Johann Hari is a big daft cock!
by Jura Watchmaker, 31 July 2007
I know he’s Amnesty International’s Journalist of the Year, but still it has to be said: the Independent columnist Johann Hari is a big daft cock.
Despite being not long out of short trousers, Master Hari has a bit of a history as a journalist, and many in the trade question his thoroughness and attention to detail. Here I have to choose my words with care, as Hari has recently come over all litigious, and chosen a easy target in the form of blogger David T of Harry’s Place.
Back in March 2003, Hari was featured in the Hackwatch column of Private Eye magazine. The Eye claimed that Hari was, in effect, a fabulist, and had made up stories about (a) being an ecstasy user in an attempt to look cool and hip, (b) witnessing the scene of the Genoese police killing of a demonstrator at the G8 summit, and (c) a one month working visit to Iraq, complete with tales of dialogues with the natives. The latter was, we were told, actually a two week holiday tour of archaeological sites in the cradle of civilisation.
Hari protested that “even the slightest factual analysis of Private Eye’s retaliatory accusations causes them to immediately crumble into dust.” Hari has never to my knowledge addressed the specifics of these charges. He was accused of lying, but never sued.
And there is more, much more.
Cut to 2007…
Hari’s review of Nick Cohen’s book “What’s Left?” caused a bit of a stir, with a number of political bloggers (including our very own Eric) weighing in to denounce the boy wonder for his woeful ignorance.
So far, so good, but then David T yesterday published his own take on the affair. The link here is to a screen grab of the piece taken before the article was pulled following threats from m’learned friends, and posted here earlier today by Will. Much of the offending article is in the form of quotes taken from Nick Cohen’s response to the Hari’s review. There are no new allegations made by David T against Hari, only a regurgitation of what has been written elsewhere (e.g., in Private Eye).
Hari, however, took it like the petulant brat he is, and squealed to the Independent’s legal department. David T today posted another blog in which he explained a little of what happened, and asked for understanding from the readers of Harry’s Place. Some very strongly worded comments followed, almost all anti-Hari, and at around 19:00 this evening this second blog was removed.
While English libel laws do not apply to websites hosted on servers located in the US, the laws are such that a litigant with money (or corporate backing) does not have to win the case in order to ruin the defendant. The onus in a libel case is on the defendant to prove his innocence, not on the plaintiff to show that they were libelled. David T is himself a lawyer, and clearly understands the dangers involved.
There is more to be said about this case, and I hope that before long I will feel able to say it. Public interest dictates that it should, but for the time-being human interest encourages restraint.
The truth will out, I am sure, but if Johann Hari sues David T, I have promised the blogger a donation to his defence fund. I swear this on my NUJ card.
I would also advise Johann Hari to watch his (metaphorical) back.
Tuesday 30 November 1999 at 0:00
Oh Shuggy, you’re such a pedant! These are but minor details, and the responsibility of subeditors to correct. Great thinkers and writers shouldn’t have to bother their pretty little heads with such trifles.
Tuesday 30 November 1999 at 0:00
“when Sunny from PP was up against Guido.”
Now that’s a case where I wouldn’t like to take a side. (Hundal is a prick as well).
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:48
Private Eye said all that stuff the week after Hari criticised its editors, Ian Hislop and Richard Ingrams, for homophobia. Hari wrote about it somewhere, I’ll look it up and give you a link.
Compare Hari’s record in the courts (never sued, ever, to my knowledge, never had to apologise for anything he’s written) and compare it to Private Eye’s (shitloads of findings against them, all the time).
As somebody who reads and enjoys both, I have to say I’d trust Hari’s integrity over Private Eye’s. More importantly, so do Amnesty International, who gave him their main journalism award.
I don’t know but I guess Hari threatend to sue HP and not PE because he used to write for HP, but he’s never written for PE (Unless you think he has? I’ve never seena reference to it but they don’t byline).
Are you seriously saying a journalist shouldn’t be allowed to challenge a website if it says he has “a reputation for making things up” and should suffer “career death”?
Would these guys allow people to post slurs against their professional behaviour, and recommend “career death”, and not legally challenge it?
If one of the HPers were a fireman, would I be allowed to say that actually he sits in his engine and lets people burn to death on my blog, without them complaining?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:50
Also, I think your sneering references to his age, as a crusty myself, are ridiculous. Ageism sucks, and I say that as somebody who was sacked for being too old, and had to be taught to use phrases like “this sucks” by my grandson.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:51
Woeful ignorance? Like his apparent assertion that (the quite probably mythical) Yeshua ben Yosef was born in the Stone Age … and that he was a Palestinian refugee? That he (JH) was also apparently confused about infant mortality figures over the past 40 years in the Territories? - which is not to say that I support anything other than a complete dismantling of settlements and an immediate withdrawal behind the Green Line.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:03
Ah, it’s all clear now. If a publication with which you’ve been feuding says something about you which you think is libelous, you keep schtum.
If it’s your old muckers, rather than ask for a right of reply, clarification or retraction, you just call in the lawyers straight away.
Seriously, how much of a tosser would you have to be to act like that?
PS: Did you know Hari is Amnesty’s Journalist of the Year?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:04
BTW that’s not a green light for the Israel-firsters and the Eliminationists to go at it hammer and tongs.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:09
It’s interesting to run a Google search for ‘Niko “Johann Hari”. It seems that Niko has been acting as Hari’s PR man across an astonishing range of blogs for a very long time. Any information on an ID?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:17
Oh the irony of all this.
Rallying to the defence of the HP Saucer’s ‘right to free speech’ without the threat of the lawyers being called in (hangs head in shame)…
(work it out yersell’s fuckers).
Still - the truth will out!
******
This Hari instinct of first recourse to his lawyers is all so typical of the trendy london metrosexual, careerist, up-their-own-arse, middle-class mentality of narcissistic liberals it shouldn’t really surprise (but it somehow still does). I remember Wardytron also threatened court action against me for calling him a cunt! What a cunt!
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:23
[The] instinct of first recourse to … lawyers is all so typical of the trendy london metrosexual, careerist, up-their-own-arse, middle-class mentality of narcissistic liberals
Aye, was going to say … the Marxists here get into knockdown drag-out slanging matches reasonably frequently, but lawyers are never mentioned — it takes a liberal …
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:31
And Francis…
Stop nicking my fucking links for your sources. Find your own Hari nuggets man!
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:52
And another thing — to compare a columnist in the Daily-Mail-for-people-who-recycle to an emergency services worker — in the instance above, a fireman — is silly.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:52
By the way, Will et al (I hate people who use ‘et al’), thanks for taking this up. You’ll probably tell me to get fucked and that this is all about a defence of free speech and we’re still a bunch of tossers and all that, but thanks anyway.
BTW, my transfer gossip contacts are telling me Michael Owen for the Black Cats. Whaddya reckon?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:56
You’re not Brownie.
I won’t waste my time with Saucer fuckwit commenters! I want posters — I’m hungry!
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:59
You daft cock, it is Brownie.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:00
Notbrownie wot is Brownie: You find a dead rat and you think it’s a treat …
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:01
“You daft cock, it is Brownie.”
You lot don’t do Irony do you.
You daft cock.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:11
I thought it was a “dead cat”?
City of Culture next year, ye knaws.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:21
Don’t be mean about cats — apart from the Mackem ones doon the road.
First Psycho, now Alan Smith … if Sammage can find a couple of defenders I might actually win that cake.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:38
It’s interesting to run a Google search for ‘Niko “Johann Hari”. It seems that Niko has been acting as Hari’s PR man across an astonishing range of blogs for a very long time. Any information on an ID?
My thought, too. So the classic question must be asked: “Has anyone ever seen Niko and Johann in the same room together?”
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:38
You’ll not believe this. My daugher shouted to me to come down the stairs yesterdat to “see something amazing”. I half-expected to see a video of Titus Bramble winning a tackle, but no, between the windowed wall of our conservatory (where we keep the coal scuttle) and the next door fence - a gap of about 12 inches - were four kittens. I’d say about 4 weeks old.
We managed to rescue them and called the RSPCA. It turns out a stray who comes into our garden had her litter in there.
Anyhow, in 5 weeks time after they’ve had their injections and the RSPCA can confirm they haven’t turned feral, we’ll be welcoming two new cats to the family. It was one at first, but when I was out of the room it became 2. The brother and sister have been adopted by next door, too.
The funny thing was that I put the kittens in the run underneath our rabbit while we waited for the RSPCA. We put a plate of tuna in there just in case they were hungry. After the cats had bene taken away, I let the rabbit back into its run but forgot about the plate of tuna. When I remembered a few hours later, the tuna was gone. So we’ve got a dwarf lop with a taste for meat. Assuming it doesn’t die from digestive problems, that is.
But still, those kittens, eh?
I have pictures.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:43
Trying to placate me with kitten stories huh?
Shambles is Wigan’s problem now (thank fuck).
Er and bunnies who like tuna? Give it a salt lick.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:46
I have pictures. I have pictures.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:47
You have my email addy dafty …
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:51
I don’t know why bloggers (eg. Guido Fawkes) take great pride in boasting that their sites are immune because they’re hosted overseas. English libel law will probably apply to websites hosted overseas as soon as someone brings a solid case of defamation that happened to be published in such a way. ‘publication’ in a country can be stretched to mean simply viewable in that country.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 1:00
If I might be an utterly cynical person.
Does HP offer verification of the Hari threat to take legal action? Otherwise this could be the perfect smear on Hari charicaturing him (as Will so nicely puts it) a trendy london metrosexual, careerist, up-their-own-arse, middle-class narcissistic liberal. Without verification it all comes down to how much we revile Hari and/or trust HP.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 1:08
Does HP offer verification of the Hari threat to take legal action?
No need. Hari wrote about it himself on his own site, but removed the reference sometime earlier this evening.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 1:12
unaha,
Hari himself confirmed this with a post on his own site earlier today, since withdrawn. But not because he didn’t threaten to take legal action against HP. He did.
But I’m not allowed to talk about this.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 1:43
Alrighty then, the prick is a prick.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 7:58
The google search on Niko Johann Hari points in the direction of a doppelganger.
And reveals that Johannn did research for Jeffrey Archer.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2006/10/quote_of_the_da_1.html
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 8:35
If the Archer/Hari thing were definitely true then the joke would practically write itself about one of them being a well known liar, author and journalist, and the other one being…
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:20
Just checked that Archer link and our friend Niko turns up making exactly the same point he made last night.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:25
A-ha, THAT’S the allegation? I couldn’t work it out, I thought I’d seen an off-hand remark about ’sleeping with nazi’s’.
Yes - I do think that *on this matter* the way Hari addressed ‘What’s Left?’ was SO off the mark that I did read it thinking “he’s making things up”. In that sense, I really don’t think there’s anything outrageous about the HP comment. What a plonker Hari is, he’s gone down so far in my estimation…
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:34
Does anyone have a link to a cache for David T’s second explanatory post which he took down? I didn’t see it at all and would like to make sense of this deeply troubling affair. If no link, I would appreciate a precis of his second post from anyone who read it.
I commend your blog for it’s stance in this matter which has appalling ramifications for free speech on the net. Thank you for creating a handy one stop compendium for Hari’s track record. For the sake of completeness, may I add a less important, but still relevant example not covered elsewhere. In 2006 Hari wrote in the Evening Standard about the Jewish soul singer, Matisyahu. He accused the singer of lyrics liable to spark off World War 3. Maybe Matisyahu ought to have threatened libel action?
This extract from my unpublished letter to the ES gives the picture:
“Johan Hari’s inordinate attack on Matisyahu in particular and Lubavitch chassidic Judaism in general was not only astonishing in its vehemence but seriously misleading. (12th May 2006)
As a Jewish woman I take issue with some of the gender inequalities in Judaism, as well as definite strands of misogyny in particularly older rabbinic writings, and have theological issues with Lubavtich. But to describe this branch of Judaism as a âparticularly nasty misogynistic and homophobic far-Right strain of religious fanaticism is recklessly ignorant journalism.. To describe Matisyahu’s songs as rallying calls for such a viewpoint is calumny.
I have been unable to find so much as a trace of the misogynistic and homophobic lyrics typical of rap in Matisyau’s songs. Here is the only reference to women I could find in his lyrics:
One woman for me
Other half of my soul, you’re my queen
One woman for me
Other half of my soul, roots of my tree
To treat his references to rebuilding the Temple as a call for World War Three is grotesque. This expression of pious yearning derives from the psalms and other liturgy recited daily in Jewish services, and to conflate this with a minute fringe of Temple Mount activists is incendiary. Orthodox Judaism and Lubavitch in particular lays stress on awaiting the time of peace with the coming of the messiah before rebuilding the Temple.”
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:44
Ami, the short version:
‘I didn’t mean what he seems to think I meant but I not even supposed to say that I didn’t mean what he thought I meant — what is one supposed to do?’
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:46
Still available in archive here:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/07/31/leave_it_hes_not_worth_it.php
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:50
ami - As I said, there’s more, much more, and you’ve given us a nice example.
As for the second David T post, it’s still in the HP archives, with comments up to 18:58, shortly before the post was pulled. If the archive is deleted I have a backup.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 9:56
If he does go ahead, which I doubt, and David and HP defend, which I doubt even more, then of course all the sort of stuff Ami and Jura refer to becomes highly pertinent. I am making enquiries about a potential “incident” from my own experience too.
It does strike me that both as a potential deterrent to legal action and for its own sake some collation of these experiences, perhaps more prominently than in a comments box, might be worthwhile.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 12:14
Re: Libel.
The current state of the law is that it is the law of the jurisdiction “where the article is read” that applies. Not where published. That’s actually been a long standing part of English libel law (mags that sell 15 copies in the UK as imports getting hit etc.)
With things on the web the downloading into the browser is the act of publication. Dow Jones lost a libel case on this in Australia (and it’s assumed that the English courts would apply that logic). Server and so on in the US. Man in Australia downloads it. Wins damages.
The only get out is that the American courts are very unhappy at upholding English libel judgements, they think the law on the subject is “unconsciable”. (I think that’s the right word).
But if you’ve got assets in England that ain’t gonna do you any good.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 12:35
unconscionable, Tim. Thanks to all who pointed me to the second post. I am even more depressed that it was deemed necessary to take that even more unimpeachable post down.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 16:01
It’s interesting to run a Google search for ‘Niko “Johann Hari”. It seems that Niko has been acting as Hari’s PR man across an astonishing range of blogs for a very long time. Any information on an ID?
Why, finding it hard to argue with him and hoping to dig up some ad hom dirt? Or you’d prefer a one-sided debate with everyone piling in against Hari, who had no defenders?
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 16:18
I thought the interest was - is “Niko” is actually Hari himself.
Might be wrong.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 17:08
“Has anyone ever seen Niko and Johann in the same room together?”
Ha ha. Not sure but I think I recall reading a comments thread somewhere where this Niko person was saying he was Johann’s chum.
Or you’d prefer a one-sided debate with everyone piling in against Hari, who had no defenders?
If you do a wee trawl of the blogs you’ll see Hari has quite a few defenders - including one on the much read but little admired CiF, no less.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 17:46
I assume, btw, that the threat of litigation has to do with some implication that Johann is disposed to making things up and researching things poorly? I know y’all are horrified that a secularist knows about this stuff but if you read what Hari writes about religion, you’ll find plenty of examples of him quoting verses out of context and making stuff up. For example, in a rant about Christmas, he wrote:
The Archbishops pine for the days when Christmas was a celebration of the birth of a quasi-mystical figure, a man whose hallucinatory teachings - remember his command to follow “every jot and tittle” of the Old Testament, beheading gays and stoning prostitutes included? - have been a gift to bigots and theocrats for millennia.
Anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about the NT knows Jesus befriended prostitutes, rather than advocating them having their heads caved-in - and in general that Jesus’ remark about fulfilling the law to every ‘jot and tittle’ was understood to be in a way that broke the Mosaic code since the early church didn’t practice kosher diets and all that.
And anyone with any knowledge of the OT knows that beheading was not used as a punishment in Mosaic law. Trivial, arcane and I wouldn’t expect anyone on this space to be upset at Hari misrepresenting ol’ JC but there’s a concrete example right there. If we can’t expect him to quote verses from the Bible or the Koran in the proper context, what confidence can we have that he would do this when it comes to Cohen’s book? I think Kamm got that bit vis-a-vis the support for Saddam’s assault on Iran right.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 18:10
If you do a wee trawl of the blogs you’ll see Hari has quite a few defenders - including one on the much read but little admired CiF, no less.
Not in the threads on this blog, he hasn’t. So it wouldn’t be much of a debate here without Niko, would it? More of a hate-fest.
Oh, what’s the point of trying to teach Leftie totalitarians the merits of a diversity of ideas? None whatsoever! So have a nice day and I’ll see you around.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 19:58
Montag, what’s your point? Are you suggesting that the people on this blog should defend Hari even if they disagree with him? Why don’t you defend him? Anyway, he’s got Niko on his side, and he seems to have a very good insight into the mind of Hari.
He’s just threatened legal action in order to silence his former colleagues. Whether or not you agree with his essay on, and rejoinder to Nick Cohen, there are many people who will find it contemptible that he has resorted to the libel laws at the first instance.
—
I had a look at that Niko / Hari Google search. I, for one, would be very surprised if that wasn’t Hari under a pseudonym. If it’s not Hari, then his “friend” is more like a stalker. It’s odd that Niko hasn’t returned as promised, with that link. When he does, I’m sure he’ll be only too keen to clear up the misunderstanding, and link to a web presence that goes beyone acting as Hari’s plenipotentiary. The way he writes reminds me of how Clark Kent talks about Superman in the third person.
If it is Hari, surely that would “spell career death”.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 20:16
there are many people who will find it contemptible that he has resorted to the libel laws at the first instance.
No there aren’t. There are a small bunch of Trots, and a larger bunch of Guardianistas, who will first decide whether they like the defendant in this potential case, and if they don’t, say absolutely fuck all about the injustices of British libel laws. All the while blathering about how much they support free speech, and other transparently false crap.
I mean, where is the campaign to have these laws abolished? Has there ever been one? It’s left to judges in the House Of Lords and the USA to point out that they chill free speech and should be liberalised. Britain’s are amongst the most repressive in the world, which is why the world beats a path to Britain’s door to take advantage of them. Yet when the likes of Galloway, or Sheridan, or ITN use them against their left-wing opponents, the outcry and demand for abolition is notable by its absence.
Think I’m wrong? Find me — online — some articles by leftie groups where these laws are condemned. Start with Socialist Worker. That’s always good for a laugh.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 20:51
I think that the laws of defamation should be wholly abolished. The arguments for total abolition have got stronger over time, if anythings.
I have thought this long before I became a potential defendant.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 20:55
Montag, define “many”.
I’m not going to begin trawling the SWP’s website to prove that they’re proponents of free speech, when it’s clear that they’re the opposite.
I make no pretence of familiarity with the UK’s libel laws, except that I, too, am aware of their reputation as being amoung the most appealing in the world, as far as the plaintiff is concerned. There may be many people who only care about the libel laws when it is them, or their favoured side that is being subjected to them. However, I think there are “many” people who would find Hari’s recourse to the law, in the first instance, contemptible, not least because he is a writer himself, and should have the courage of his convictions and make his case with, you know, words.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 21:38
“I think that the laws of defamation should be wholly abolished”: Indeed they should David T. How best to make them a laughing stock, is the question.
most appalling in the world, Tim Allon.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 22:38
I am an arsehole it’s just I don’t know it yet.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 22:54
So have a nice day and I’ll see you around.
Not if I see you first…
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 23:02
Montag is a prime example of an HP Sauce commenter fuckwit par excellence.
Now — take your stupid arsed, offensive-pretend-email-having lame shit back to where you came from you full-of-yourself little jumped-up prick — you’re banned!
(Montag’s another one of them RCPer cultists except he dropped the pretending to be a communist bit). Absolutist, ignoramus who stands on his head in order to reduce things to a single point — “I am a messenger of the absolute, therefore I am”. Fuck off you cunt. Hope not to ever meet me in person fuckface!
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 23:18
I was going to say that you can take the boy out of the RCP but you can’t take the RCP out of the boy, although at least ‘fire@commie’ has ceased pretending to be a communist (but Will stole my thunder), and something else about thick fuckwits who seem to confuse this blog’s title with a moronic pseudo-left pretend Trotskyist cult, especially when only four of the contributors here would consider themselves Marxists, but I can’t be arsed to go over first principles.
Anyway: nobody here supports the stupid fucking libel laws.
Stupid Marxist unlayable cunts.
Ooh Mr Sexy…
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 23:20
David T - keep your spirits up there.
Will loves you as well really, he’s just too embarassed to say.
Anyway what about this “Niko”, very odd - if he’s not JH who is he ? JH’s PR - but would anyone go so far ? A stalker perhaps - now that would be weird. Or a lawyer set up to go on sites and talk about defamation perhaps to freak people out ?
I reckon I saw something similar to the last option, when Sunny from PP was up against Guido. There were odd people popping up then with such stuff.
String them up anyway.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 17:09
Even when he was on “our side”, I tended towards thinking that Hari was a
fairly superficial writer. I wrote about this back in ‘04.
A month or two earlier, Hari was found to have engaged in plagiarism (or nicking other people’s words) by Chris Brookes ( 18.8.04 … “Great Coincidences of Our Time: In The New Republic, dated 1 October 2001… “).
http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2007/08/whats-left-whats-new.html
By the way, there is a case to be made for the libel laws: George Orwell made it once. But I’ll save that for another day.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 18:12
unlayable cunts
Oxymoron, surely?
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 18:31
Your argument that Hari committed plagiarism is that he once used the same accurate quote from a book as another journalist. That is the lamest charge of plagiarism I have ever heard.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 20:44
Hi Niko. Know Hari well then do you?
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 20:55
Niko is funny.
Friday 3 August 2007 at 0:13
That’s it? that’s your answer? you’re happy to accuse somebody of plagiarism because they accurately quoted a sentence from a book that somebody else quoted in a review of the book years before? incredible. and you accuse hari of making things up!
Friday 3 August 2007 at 9:07
Concerning Nico’s comments about plagiarism, this was just something I came across in my notes when looking for Hari’s empty sloganeering on global poverty,the World Bank etc., but since he’s not convinced… The post on Harry’s place goes like this:
Hari does not mention Wolfe’s review in TNR, let alone Gene’s post. As regards the last sentence, I leave it to you to decide whether Hari was being, um, economic with the truth in relation to this.
Friday 3 August 2007 at 9:51
Nico: you accuse hari of making things up
In his reply to the review, Cohen provides evidence for what he claims are a number of gaps between what Hari wrote and what Cohen has actually done.
If Hari is not “making things up” here are you claiming that he is incompetent?
Friday 3 August 2007 at 19:24
What? I don’t understand what that quote has to do with anything, DavidP. Hari quoted Negri’s book accurately. Somebody else years before… quoted Negri’s book accurately. This is plagiarism how?
Dirigible, Cohen alleges Hari has misquoted his book, and Hari responds showing where Cohen actually said these things. For example, Cohen denies saying the West was right to back Saddam in the 1980s. Hari shows, with page references, where Cohen actually said it. It’s Cohen who is lying here.
An allegation by an interested party is not a slam-dunk case, especially when it is shown so easily shown to be wrong.
Friday 3 August 2007 at 20:11
Kagemusha is back.
The point has already been made, but some people obviously need new spectacles or their ears cleaning out or something.
I’ve read the supposed ‘rah rah USA!’ passages several times and I’m afraid I can’t see it. There are plenty of things to criticise in the book, but Cohen recounting the actions of the US, UK (not forgetting France, Germany, USSR and China’s involvment), does not make him a supporter of those actions. People are using his support for the removal of Saddam Hussein to impute support for 80s/90s foreign policy ex post facto.