Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness

Beautiful. I was thinking something similiar as was reading Doughy's brilliant take-down of that know nothing elitist expert. Just because you know nothing don't mean you don't know something.

oh, the doughmanity!

Man, I don't know anything about lots of things, so I guess that makes me an expert on everything! I should start a blog...

Dough, a fuck, a right-wing fuck!
Dough, a lard-ass chickenhawk!
Dough, a pasty pundit fool!
Dough, the fruit of Lucianne's twat!

[Note from the Webmaster: The Left disavows all imagery and resultant nightmares from this nursery rhyme, deplores its horrible ad hominem methodology (cough, cough), strongly condemns its not following the progression from that Sound of Music song, and takes a dump on its irregular syllabic structure.]

Somebody also writes "I can read Arabic".

Wowie kazowie.

I haven't had this much fun since the meltdown of BloJoCred.

I'm kind of interested to see how Mr. Specious Infotainment (aka Dough Boy) will weasel out of debating Cole.

As I recall from Franken's "Big Fat Idiot" Jonah would appear on a talk show only if Al Franken wouldn't.

My theory: he knows he's got nothing. And he knows enough to be dilligent hiding his ignorance.

I like the part where he defends the fact that he isn't in the military:

"No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice."

Gee, I wonder why nobody ever accepts these answers. My theory: These have never been good excuses to get out of war in all the history of people killing each other. Frankly, I suspect that at least one person serving in Iraq meets all these criteria, and to boot doesn't particularly support the war. Shouldn't Jonah go relieve him?

I also feel that the Right has really failed to support the troops if you can't earn a livng wage in a military career, which is what Jonah seems to imply above.

Johan "Momma's Boy" Goldberg could (should) have apologized but he went all over the map. Thanks for providing this summary that is so easy to follow. BTW - Momma's Boy attacks Wolcott with question what can James do. It's called writing Johan. Learn how to.

Run pantload. Eventually there'll be no one LEFT that can't out-think you and you'll have no choice but to off yourself unceremoniously in your mother's basement.

I think the real question is, if Juan Cole is so great, why can't he fly?

(I mean like Superman, not on an airplane.)

Obviously, since Juan Coleman is not Superman, and Superman represents America (even though he's an alien from another planet), Juan Coleman is wrong. About everything. Even his choice of toothpaste.

Holy shit, why did I make him Juan Coleman? I blame X-Rays from outerspace.

I can read Arabic numerals. Fluently.

For someone ostensibly heterosexual, James Wolcott does a GREAT impersonation of a catty old drag queen. I picture RuPaul in curlers when reading his snappy bon mots.

Why should Goldberg apologise for anything? If anything COle should apologise for his graceless tantrum throwing. Can you imagine Martin Kramer or Bernard Lewis pulling rank and waving their credentials around so crassly? What an childish egomaniac!

And anyone claiming the Iranian elections (of pre-screened candidates) is 'more democratic' than the Iraqi elections is simply wrong no matter what degrees they hold and languages they speak. Cole seems to think that reading arabic gives him special insight to the 'arab street' when in fact he is simply parroting the propaganda advanced by the Arab League through their state-controlled arabophone media. His language skills merely help make him a more effective parrot.

You forgot to mention the "argument to authority" fallacy with which Cole kicks off practically every post in a most nauseating and eye-rolling fashion.

eg: "As for Pipes himself, let's just say that he's not a full professor at a major university."

Oh, and his constant ad hominems directed at all real and imagined opponents, accusing everyone to the right of Uri Avnery of being a "Likud operative" and Mossad agent. And insinuating that the Fadhil brothers are CIA plants. And lying about MEMRI's sponsorship and refusing to back down when confronted with his lie. And falsely claiming to have opposed the war. Etc etc etc.

Aw, go smoke a Pipes, you Likudnik.

Jame: I can't help what you picture, but I'm glad that you are giving enough to have shared it with us. Maybe I'll retroactively insert a mention of Mr. Wolcott into the body of the post so people won't think you're fucking nuts or something.

Garbanzo: In the spirit of your well-researched comments, I am changing the name of my post to "Professor Juan Cole Is Perfection and Grace Personified." Although the rest of my post won't make any sense, it will give the casual reader the impression that you're responding to something I said.

And anyone claiming the Iranian elections (of pre-screened candidates) is 'more democratic' than the Iraqi elections is simply wrong no matter what degrees they hold and languages they speak.

Care to tell me exactly why such a claim would be "simply wrong?" Professor Cole at least provides the criteria by which he comes to this conclusion.

"And anyone claiming the Iranian elections (of pre-screened candidates) is 'more democratic' than the Iraqi elections is simply wrong no matter what degrees they hold and languages they speak. Cole seems to think that reading arabic gives him special insight to the 'arab street' when in fact he is simply parroting the propaganda advanced by the Arab League through their state-controlled arabophone media. His language skills merely help make him a more effective parrot."

I can't tell if this is subtle parody or poor argumentative skills. For someone like me, who doesn't know jack crap about Iran, it doesn't really explain why the elections there were less democratic. You're talking to a stereotypical American here; You can't just expect me to bring my vast knowledge of Iranian politics to bear to immediately see what's what.

For ignoramuses like me, Don Juan seems more persuasive because he actually has, you know, arguments and examples. He doesn't just declare things to be true.

Professor Cole at least provides the criteria by which he comes to this conclusion.

Yes and his criteria are laughably arbitrary and misapplied in the bargain. Khatami is a liberal cause he read Habermas!! (in German no less, whoop-de-doo!) So Iraq's candidates were anonymous -- considering they were nominating a set of party delegates to a parliament it is far from obvious why this is somehow undemocratic. 'Unexpected results' and 'safe conditions'? Completely arbitrary. Cole's point regarding poor security makes no sense as he seems to complain about the 'Draconian' security measures on the 30th, which of course succeeded in preventing widespread attacks.

But this elision takes the prize: " In the 1997 election the vetting was lax..." Oh was it?

"What the media failed to mention was the fact that out of 238 presidential candidates only four were approved to run by the Guardian Council, one of which was Mr. Khatami."

http://www.dcpersian.com/ModForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6116

Khatami himself still reports to the unelected guardians! COle's interpretation of this process as 'more democratic' than iraq's is a joke.

". In the 1997 presidential election-an open race with no incumbent-the Guardian Council approved only 4 of the 238 registered candidates. Compare this to the approval of 106 out of 124 registered candidates during the first post-revolutionary election of 1980, in which the Guardian Council did not participate in the vetting process."

http://asiasociety.erlbaum.net/publications/update_iran.html

For someone like me, who doesn't know jack crap about Iran,

And yet you see fit to ridicule 'doughy pantload' for his completely accurate criticism of Cole's ridiculous statement. You have apparently made not the slightest effort to investigate the truth of Cole's claim.

For ignoramuses like me, Don Juan seems more persuasive because he actually has, you know, arguments and examples. He doesn't just declare things to be true.

How's this for a declaration:

"I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides. " Don Juan telling it like it is, 4 March, 2003
(this comment is far from unique, by the way)

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2456871

Since Mr Khatami, their supposed champion, was first elected president in 1997, a power struggle has raged between Iran’s democrats and its theocrats. Virtually all efforts at liberalisation have been thwarted.

What's the weather like on Planet Cole?

To reiterate:

Garbanzo: In the spirit of your well-researched comments, I am changing the name of my post to "Professor Juan Cole Is Perfection and Grace Personified." Although the rest of my post won't make any sense, it will give the casual reader the impression that you're responding to something I said.

I've checked, and colewatch.blogspot.com is ripe for the picking as a domain name. I strongly suggest you display the remainder of your Google searches there.

norbizness, I realize it's inconvenient for a thread devoted to bashing fatty goldberg should involve any cole-bashing of any kind. But I thought we were debating the accuracy of Cole's comments regarding Iran. If you'd like this thread to be all about Doughy Pantload's cowardice etc and not at all about the substance of his claims, I'm happy to remain silent. I consider the topic of Iran substantive and jabs at goldberg childish and inane.

Garbonzo: Sorry, I would have addressed it privately, but I'm afraid that no@no.com doesn't register as a valid e-mail destination.

In short, I can claim that the Patriots will win the Super Bowl because their team name has more letters than the Eagles. The Patriots winning the Super Bowl will not prove my numerological theory, nor my expertise in football, nor confidence in any future Super Bowl predictions.

Goldberg could have used any of the links/articles you listed. Instead, he and the Cornernites employed the ones I listed in my post. His sole rejoinder on the substantive issue was "It smells of whitewash to me. I'll consult some experts." Maybe you can volunteer.

Garbanzo - What is it exactly that you don't understand? This is not Juan Cole's blog. This is Norbizness's blog and he chose to write about an on-going smackdown between Juan Cole and a coward who won't admit to his own cowardice. This is not about the subtance of what those two are debating, but rather about the debate itself. Especially as Jonah Goldberg is a big boy (figuratively, if not literally) and he should be able to make his own arguments against Professor Cole.

As Norbizness suggested, if you got a problem with Cole, bring it to Cole. If you want a blog denouncing Juan Cole, create one. The subtance of this debate is fascinating, I'm sure, and you're blog should be a big hit.

And for the record, I read Juan Cole's website every day, and while I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, I have not witnessed Cole arguing from authority with every post. If you have quotes showing he does, I suggest that you find those quotes rather than inventing your own. But I should also add that, despite the rightwing's preoccupation with denouncing intellectuals and expertise, there *is* such a thing as expertise and it means something. Unfortunately for most conservatives, we are not all mental equals in this world and some people have more expertise in certain fields than others. Every jackass has an opinion, but that doesn't mean we should listen to it.

Garbanzo - we get it, Jonah. Just post under your real name now - Jonah "Doughy Pantload" Goldberg.

By the way...how are your therapy sessions going? Have you made any progress dealing with the fact that you are the wretched product of a five-minute quickie between your whore of a momma and LBJ?

"'For someone like me, who doesn't know jack crap about Iran,'

And yet you see fit to ridicule 'doughy pantload' for his completely accurate criticism of Cole's ridiculous statement. You have apparently made not the slightest effort to investigate the truth of Cole's claim."

No, no I haven't done any research. I also didn't ever refer to Mr. Goldberg as a "doughy pantload" (Although I did call him Jonah, despite not really knowing him very well. that's pretty rude too), nor did I particularly criticise his conclusion, except to say that it was argued poorly. Which it was.

Well, technically it was you I criticised for arguing poorly, but since we seem to be lumping my comments in with everybody elses, I might as well lump yours in with Mr. Goldberg's. Why not?

I did, however, make fun of him for his poor excuses for not going to war, so maybe you should call me out on that.

BTW, IMHO the wittiest part of the exchange was Juan Cole's: "If Jonah Goldberg had asserted that he could fly to Mars in his pyjamas and come back in a single day, it would not have been a more fantastic allegation than the one he made about Iraq being a danger to the United States because of the nuclear issue. He made that allegation over and over again to millions of viewers on national television programs, to viewers who trusted his judgment because CNN and others purveyed him to them."

Yeah Lumpy Squarepants Jonah, Ahole Sullivan, Garbanzo, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al are proud members of the neo-royalist wing of the repuglican party....as they squawk the chickenhawk war talk

BTW, Jonah's logic reminds me of the senile demented fool who used to describe himself as being in the army in WWII -- the neo-royalist Ronnie Ray Gun -- who made movies in Hollywood when some folks like Jimmy Stewart actually left their kids and paychecks to serve their country.....sic transit gloria --

Is the level of commentary here not embarrassing for those who take part? It's not only 99% ad hominem, but of the most infantile sort, making fun of Mr. Goldberg's alleged weight and so forth. Isn't it silly to attack an advocate of war by saying he should go serve in the military himself? One could just as well reply that all his critics, who opposed the war in Iraq, should have volunteered to spend time in Saddam and Sons' prisons and torture chambers. (That was the level of attacks against the left during the Cold War: Why don't you go live in Cuba or the Soviet Union, etc.) There are risks in going to war, and risks in not going to war, and we don't advance debate one scintilla by tarnishing proponents of one side or the other with not having personally undergone the risks.

It's interesting that when someone does come along to debate the issues (Garbanzo - no, I've never met or spoken to him or her) the infantile participants can do no better than insult him or else tell him to leave and post elsewhere. I suppose these same people pride themselves on their 'critical' acumen and independent-mindedness.

prof. Cole offered perfectly rational reasons why he thinks the Iranian elections were freer, among those being THE CANIDATES COULD CAMPAIGN WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT BEING KILLED --THE PEOPLE COULD VOTE WITHOUT WRRYING ABOUT BOMBERS--THEY ACTUALLY KNEW THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES.

Yet our troll here would have us believe that anonymous canidates and fear of being killed if you vote is an example of FREEDOM ON THE MARCH.

The other point that Cole makes is the Pantload says in his response that he will get back to him on the Iranian elections, now why would you write about something YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

I call them Insane Clown Pundits.

This is not about the subtance of what those two are debating, but rather about the debate itself.

Not sure what this means. The substance of the debate is irrelevant? 'The debate itself' boils down to lobbing childish ad hominems? What does Jonah Goldberg's cowardice have to do with anything? I don't remember Cole mentioning it. "Still nothing on the central points of the debate: the relative openness of the recent Iraqi elections vs. the Iranian elections in 1997..."

His sole rejoinder on the substantive issue was "It smells of whitewash to me. I'll consult some experts."

A fair point. And Goldberg is definitely a jerk, I'm happy to grant you that. In that vein, here is an excellent parody of NRO's ridiculous blog from way back. Adios.

THE CANIDATES COULD CAMPAIGN WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT BEING KILLED --THE PEOPLE COULD VOTE WITHOUT WRRYING ABOUT BOMBERS--THEY ACTUALLY KNEW THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES.

The same could be said of any of Saddam's sham elections, which were no more democratic for similar reasons. The unelected guardian coucil screens all candidates for president and the Majlis. They are also the ultimate authority in all legal matters.

see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6856181/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3389017.stm

Now back to kicking Jonah.

I had lunch with Cole last year. I thought he was a little self-absorbed. On the other hand, he had his arguments in order and came to the table (literally) with plenty of evidence to back them up.

I don't know Goldberg apart from his blog. Seems to be similarly self-absorbed, but is short on logic and evidence. It's hard to take him seriously when the weight of his argument is, "Well, MY readers think I'm right!"

My favorite, absolute favorite, comment in this whole mess has been the idiot who told Juan Cole he was an elitist because he knew something about what he was talking about and expected others to know something, too, before commenting. This is scary shit.

I’m more than willing to engage Garbanzo in this debate. I’ll start by noting that this:

”Khatami is a liberal cause he read Habermas!! (in German no less, whoop-de-doo!)”

...is just pointless. No doubt Cole classifies Khatami as a “relative liberal” because of Khatami’s politics. If you feel this classification is wrong, then how would you classify Khatami, and why?

You continue: ”So Iraq's candidates were anonymous -- considering they were nominating a set of party delegates to a parliament it is far from obvious why this is somehow undemocratic.”

Cole never claimed that the elections were undemocratic; he argued that they were “less democratic” than an election with a public list of candidates, such as was available in the Iranian election.

”'Unexpected results' and 'safe conditions'? Completely arbitrary.”

I’m not sure what you intend with these observations. Cole argues that the unexpected results of the 1997 Iranian elections mitigates against the chance that they were staged, and provides evidence that the election was relatively free and democratic. That strengthens his argument regarding those elections, although I agree it doesn’t say much as a point of comparison vis-a-vis the elections in Iraq. Safe conditions are necessary for a democratic election; people who are intimidated don’t go out to vote, and this has an unfortunate tendency to skew the results. The “draconian” security measures Cole complains of were necessary precisely because it was not safe to vote in Iraq, so as far as I can tell this argument:

”Cole's point regarding poor security makes no sense as he seems to complain about the 'Draconian' security measures on the 30th, which of course succeeded in preventing widespread attacks.”

...is simply incoherent.

Your quote regarding the Guardian Council says absolutely nothing about the “laxity” of candidate selection in 1997. But I agree with you that Cole needs to clarify his reasoning on that point.

Finally, this:

How's this for a declaration:

"I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides. " Don Juan telling it like it is, 4 March, 2003

…appears to be a misattribution. Cole posted nothing on that date. See for yourself at:

http://www.juancole.com/2003_03_01_juancole_archive.html

What appeared to be dough leaking out of the corners of my monitor turned out to be hummus. I think it is because you guys ground that pantload "garbanzo" into a fine paste. And the one thing that even loser, knownothing, ignorant chickenhawks like Goldberg know about the Middle East is that when you mix pulverized garbanzo beans with garlic, olive oil, and tahine you get hummus. Delicious. Continue making my day folks. I love it when war-mongering false patriots get ground into a fine paste.

Garbonzo said "The unelected guardian coucil screens all candidates for president and the Majlis. They are also the ultimate authority in all legal matters."

Yes, and the Iraqi's didn't even know who they were voting for and many did not vote out of fear of death. And it is probable that Iran had a higher voter turnout. And Iran was electing an actual leader, rather than electing anonymous representives who would select a group to pick a leader (or I think that's what is happening). The fact is that it is debatable on whether the Iranian election was more or less democratic than the Iraqi election. Juan Cole gave his reasons for suggesting the Iranian election was more democratic, while you continue to state a few facts about who picked the candidates for Iran's list and acting as if the subject is closed to debate because of those few facts.

And it should be noted that Cole is not necessarily blaming the US for lack of security when he mentions that fact in relation to the election. He is simply stating a fact. The security in Iraq is very poor and that was a mitigating factor undermining the democratic auspices of this election. Similarly, if 40% of Florida refused to accept the legitmacy of any election and another 40% feared death and both groups refused to vote, our own elections would be less legitimate. The Iranian's election had undemocratic elements, as did the Iraqi's election. Juan Cole's opinion is that the Iraqi election was less democratic than the Iranian one. And Goldberg disagrees because...well...because he's Jonah Goldberg and he gets paid to pimp for the neo-cons. To my knowledge, he has presented no better evidence than that.

And please note that I have not introduced any new facts into this discussion. I am simply restating Cole's argument, and not defending him by citing facts outside of the specific debate. You, on the other hand, are citing sources that Goldberg is unable or unwilling to cite. Rather than discussing the debate between these two blogging luminaries, you are trying to have a separate debate with us. And that's not what this forum is for.

Norbizness posted about the debate between the two and if you want to cite or restate either what Cole or Goldberg have said, that is acceptable. But if you want to debate or attack Cole, send him an email or create your own blog. Hell, if you want to debate this subject, bring it on over to my blog. I'm always up for a rough and tumble debate on any subject. Email me and I'll even post your email at my blog and then rebutt it. Bring it on, beanboy, the doctor is in.

…appears to be a misattribution. Cole posted nothing on that date.

Oh really?

Down the memory hole go Dr. Cole's inconvenient posts! Unfortunately Google is not in on his lame little charade.

Poster garbanzo reminds one of the sophists that
denied the existence of truth itself (like Plato's
Thrachymachus who held that what is truthful, just,
and/or beautiful is lawfully determined by the rich
and powerful) These Straussian types are far beyond
reasoned debate or any socratic dialog, bent as they
are on propelling the nation they would betray to
a new equivalent of disasterous Pelopenesian Wars,
and a bestial dark age that would take centuries
for humanity to climb out of.

My apologies. The quote appears March 19th. It is most certainly NOT misattributed.

Did you read anything I wrote earlier? You are comparing poor security (not poor enough to drive away a solid majority of eligible voters) to 4 candidates hand-selected from among hundreds by 6 clerics. That voters were only safe because of the 'Draconian security' means nothing. Cole has been among a great many complaining about inadequate security from the very beginning of the US occupation.

Cole himself can't figure out if the elections are "a joke" as he initially described them or a legitimate plea for US withdrawal on the part of Shi'ites. Everything must be framed in cheap point-scoring terms versus the loathed Bush administration. It makes it very difficult to take him seriously even when his knowledge is applied fairly (rare occasions indeed.)

Your quote regarding the Guardian Council says absolutely nothing about the “laxity” of candidate selection in 1997.

Huh? "[in 1997] the Guardian Council approved only 4 of the 238 registered candidates." Something here that's hard to understand?

Rosalinda reminds me of one of these sophists who deny the existence of truth itself. Like Josef Stalin, who shared with Juan Cole the habit of misrepresenting history and tarring his political opponents with charges of treason.

I wash my hands of this thread. It's almost sad that Garbonzo and other people who couldn't take the goddamned hint have made this the most commented-on post in my illustrious 68-year history of blogging, surpassing even my beloved Extra Whitening Rap Lyrics Translator.

If this hits 50 comments, I'm going to start pruning and banning.

If this hits 50 comments, I'm going to start pruning and banning.

You go, girl!

Garbonzo - Again you miss the point on the security issue. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that security is an issue. The fact remained that lack of security was an issue which hindered democracy, among other issues that Cole cited.

Nor does the fact that a majority voted necessarily prove that security was not an issue. Security was an issue country-wide, and was a bigger issue in some parts of the country than in other parts. For example, if 65% of the people voted, it is probable that an even larger percentage wanted to vote but did not out of fear. And in Sunni parts of the country, security was a much bigger issue, preventing even more people from voting who may have wanted to. We're not blaming the Americans for this (in fact I blame the terrorists); we're simply stating a fact that security issues hindered the democracy, along with other mitigating factors.

Think of it this way, in our recent election, if 5% of Americans refused to vote out of security concerns, would that be considered hinderance to our democracy? And what if certain parts of the country had an even bigger percentage, such as Florida or Georgia missing 20% of voters who wanted to vote but were too afraid? Would the election have been as legitimate? And don't forget that, according to some sources such as MEMRI and Fox News, Bin Laden *did* attempt to threaten Americans to keep them from voting for Bush. And the reaction was that this certainly was an attempt to hurt our democracy. And it is probable that certain parts of Iraq had much larger percentages of people who did not vote due to security concerns.

Finally, as I (and Cole) said earlier, Iranians had a limited selection of choices to vote for as leader, while Iraqi's could only pick from a limited selection of anonymous representatives who would pick a group who would select their leader. I just don't see how you can claim a clear-cut victory for Iraq's democracy over the Iranians. You continue to cite the sole fact of Iranians limited choice, while ignoring many issues which clearly hindered the Iraqi's election.

I'm going to speed this up. This is comment #48.

Garbanzo:

I’m not sure if we are allowed to continue with this debate or not, but until I get a clear signal from the board manager, here goes:

”Down the memory hole go Dr. Cole's inconvenient posts! Unfortunately Google is not in on his lame little charade.”

It’s really a shame you feel compelled to show your hand in this manner. Dr. Cole has not shuffled this particular observation ”down the memory hole;” it’s still there to be seen, in his archives, on March 19. You originally identified the statement as being made on March 4, and that’s where I looked. When I discovered that Dr. Cole had no archived post on that date, I had to point out that something was amiss. No harm, no foul.

”Did you read anything I wrote earlier? You are comparing poor security (not poor enough to drive away a solid majority of eligible voters) to 4 candidates hand-selected from among hundreds by 6 clerics.”

Not so. Cole compares the total situation in Iraq, including security problems, with the total situation in Iran (in 1997), and concludes that the Iranian election was, at least arguably, more democratic than the one recently held in Iraq. You are correct, of course, that the selection of the candidates in Iran mitigates against that election being democratic in the same sense that, say, an election in Sweden is democratic. But there are other factors in the Iranian election – such as public voting lists – which were more democratic than the recent Iraqi election (according to Dr. Cole).

In a way, this is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, and I doubt Cole anticipated having to write a doctoral thesis in order to support this one simple throw-away line.

”Huh? "[in 1997] the Guardian Council approved only 4 of the 238 registered candidates." Something here that's hard to understand?”

Yes – the standards by which these candidates were selected. Not that I’m defending such an undemocratic system, mind you, just that Cole claimed that in 1997 the selection standards were ”lax.” Don’t really know what he means by that myself.

50th!

The Iranian and Iraqi elections were each flawed in various ways. The Iraqi election was flawed because of lack of security caused by Islamic and Ba'athist fascists. The election was held prematurely at the insistence of Al-Sistani. Cole makes much of the fact that the elections were held only on Al-Sistani's insistence, in the face of resistance to the idea by the Americans. He even refers approvingly to a blog that sneeringly recites American attempts to delay the elections. But the Americans were right to try to delay, as tacitly admitted by Cole in emphasising the flawed nature of the elections due to the security situation. (What does al-Sistani care - the fewer Sunnis vote the better for him).

In Iran, by contrast, the elections were "flawed", to put it mildly, by the fact that the the assembly to which representatives were elected was and remains essentially powerless, even when the "reformists" held a majority. In this way it resembles elections in a number of Middle Eastern countries, from Jordan under the Hashemite kingdom to the current Saudi municipal elections. They're all very nice but don't change anything.

It's hard to compare flawed elections, but by almost any reasonable standard the elections in Iraq are more substantive as they likely will really lead to a change in government (by Cole's own estimation), and that government is empowered to write the constitution of the country.

To borrow the incessant refrain of the bloggers, what don't you understand about a change of essential political power brought about by the will of the majority of citizens (who seemed to know well enough who they were voting for and why)?

"Rosalinda reminds me of one of these sophists who deny the existence of truth itself. Like Josef Stalin, who shared with Juan Cole the habit of misrepresenting history and tarring his political opponents with charges of treason."

Fine example you set here Garbonzo. You criticise Cole for ad hominem attacks, and resort to the same as soon as you paint yourself into a corner.

It's fair to add that you have supplied to links to support your argument, but that's what it is, and argument, a difference of opinion. Yet isnpite of this, you feel that this justifies you rattle throwing as soon as anyone has the gaul to disagree. Forgive me, but where does that make you any different from the sort of behaviour you so deride in Cole's posts ? Good enough for you I guess, but ca't possibly tolleraste that when it comes to a detractor. Seems you are the one with rather more Stalinist tendancies than you care to admit.

"The Fruit of Lucianne's Twat" ?

Wow - that's a once-in-a-lifetime score.

The routing of the mediaeval Taliban,the holding of free elections in Afghanistan for the first time, the liberation of Afghan women from virtual house arrest, the end of al-Qa'ida's state-sanctioned open training camps and lethal laboratories, the ousting of Saddam - one of the world's most brutal dictators, the killing of his two murderous sons while resisting arrest, the freeing of millions of Shi'ites, marsh Arabs and Kurds, who vote en masse despite grave terrorist threats in the first real Iraqi elections in generations, the scurrying of Saudis to hold their first elections, albeit merely municipal, the abandonment by Libya of its nuclear program, and the exposure and termination of a clandestine Pakistani operation to sell nuclear weapons to vicious regimes.

The continuation of this trend is what Rosalinda, above, describes as "a bestial dark age that would take centuries for humanity to climb out of". Not Taliban rule, a nuclear Libya, Saddam and Sons in power, Kurds massacred, Shi'ites tortured and murdered, al-Qa'ida operating state-sanctioned training camps with tens of thousands of annual recruits. No, it is the REVERSAL of all this that she calls "a bestial dark age".

This is genuinely a fascinating psychological phenomenon that our best minds ought to try to comprehend. The subject expressing these views is presumably a homegrown product, affluent and with a liberal education. She presumably thinks of herself as liberal. She invokes Socrates, not Mao or Muhammed, while referring disparagingly to Strauss. So how does she come to this Alice and Wonderland view of the world?

There are memory holes and there are rabbit holes. In the U.S. there was strong opposition to military involvement in the European war, which was not yet called World War II, opposition which left Britain fighting virtually alone for some three years before Pearl Harbor. While Hitler's army and Einsatzgruppen raged over Europe, lots of little Rosalindas were warning that if we DO get involved we will bring a bestial dark age upon us. Fear, the desire to shelter oneself from a nasty world, and the inclination to feel morally superior, have marvellous effects on one's cognitive powers.

Git 'im, Bubba!

Zudi:

”The routing of the mediaeval Taliban,the holding of free elections in Afghanistan for the first time, the liberation of Afghan women from virtual house arrest, the end of al-Qa'ida's state-sanctioned open training camps and lethal laboratories, the ousting of Saddam - one of the world's most brutal dictators, the killing of his two murderous sons while resisting arrest, the freeing of millions of Shi'ites, marsh Arabs and Kurds, who vote en masse despite grave terrorist threats in the first real Iraqi elections in generations, the scurrying of Saudis to hold their first elections, albeit merely municipal, the abandonment by Libya of its nuclear program, and the exposure and termination of a clandestine Pakistani operation to sell nuclear weapons to vicious regimes.”

You forgot to mention: the death of thousands of Afghan civilians, the resumption of the opium trade, the manipulation of the US public through a carefully orchestrated series of lies about Iraq’s ”WMD” programs, the unprovoked, unsanctioned invasion of a soverign state by the US, Camp X-Ray, the curtailment of individual rights under the Patriot Act, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, and Abu Ghraib.

”There are memory holes and there are rabbit holes. In the U.S. there was strong opposition to military involvement in the European war, which was not yet called World War II, opposition which left Britain fighting virtually alone for some three years before Pearl Harbor. While Hitler's army and Einsatzgruppen raged over Europe, lots of little Rosalindas were warning that if we DO get involved we will bring a bestial dark age upon us. Fear, the desire to shelter oneself from a nasty world, and the inclination to feel morally superior, have marvellous effects on one's cognitive powers.

I find these comparisons between today’s situation and WWII tedious and tendentious. People oppose war for various reasons, some good, some bad. I don’t know if we’re facing a ”bestial dark age,” but I don’t see the world as having become significantly better under the current administration or the ideology driving it.

I always thought we American types were supposed to be naturally sceptical towards excessive governmental power. I thought this scepticism was lodged, if anything, more firmly among ”conservatives” than among ”liberals.”

That sure doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

I'd just like to point out that all insults are not necessarily ad hominem. Ad hominem means that you rebutt an argument by attacking its presenter, which might be fun but does not rebutt the argument. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with plain old insults. I can call Jonah Goldberg a pie-eating lardbutt without having resorted to an ad hominem. Now, if I suggest that he's wrong about Iraq because he's a pie-faced lardbutt, then I've got a problem. But we should all feel free to call a lardbutt a lardbutt without having our integrity impugned upon. That's the law of the land and just plain fun.

Well, since this thread has been well and truly hijacked...

From the same Google archive of Cole that Garbanzo linked to, there is this quote:
"My analysis is not meant to support an anti-war or pro-war position. Like most people, I have mixed feelings about all this (I despise the Baath
Party)."
And these mixed feelings have always been clear in Cole's blog, with him overjoyed some days at the fall of Saddam and horrified other days at Coalition screw ups.
I don't really see what the issue is. We all agree, Garbanzo included, that Goldberg is a jerk. We also pretty much agree that though Dr Cole is a very knowledgeable fellow, he sometimes gets ahead of himself. Garbanzo argues this reasonably clearly, but the falliability of Dr Cole was not the point of the OP. The point of the OP is that Goldberg does not argue against Dr Cole in a remotely competent or persuasive manner. It does not seem to have been a particularly serious OP but has led to this *deadly* serious debate on Iraq and Dr Cole.

I can only speak for myself here, but I find one of Jonah's excuses - that his a** is, er, sorry - to be perfectly acceptable.

My observation that the Straussian Neo-cons are
like nothing so much as the Sophists who destroyed
the promise of the ancient Greek republic throwing
it into the idiotic disasterous Pellopenisian Wars
evidently struck a nerve with the proponents of
the Cheney/Wolfowitz USA Eurasia invasion policy.

"The routing of the mediaeval Taliban..."

the Taliban was and is an operational property
of the Pakistani Intelligence Service beholden
to the NeoCon cabal so well loved by the poster.

..."the holding of free elections in Afghanistan for the first time,..."

let the people of Afganistan alone - NOBODY asked
you to invade them to provide "free elections",
or any other buzzwords so loved by the mass-media.

So-called "free elections" in the USA are a SHAM
with a controlled-mass media and voting machines
wholey owned by felons connected to the Bush
administration, illegal suppression operations
against the poor classes of Americans,
no auditable vote tallies - THIS is the electoral
model you propose for the rest of the world?

"...the liberation of Afghan women from virtual house arrest,..."

wow! what a humanitarian gesture ! why dont you
address the social problems in your own country?
- if you have a country, that is.

"...the end of al-Qa'ida's state-sanctioned open training camps and lethal laboratories,..."

excuse me but i thought al-Quaida = CIA/Mossaad;
have I missed something? Who - WHERE is evidence
that the so-called al-Quaida is anything other
than just another false flag terror operation
a la the Lavon Affair etcetera etcetera etcetera
Excuse me, but I am NOT one of those weak-minded
conspiracy theorists who believe that "Osama bin
Laden's" and his 19 hijackers blithely penetrated
the air defenses of the United States one fine day
causing a number of skyscrapers to neatly collapse
into their own footprints! that is a fairy tale!!!

"...the ousting of Saddam - one of the world's most brutal dictators,..."

If your own hands and heart were clean, and
you did not revel in your own torture chambers,
your claims of moral rectitude might be believed.

"...the killing of his two murderous sons while resisting arrest, ..."

The cadavers of the so-called "sons of Saddam"
show signs of being brutally tortured - were
they also tortured while "resisting arrest"?

NewsMax rehash isnt really grounds for dialog
because the authors of the NeoCon policy have
been caught lying time and time again about
the facts and regarding their purported motives.

"...the freeing of millions of Shi'ites, marsh Arabs and Kurds, who vote en masse despite grave terrorist threats in the first real Iraqi elections in generations,..."

WHAT humanitarian concern for these people!
DO you really love the Arab people so much?

Are we supposed to believe that your concern
for these people is sincere, or are they only
virtuals serving sordid AngloAmerican political
interests soon to be victimized in turn and
added to the scrap heap of the coarsly betrayed?

#...the scurrying of Saudis to hold their first elections, albeit merely municipal,..."

I do not think that you have earned the right
to pretend that you have the well-being of
Saudi or other Arab people at heart - or that
the "democracy" you tout is anything other than
a mechanism of a Neocon fascist-like imperialism
for the purpose of bribing a way into influence.

"...the abandonment by Libya of its nuclear program,..."

From what I have read, Libya's nuclear program
was archaic besides who is concerned about Libya's
aggression? - nobody. WHO is more likely to start
a war or attack its neighbors - Libya or Israel?

"...and the exposure and termination of a clandestine Pakistani operation to sell nuclear weapons to vicious regimes...."

Vicious regimes? This is Likudnik-speak isnt it?
Israel and the rump United States against everyone
in the region who doesnt kowtow to the whims of the rentier/financier oligarchy based in London.

This entire satanic charade (otherwise going by
the cynical monicker of "realpolitiks") is nothing
but Netanyahu and Cheney's "A Clean Break" policy.

Admit it!

IMO The Straussians are so smart they are dumb.
The Chicago schools was never anything other than
a deep undercover intelligence-agency operation.

And the abandonment of reason itself - in the mold
of the Sophists of Greece - the placing of lies on
the throne of truth - like Thrachymachus of Platos
dialog with Socrates - is the hallmark of creepy
ex-Trotskite nihilism masquerading as conservatism

who doesnt kowtow to the whims of the rentier/financier oligarchy based in London.

LOL

Cole must be thrilled that his following includes anti-semitic LaRouchist conspiracy nuts like 'Rosalinda.'

Doctor Biobrain, outstanding point about ad hominems, not made often enough. As it happens Cole's ad hominems too often form the core of his rebuttals (viz the MEMRI incident)-- he leaves the fun stuff for others (note his link to this thread and Wolcott's flip commentary.)

garbanzo DON'T tell me you are going to play the
"anti-semitic" card at this late stage of the game?

The last time I looked
"anti-semitic" means NOTHING except
does NOT go along with the Likud line.

Does it?

WHAT does "anti-semitic" mean besides that?

"anti-semitic" today seems to mean little more than
an oblique criticism of anyone who dares to speak
the truth and/or anyone who refuses to kiss that grotesquely obese mass-murder Ariel Sharon's fat ass!

"Anti-semitic" is just the NeoCon Sophist's way
of saying to someone "shut up before we kill you"

As for "conspiracy theory", it is YOU, garbanzo,
who "believes" that 19 Arab hijackers armed
with box-cutters somehow made several skyscrapers
fall into their tracks on September 11th 2001!

HOW do you suppose those "Islamic fundamentalist hijackers" made them do that?

Now THAT is a conspiracy theory you are promoting-
one only someone who has never studied history,
OR someone with disdain for the laws of physics,
OR a rabid fundamentalist, could possibly believe!

As for the feeble attempt at a snide retort
to my reference to the "rentier/financier
oligarchy based in London." Are you seriously
denying that such a rentier/financier oligarchy
exists? or that it influences current history?

Since history as supposedly already ended
for these NeoCons, I suppose it makes no sense
for them to read the record of universal history.

Again, it is the noxious flatulent neo-Con-ism
of these posters that I have objected to :

the denial of evidence,

the reliance upon lies
as political ammunition,

the making of brazen falsehoods into currency....

My point in this thread has been that the policy
of disregard for truth and the celebration of lies
is what makes these warmongers so closely resemble
the Sophists of Greece who succeeded in destroying
that republic in very much the same way
as the intellectually-challenged Neocons
are so eagerly destroying the United States today.

Do I get a prize for having read to the end of this thread? NOrbizness, great post. Garbanzo, you haven't really made much of a point here. Anyone who reads Cole on a regular basis has to find him a thoughtful guy, well read on his own topic, who does the daily, boring work of reading and presenting information in a fairly balanced way. That is the academic's job and he does it well. Anyone reading Goldberg would have to say that he does a hack's job of cheering on policies he doesn't fully understand, that he is not well read, not thoughtful, and not honest with his readers. You've spend an inordinate amount of time bashing one guy for doing his job (sharing information) and by extension propping up Goldberg for doing his job (speading disinformation). What is in it for you? Just asking.

aimai

Comments are now closed, 13 comments later than I said it would be. Attempts to revive this discussion elsewhere will meet by squelching... with extreme prejudice.