores Mark Mazower, Tony Judt, and a host of others. Fund accuses me of saying that AIPAC is powerful in Congress. La di la.
Mr Fund has clearly never read a word I've ever written. He has just cobbled together some snarky smears from other pundits who also have never read my work. Indeed, I know how to fix this Rightwing smear machine that has revved up against me. We'll make a rule that they can't criticize me unless they read my scholarly works first. :-)
As for the Web log being unscholarly or polemical, there are some issues about which some sharp writing is necessary. Fund can't make up his mind as to whether the problem with me is that I have written books about the 19th century Middle East, or that I comment extensively on contemporary developments. I'm not sure what business it is of his, anyway. But he should not lie so blatantly about me.


30 Comments:
Hey don't worry about it. What would be weird would be a WSJ editorial that was truthful.
Well, John Fund has a career in journalism, based on his being completely accurate at all times. The google search "john fund site:mediamatters.org" has 53,200 results.
John Fund was the guy who impregnated the daughter of a former lover of his, then forced her to have an abortion, the way I hear it. He was supposed to help her get a start in NYC. Some start! What a hero! He complained loudly and proudly about Clinton's sex life before his own affairs came to light.
Some self-gratified slob on top, over at the WSJ, probably gets his jollies from watching Fund's pathetic partisan baseless smear pieces.
And this is supposed to be America's foremost _business_ paper? You'd think you were writing about corporate developments in the Middle East, whatever the century.
There is a problem with any and all who use the smear "antisemitism" whenever the smear is used indiscriminately to stifle legitimate discussion of Israel's activities.
The problem is this: legitimate discussion in these times requires one to think outside the accepted "attitudes" imposed by those with political power. Whenever a political group achieves too much power, essentail debate is deemed "evil."
Those who demand we accept all of Israel's attitudes also question why there was too little outcry against NAZI thought control. The answer, of course is that NAZIs stifled debate.
Israel may wither under its borrowed poison.
Juan,
It should be a source of pride for you that people like Fund are your enemies.
Thanks for all the informed comment over the years - and I hope all works out well in your professional life.
Professor Cole. You bring a wealth of intelligence and honesty to the discussion. I can't have any idea how many people support and rely on your comments. Does it not strike you that the tactics that Fund et al use are, as so many have pointed out, just those that intimidated the Germany of 1933-45.
That's the Lobby at work! Here's another "anti-Semite" for the paranoids.
They're everywhere!
Colonization of Palestine Precludes Peace
By Jimmy Carter
For more than a quarter century, Israeli policy has been in conflict with that of the United States and the international community. Israel's occupation of Palestine has obstructed a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land, regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasir Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, or with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet.
Good night Juan and good luck
Consider it a badge of honor to be smeared by Wall Street Journal editorial writers. I'd be highly suspicious of your bona fides if they liked your writing.
Even WSJ news reporters cringe at what shows up on their editorial page. The only WSJ "editorials" worth reading are those that show up in the news sections labeled analysis.
Forget them. Trying to counter their irrationalities is like trying to push back the incoming ocean tide. You'll spend your life doing it and accomplishing nothing.
As a long-time Wall Street Journal subscriber, I read the editorial page--including letter that they obviously select for partisanship--solely for laughs.
I suscribed to the WSJ for 18 years but stopped it a few years ago. I get calls to start up again but I tell them that the WSJ has hurt America by being a mouthpiece for the right wing on their editiorial page.
The trolls on web pages tend to be mindless repeaters of the slogans of the right wing. They are stupid comments. The WSJ has some of the best arguments of the right wing, but, like their leader Bush, they lie all the time. They smear and lie.
The case against their bad policies (actually they have never had a policy process) gets stronger every day. What they have set in motion is terrible and it will take years to get our country back on course. Now the beast is cornered and we can expect even more lies and smears. I just hope that Bush doesn't invade Iran in the vain attempt to get his poll numbers to climb again.
One of the effects of the right wing propoganda has been to dumb down the USA population. That is why this blog is so important. I don't digest everything that is presented here, but I do check it out every day because it is the best place to keep abreast of the middle east.
Thanks Juan!
I agree with the other posts here - Anyone who blindly believes anything published in the WSJ opinion pages is probably too busy watching Fox News and dailing in to the favorite Bigotry News Radio to have any time left to examine Prof. Cole's ACTUAL writing...
Regarding "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East", it is certainly NOT Israel - that honor has long been bestowed on the Bush administration. After all, what other country with nuclear weapons is currently seriously planning on using nukes in the Middle East? Even Israel has never gone that far on a first strike plan.
Israel's last major military adventure in the ME was the 1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath. To focus on Israel as the pre-eminent danger in the ME is, as Republicans love to say, pre 9/11 thinking.
US are the dangers, koo koo katchoo.
Prof. Cole,
I think you have it wrong -- john fund is the lunatic. Listen to what your readers are telling you, ignore him. If you cannot do that, buy him a week at Bellevue ( mental institution in NYC - home of the WSJ), I would be delighted to contribute.
In all seriousness, we are observing, firsthand, a milestone event -- the demise of the Fourth Estate as a balancing force given their propensity to act as the mouthpiece for various vested interests.There is a ray of sunshine here though - AICPAC must be really desperate to resort to using fund (lower case used intentionally) as their marionette.
Many of us, your readers who reside in distant shores, reading your opinions, still think that you reside in the land of the free whereas the fabled home of the brave lies in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
So do not let the minions and functionaries of WSJ and their masters wear you down -- as a politician/preacher of the 60s from uptown NYC used to say "Keep the faith, baby"
I took your invitation to google the quote, and saw that John Fund has extremely lax standards as a writer. The closest thing I saw was "The most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East is that of Ariel Sharon," which bears a very limited resemblance to the words Fund put in your mouth.
Changing the quote in this way substantially alters the meaning from a criticism of the particular regime of Ariel Sharon to a criticism of an entire nation, a reading which is explicitly ruled out by your praise of Yitzak Rabin. Perhaps it's second nature for someone like Fund to confuse criticism of a nation's leader for hatred of that nation.
You are an academic, Juan Cole. You are used to using reason to determine the pros and cons of a given course of action. There is a long and venerable tradition in American academia of assessing pros and cons, preferring "the greatest benefit for the greatest number".
The MSM now measure the pros and cons of a given course of action in terms of "the party line" which, marvelous to relate, most often reduces to "the least proft for the smallest number". This still leaves very substantial sums in some few bank accounts, hence the private, party line. Using reason, and rational argument, with an avowed goal of the greatest good for the greatest number is to be avoided. It is to be shouted down. It is even to be claimed to be "immoral".
Cervantes is right Juan Cole. Forget these guys. People read you because they learn something from your blog. Nobody reads them but the boys with the big bank accounts looking for a new shout to shout down reasoned analysis, or informed comment.
Sounds to me like a tempest in a teapot. It was predictable that the Daniel Pipes contingent would try to interfere with Professor Cole's negotiations at Yale, and I can't imagine that getting controversialists like John Fund into the game (I believe he's at the Opinion Journal, incidentally, having been fired from the Journal's actual editorial page) will do their cause any good. Obviously notoriety is part of the package--so far as I know Hana Batatu isn't being considered!
The star of faux-experts like Pipes and Martin Kramer seems to be on the wane -- your appointment at Yale would certainly put an exclamation point on that trend. Unfortunately, for tens of thousands of people (and counting) it will be about three or four years too late.
Dear Professor Cole-
I think you should sue John Fund and the Wall Street Journal for libel! This, after all, is still America (I think), and you are a scholar and a gentleman! Please take action. It would please us all, and be respectful to yourself and your scholarship!
Sincerely,
Kate Madison
Depoe Bay, Oregon
I was going to bring up Fund's past but Josh Narins got there first.
These people are SCUM, Juan. Don't let them forget it!
Being against assasination, whoever practices it, is plainly anti-terroist. Considering the origin of the word assasin one could consider you an opponent of irrationality.
The more I delve into the rhetoric of this adminstration I see the manipulation of the facts worthy of Peter the Hermit.
The spoon-fed offspring of Poweline blogger Scott Johnson is repeating the defamation at the New York Sun
Eliana Johnson
This stuff spreads like wildfire.
I'd be most interested in hearing about any legal action taken for printing such an obvious falsehood. After reading the "responses" on WSJ, it seems that no one who reads his tripe has any interest in discovering the truth, since none of them found his lie the least bit relevant.
Let us know when you get that apology. In writing.
All you need to know about John Fund.
Consider the source.
John Fund.
A guy whose rhetorical talents are so towering, that he requires the use of sock puppet commenters to buttress his arguments.
we've got your back, juan
When Chris Rhoads contacted me for an interview on the sorry trajectory of the .iq cctld, and ICANN, and internet governance, the fact that he writes for the WSJ gave me real pause. My wife finally pursuaded me that I should spend the time briefing a WSJ writer, on the theory that the OpEd page is from some other planet, one where dogs play poker.
It isn't a real paper, but wouldn't you be happier at a better school than Yale?
Prof. Cole,
This puts you in the great company of numerous others who the rightwing smear dogs have been sicced on for speaking the truth. Lies will not stand.
Readers, please be sure when FAIR or Media Matters takes this up that you respond appropriately to the source. Also, if you choose to pursue legal action Dr. Cole, let us know how we can support you.
There has to be at least one source of truthful political analysis on this war. This lynchmob mentality has got to stop.
I gave up reading the WSJ ed pages years ago, and thank God I did, it may yet add a few years more to my life.
I am uncertain if this is a sign of desperation, or just another example of the crass ill informed arrogance that passes for 'journalism' among the Right these days.
Thankfully we have your site for real 'informed comment' - something that can never be said of Fund's own drivel.
Mr Cole,
I wouldn't get excited about anything John Fund writes. He is a smear artist. During the 90s John Fund was spreading some of the most vicious conspiracy theories about the Clintons, including the "murder" of Vince Foster.
John Fund is not a conservative. He is a republican smear artist. His job is to smear anyone who says anything critical about the Dear Leader.
John Fund has no credibility. Ignore him.
These days, you're nobody if you haven't been swift-boated by creeps like Fund. How pathetic and petty they are. I guess they see Juan as a danger to their fantasy world and political weapons of mass distortion.
every thing else aside,
what is the matter with naming any country as the most dangerous? aren't we all entitled to our subjective opinions?
being a subjective comment, i don't particularly care for it--but a country that refuses to join any international nuclear treaty, acquires wmd on a pinpoint land, with an official policy of extrajudicial killings, holding a large portion of area people, whom it dislodged from their own home/land, hostage for 60 years, is not only dangerous but desperate and suicidal. in any case which country in the mid-east fund and companies feel comfortably pc to judge as the most dangerous one?
Thank you Professor Cole, I never would have been able to understand the true nature of the situation in the Middle East without your honest and informed commentary.
As a psychiatrist, I have learned that rightous people often use the rightousness to deny/rationalize their own bad behavior and shame. Sounds like Mr Fund is just another struggling human being. Keep up the good work Prof Cole.
Post a Comment
<< Home