Neocon guru Max Boot has been accused of plagiarism. Daniel Flynn’s case seems pretty tight to me without looking at the two stories side by side. Boot is an ideological fool, but this is really sloppy. Another explanation is that someone else wrote the piece and Boot signed it. Boot admits to using a research assistant, but says the words are his. He may come to regret saying that.
The Wall Street Journal has responded here. The response is pretty weak. I’m supposed to accept that Boot’s article was not cribbed simply because the WSJ assures me it was not? Plus all the denials insinuate that Flynn is simply “disgruntled” because his submission was not accepted. This is despicable. I’m sure the WSJ rejects the vast majority of submissions it receives. I’m sure Flynn understood that there was no guarantee that his article would be accepted. Rejection is a routine part of being a freelancer.