At FamilySecurity, accuracy doesn't Matter

For some reason, FamilySecurityMatters.com has refused to permit corrections of falsehoods made in a recent column, and has denied the right or privilege of reply to those falsely accused of spreading Wahhabi propaganda.

The normally credible site ran a piece in July by Walid Phares, who himself is an ordinarily reliable figure. But this time accuracy fell between the cracks when Phares falsely labeled us as spreading Wahhabi or Muslim Brotherhood propaganda in assailing our argument that we should take advantage of splits within Islam to wage semantic warfare against the most extreme elements. The article contained a number of inaccuracies. The most serious was that Washington wordsmith Jim Guirard is a "lobbyist" who "concocted" a Wahhabi/Muslim Brotherhood line of argument that others, including this blogger, were allegedly spreading.

The "lobbyist" allegation came just days after Hugh Fitzgerald of JihadWatch.com (again, another otherwise excellent site) spread a false report that Guirard has close ties to the Saudis and had probably been taking money from them.

I've known Guirard for 25 years and he's always been a stand-up guy. I checked with him, the Justice Department and organizations that constantly monitor Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, and am satisfied that the report is completely without basis. His last lobbying activity was 7 years ago for a Louisiana company and related to the US Army. No Saudi or Islamist connections whatsoever.

I notified FamilySecurityMatters.com editor Carol Tabor, whom I have known since I helped her set up and staff the site, of the sloppy reporting and editing on her site (an editorial comment was similarly misleading). After a few days' wait, she refused to publish a correction or clarification, refused to allow either Guirard or myself to post a response, and said she considers the matter closed. The contents of her email are private, so manners prevent me from disclosing some interesting details.

Of the several sites that ran the Phares piece, we contacted three: FamilySecurityMatters.com, AIM.org and FrontPageMag.com. In contrast to FamilySecurityMatters, the other two sites immediately agreed to run responses. AIM ran a detailed piece by Guirard on August 6. Two days later, FrontPageMag ran an item that I wrote advocating semantic warfare. FamilySecurityMatters' refusal is bizarre. But the record is corrected, and it's time for the circular firing squad to disband and charge onward.

Comments

[Brian S, Phoenix AZ]

Well, take heart and recall that for decades the Ottoman response to Wahabist criticism was to spread "factual reports" charge that Wahabi himself had been a paid agent of the British, hired to promote a fiendish plan to divide Islam.