April 21, 2001
To: Editor
Washington Post
From: David Horowitz

Because I was on a speaking tour, your reporter Thomas Edsall was unable to reach me for comment about Evan Gahr's personal assault on Paul Weyrich as a "demented anti-Semite." I have known and worked with Paul Weyrich for many years and consider Gahr's attack on Paul to be irresponsible and baseless. Paul Weyrich is not an anti-Semite and the only demented party in this dispute is Mr. Gahr.

I regret to say that Mr. Gahr was briefly a columnist for my Internet website www.frontpagemagazine.com. This is no longer the case.

David Horowitz

Evan Gahr

April 22, 2001
From: Evan Gahr
To: David Horowitz

I have thus far remained silent about your reprehensible decision not to "publish" my Paul Weyrich column.

I remained silent Friday, even thought it was readily apparent that I could have reaped considerable publicity from the rejection by rushing to the media with charges of "censorship" by none other than the anti-censor himself. It was tempting. (Unlike some of your puerile critics – including journalists who can't get on TV fast enough to call you a publicity hound--I don't pretend to be above the fray or otherwise bereft of either ideological bias or self-interest.) Nevertheless, I abstained.

I remained silent even when asked by a Washington Post reporter why the piece did not appear in front-page. I refused to answer any questions about editorial decisions. I told him to call you. I assumed that FrontPage would explain precisely what happened.

Now, I am compelled to speak out, not just about the circumstances of the rejection of the column, but the larger issues.

First, the circumstances. The April 21 Washington Post story gives readers the clear impression that you were somehow not responsible for the rejection of my article. I must state immediately and publicly that is not the case. At this point, to remain silent would render me culpable for misinformation. I'll let you explain the details and I'm sure you have no compunction about doing so.

That takes care of the circumstances. As for the decision. Your refusal to post my Weyrich piece wasn't wrong for the dopey reasons likely to be asserted by the left.

My prime objection isn't that you employed a rank double standard. But let's not kid ourselves or anybody else. You did.

The Washington Post quotes FrontPage editor Richard Poe as saying he rejected the article because he did not feel there was anything in the piece which "justified" calling Weyrich "an anti-Semite." Let's leave aside, for a moment, the question of what evidence would provide ample justification. Let's also dispense with the silly idea, fueled by political correctness, that Weyrich is anti-Semitic just because he tells Semitic lies. Why would one possibly follow from the other? Isn't that just like saying someone who lies is a liar? How is that possibly justified? Isn't that just an ADL-spawned myth? Those hypersensitive, liberal Jews sure have a vivid imagination. What's Abe Foxman going to think of next?

Do you yearn for the days when the pernicious forces of political correctness are vanquished so that prominent conservatives can Jew bait without fear of public reproach?

Let's stick to the facts for a moment. Weyrich has publicly rehashed a demonstrably false claim. This lie, long since repudiated by virtually all of Christianity, has emboldened murderous anti-Semites practically since the birth of Christ.

(All sarcasm aside, let me say the following. I know full well that Weyrich has never advocated, suggested or implied that anybody should harm Jews. Moreover, he certainly did not intend his recent remarks to incite violence.)

Still, Weyrich's assertions are deemed insufficient to justify my assertion. By what standard is any opinion "justified?" Facts can be confirmed. Opinions are by definition a matter of opinion. The more applicable standard – legally and beyond – is whether the opinion does not exceed the facts. The facts here are beyond dispute.

Moreover, why, suddenly, are my assertions subjected to such withering scrutiny? In recent weeks, FrontPage has published my reporting on a number of subjects, even when my exclusive stories, while well-sourced, albeit in one case anonymously, were hardly beyond dispute. Certainly, I cited compelling evidence to accuse Jesse Jackson of being a cheap tipper or Arthur Waskow of indulging demented proposals for social justice. And, in each case, the aforementioned creeps declined numerous opportunities to respond. Still, none of these pieces would have been posted if the Weyrich standard obtained.

Nobody is entirely consistent. Intellectual purity has no inherent value. You're a bit of a hypocrite. Big deal. So am I. Who is not? Some of the more important values are honesty and courage.

Throughout a long and distinguished career, you've evidenced both.You stood up to the Black Panthers. As someone utterly bereft of either bigotry or its patronizing counterpart, you refused to give these violent criminals a free ride because their mendacity was cloaked in the seductive language of racial justice. More recently – in the face of vicious assaults and lies from former compatriots--as you did in the 1980s when you publicly turned rightward.

You're a genuine American hero. In this case, however, you're wrong. I hope you reverse course.

Think about it. You refused to expose an influential Washingtonian, even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that he indulged some of the most vicious theologically based anti-Semitism in recent memory. Why? Because Weyrich is on the right? Is that your new standard? No enemies on the right?

The motivation ultimately doesn't much matter. Confronted with someone within your ideological camp who espoused an insidious philosophy – a philosophy arguably responsible for the murder of millions of people – you refused to name names. Sound familiar?

Evan Gahr

April 22, 2001
From: David Horowitz
To: Evan Gahr

Your attack on Weyrich (both the article and your remarks to Edsall) are inexcusable. They amount to character assassination. You cannot hang a human being on one comment and consider yourself a principled champion of truth and justice. I have worked with Weyrich for years. I don't feel that he ever treated me in a manner that would justify your attack. I am not familiar with anything he has said or written that would justify such a conclusion. The idea that there is some material difference between demanding that someone be crucified and actually putting the nails in the cross is ludicrous and you know it. I think putting it as bluntly as Weyrich did was in poor taste and "insensitive" but then I would be a real hypocrite if I invoked that standard in this case when I am arguing against doing so in others.

Your piece was rejected because it was a malicious slander. You tried to bully Richard into running it immediately. What was the hurry? To stamp out a dangerous anti-Semite or to get your name in print with a sensational (if groundless) attack? I am terminating you as a columnist for FrontPage for these reasons. You should think about an apology to Weyrich. Then we can talk.

David Horowitz

April 22, 2001 6:09 pm

To: David Horowitz
From: Evan Gahr

Do you really want to be a useful idiot for Paul Weyrich?  Taint all the good you've done with his blood libel?  Yeah, blood libel and you can quote me on that. Go sue me over it. I'm not gonna remain silent in the face of a demented anti-Semite. (Although I know Weyrich personally abhors violence and has never advocated or suggested violence against Jews or anyone.)

Why give Eric Alterman your head on a silver platter?

If you make common cause with a demented anti-Semite you lose credibility; ditto for saying it's "unjustified" to call him anti-Semitic but I can mock Jesse Jackson based on allegations from 1989.   Then you, the anti-censorship guru, fire me for an article that appeared elsewhere and for comments I made to The Washington Post???? It sounds like a novel about a conservative charlatan.  Again, you're a genuine American hero.  Why are you determined to risk your credibility with other conservatives to defend a demented anti-Semite who made demonstrably false statements?   You risk becoming as much of a joke as Pat Buchanan.

If so, please stick to the issues. I would like to respectfully ask that whatever you write you refrain from impugning my character – with allegations that I bullied Richard Poe or I'm a publicity hound (Do you know how foolish that sounds from you?????) or any other slime you're about to send my way.   Please explain that the allegation that I bullied Richard Poe was mistaken.  Think of it this way: I have clear evidence that your charge is false.  Phone records show he called me as much as I called him. Emails show he was eager for the piece.  If I wanted to piss all over you I would have distributed all that stuff Thursday evening – or certainly forwarded to Edsall Friday.

I would appreciate it if you would stick to the arguments I raised.  Moreover, I told Richard Poe Thursday afternoon after I called American Jewish Congress that it was for FrontPage and this was now public knowledge. Do you really want to piss all over me?  If I wanted to play the conservative hypocrisy game I would have done it months ago when FrontPage rejected my Nader piece because it was ideologically out of sync. If I was rushing to The Washington Post, I would have done it Thursday evening, or to another gossip columnist when you nixed the Lloyd Grove piece because you were too scared of a Washington Post gossip columnist. Paper tiger?

Keep it clean.  I did tell them this morning you had discontinued my column.

This may sound pompous, but you have a lot more to lose here than I do. I broke a major story about a demented anti-Semite among modern conservatives.   You are now going to look foolish shilling for him.  Who the fuck is gonna give you money after this? The Pioneer Fund?   It's custom made for Alterman to embarrass your donors.