Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Considering a war with Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
    YEAH, I KNOW, I read it already. But because Juan Cole is a hopelessly-compromised partisan hack that has sold his scholarship for political boot-licking, he's not objective, and it's been refuted, and you can dam' well look it up, you poncy little snot.
    The intellectual content of your counterpoint is compelling. I'll allow you to discredit the next source:
    The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

    [T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

    Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
    And if you ever want to compare what I know about it and what you BELIEVE you know about it, come on back when you get a clue, sonny; you're not in my league, noobie.
    Thanks for that, you've certainly brightened up my morning.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
      Thanks for that, you've certainly brightened up my morning.
      You're welcome. Eat this:

      fighting words
      The Cole Report
      When it comes to Iran, he distorts, you decide.
      By Christopher Hitchens
      Posted Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 4:26 PM ET
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      In some ways, the continuing row over his call for the complete destruction of Israel must baffle Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All he did, after all, was to turn up at a routine anti-Zionist event and repeat the standard line—laid down by the Ayatollah Khomeini and thus considered by some to be beyond repeal—that the state of Israel is illegitimate and must be obliterated. There's nothing new in that. In the early '90s, I can remember seeing, in the areas around Baalbek in Lebanon that were dominated by Hezbollah and Amal, large posters of the by-then-late Khomeini embellished (in English) with the slogan, "Israel Must Be Completely Destroyed!" And I have twice been to Friday prayers in Tehran itself, addressed by leading mullahs and by former President Rafsanjani, where the more terse version (Marg bar Esrail—"Death to Israel") is chanted as a matter of routine; sometimes as an applause line to an especially deft clerical thrust.

      No, what worries me more about Ahmadinejad is his devout belief in the return of the "occulted" or 12th imam and his related belief that, when he himself spoke recently at the United Nations, the whole scene was suffused with a sublime green light that held all his audience in a state of suspended animation. This uncultured jerk is, of course, only a puppet figure with no real power, but this choice of puppet by the theocracy is unsettling in itself. So is Iran's complete lack of embarrassment at being caught, time and again, with nuclear enrichment facilities that have never been declared to the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

      However, words and details and nuances do matter in all this, so I was not surprised to see professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan denying that Ahmadinejad, or indeed Khomeini, had ever made this call for the removal of Israel from the map. Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community. At one point, there was a danger that he would become a go-to person for quotes in New York Times articles (a sort of Shiite fellow-traveling version of Norman Ornstein, if such an alarming phenomenon can be imagined), but this crisis appears to have passed.

      Cole continues to present himself as an expert on Shiism and on the Persian, Arabic, and Urdu tongues. Let us see how his claim vindicates itself in practice. Here is what he wrote on the "Gulf 2000" e-mail chat-list on April 22:

      It bears repeating as long as the accusation is made. Ahmadinejad did not "threaten" to "wipe Israel off the map." I'm not sure there is even such an idiom in Persian. He quoted Khomeini to the effect that "the Occupation regime must end" (ehtelal bayad az bayn berad). And, no, it is not the same thing. It is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all. Ariel Sharon, after all, made the Occupation regime in Gaza end.
      There are two separate but related matters here. For a start, let us look at the now-famous speech that Ahmadinejad actually gave at the Interior Ministry on Oct. 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole's.) The relevant portions read:

      Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. … Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. … For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.
      Ahmadinejad then denounced the recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Gaza as a sellout and added, "If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill."

      Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:

      Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.
      My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:

      Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.
      This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."

      Professor Cole has completely missed or omitted the first reference in last October's speech, skipped to the second one, and flatly misunderstood the third. (The fourth one, about "eliminating the occupying regime," I would say speaks for itself.) He evidently thinks that by "occupation," Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Israeli seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. But if this were true, it would not have been going on for "more than fifty years" now, would it? The 50th anniversary of 1967 falls in 2017, which is a while off. What could be clearer than that "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself?

      One might have thought that, if the map-wiping charge were to have been inaccurate or unfair, Ahmadinejad would have denied it. But he presumably knew what he had said and had meant to say. In any case, he has an apologist to do what he does not choose to do for himself. But this apologist, who affects such expertise in Persian, cannot decipher the plain meaning of a celebrated statement and is, furthermore, in need of a remedial course in English.

      Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

      Article URL: What Iran's leaders are really saying about Israel. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine


      Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

      Comment


      • #48
        And this:

        Summary of Hitchens vs. Cole

        Posted by Dorkafork
        Christopher Hitchens wrote this piece, in which his argument was that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did, in fact, argue that Israel should be destroyed, and that Juan Cole, a so-called "Middle East Expert", was wrong to argue otherwise. Then Juan Cole responded with not one, but two posts full of lousy arguments.

        First Cole complains that the e-mail was private and it was unethical for Hitchens to discuss it. I'm inclined to disagree, but that is neither here nor there considering it does not change whether Ahmedinejad talked about destroying Israel or not.

        Cole then claims:

        the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem.
        Gee, thanks Mr. Expert. It "probably" comes from some poem. That was helpful. (Personally, I would avoid using the phrase "in fact" and "probably" in the same sentence.)
        Cole goes on to say:


        Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

        That's the extent of Cole's rebuttal to the significant points made by Hitchens. And if you look at Hitchens' piece again, Cole's defense looks incredibly lame. Cole basically makes no attempt to make a serious rebuttal to Hitchens' points:

        I don't have any intention of making a point by point reply to Hitchens's completely inaccurate screed.
        Followed immediately by his "Khomeini, who said anything about Khomeini?" act.

        He blames me for not referring to some other speech of Khomeini, when in fact I never instanced any speeches of Khomeini at all in this discussion except the snippet cited by Ahmadinejad-- I was arguing that there is no Persian idiom to wipe something off the map, and that Ahmadinejad has been misquoted.
        Yes, who cares about silly little things like context. Cole says Khomeini didn't really mean "wipe Israel off the map". Hitchens shows how foolish that is, Cole fails to rebut him, and acts surprised that Hitchens even brought the subject of Khomeini up. Cole later says:

        Hitchens alleges that I said that Khomeini never called for wiping Israel from the face of the map. Actually, I never said anything at all about Khomeini's own speeches or intentions. I was solely discussing Ahmadinejad. Hitchens should please quote me on Khomeini and Israel. He cannot.
        Hmm. Let me try: "[T]he actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks." Boy that was tough. I had to scroll up nearly halfway up the same damn post.

        Cole also makes this argument:


        Hitchens imagines a whole discourse of mine (which mostly never took place) that he now sets out to refute-- from English translations! But I was saying that the wire service translations were the problem in the first place. Hitchens seems to think that he can over-rule my reading of a Persian text by reference to some hurried journalist's untechnical rendering into English. (-ed. emphasis in original)

        It's Cole's expertise versus the rest of the world's. Besides the New York Times translation of the original Persian, certainly the UN Security Council took Ahmadinejad at his word. "Egypt said Mr Ahmadinejad's outburst 'showed the weakness of the Iranian government' while Turkey urged the president 'to display political moderation'."

        Al Jazeera also translated it as "wiped off the map". It provides Ahmadinejad quotes such as:

        "...the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
        "The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".

        "We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.

        "Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.

        "Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."


        Der Spiegel got it wrong, too:

        His audience of 4,000, at a conference in Tehran titled "A World without Zionism," broke out into the rhythmic chanting of what amounted to a call to arms: "Marg bar Israel!" (death for Israel).
        Maybe Cole should go over to Iran and inform those 4,000 people that they misunderstood what Ahmadinejad said.

        Cole goes on to chant "One, two, three, four. We don't want your stinking war!" (that's not a joke, that's a direct quote) and calls Hitchens a drunk. (Juan Cole tends to have a problem with ad hominems.) He makes a lame excuse for this in his second post: "...the point about his drinking problem is not ad hominem. It is germane to his failing faculties and increasingly immoral behavior." You could just as easily say "Juan Cole is an idiot, which is germane to his faculties and moronic behavior."

        (The second post also mentions comments by Andrew Sullivan on the contretemps. Cole very wisely avoids linking to Sullivan's post on the subject. Also, quotes of Juan Cole are accurate at the time of this posting. Cole's posts have been known to change without warning.)

        UPDATE: I just wanted to add some more; Cole's post provides plenty of grist for the mill. Before calling Hitch a drunk, he mentions weapons sales to Iran by Israel and the US, and links to a description of the Iran-Contra scandal. Presumably he's trying to show that it's possible for Israel & the US to have peaceful dealings with Iran, or maybe that Khomeini disliked us but was willing to have dealings with us. First of all, Israel's arm deals with Iran pre-Iran-Contra were intended to help Iran weaken Iraq, because they took place during the Iran-Iraq war. David Kimche, director general of the Israeli foreign ministry at the time, called it "playing at both ends". This is no more evidence that Israel and Iran can coexist than the fact that Israel helped create Hamas means that they can be friendly. And then we get to Iran-Contra. Arms sales as ransom for hostages mean we can all get along? This amateur hour operation that was done without the knowledge of the CIA or Mossad, that resulted in a huge scandal? Here's Kenneth Pollack's description of Iran-Contra from The Persian Puzzle:


        In every case, as far as the Americans were concerned, the deal was supposed to have been that the Iranians would have the seven Americans held hostage in Lebanon released in return for the latest shipment of arms. In every case, the Iranians failed to do so, although that never stopped the Americans from agreeing to yet another arms shipment in return for yet another promise of the hostages. On three occasions, the Iranians did see to the release of a single hostage -- just enough to keep the Americans coming back for more. However, in September and October 1986, just before the clandestine effort was exposed and shut down, three more Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon, suggesting that the Iranians and their terrorist proxies planned to keep the unequal process of trading the occasional hostage for regular shipments of weapons and intelligence going for a long time.

        The Iranians played the Little Satan and the Great Satan for fools, while Western leaders mistakenly believed they were dealing with "moderate" elements of the Iranian government. "I wouldn't bring up Iran-Contra if I was you, it's poor salesmanship."

        (And Yale's considering hiring this guy? Yeesh.)

        Another Update: Dave Price at Dean's World touches on some of Cole's statements that I didn't, and also links to someone claiming to be Iranian and criticizing Cole's translation skills in the Winds of Change comments section. Oh, and Iowahawk has Cole's first draft. Includes a translation of Ahmadinejad's IM conversation.

        Comment


        • #49
          And this:



          Campus Watch Research
          From survey: University of Michigan
          Was Wiping Israel off the Map a Misquote? [ref. Juan Cole]
          by Michael Rubin
          The Corner (NRO)
          June 21, 2007
          The Corner on National Review Online

          Revisionism is in full swing in Washington as some academics and policymakers bend over backwards to convince themselves and others that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not mean what he says.

          Today, the National Iranian American Council—a lobby group advocating the normalization of ties between the United States and the Islamic Republic—published this analysis, which ends:

          The proper translation of Ahmadinejad's quotes has been the subject of some debate. Kucinich argued that the translations used in the bill were either misquoted or out of context, offering alternative translations from the New York Times to convey his point.

          It's a line which originated with Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor, has peddled. Indeed, Cole wrote:

          I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.

          Perhaps one can quibble over how to render a translation. Here, the Islamic Republic provides its own clarification. In its official translations, it headlined Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map."

          There is a tendency among academics to feel they have to advocate for those countries they study. They should not. Nor should they advocate for the U.S. government. They should analyze dispassionately. But, ignoring or burying evidence that reflects badly on a regime is more likely to advance misunderstanding than advance rapprochement. It is time academics and policymakers both deal with reality as it is, rather than a sanitized version they would wish it to be.

          Comment


          • #50
            And this:

            Juan Cole's Iran distortions (Christopher Hitchens)
            As I have indicated on numerous occasions, I have genuine respect for Juan Cole and regard him as an intellectually and morally serious person. For what it's worth, I have also defended him against accusations that I thought were unfair. But he is making it difficult for those of us who would like to continue doing so. Cole's recent apologetics for the actions and statements of the Iranian regime have become increasingly strained, misleading, irresponsible, and difficult to take seriously. I am afraid that Hitchens's criticisms of Cole in this piece are entirely deserved.

            And that's not all. What Cole has been saying about the Iranian nuclear program can most charitably be described as disingenuous. (E.g., "The IAEA found no smoking gun."--which denies a claim no one has made, and which Cole is smart enough to realize is entirely irrelevant to the real issues.) Perhaps Cole's concern about a possible US attack on Iran--which could, indeed, lead to disastrous consequences--is pushing him over the edge, but that's no excuse. He should get a grip on himself--and on reality.

            Yours for reality-based discourse,
            Jeff Weintraub

            Comment


            • #51
              Oh, yeah, and this:

              Juan Cole, the First Draft
              [Found in a dumpster behind the University of Michigan College of Liberal Arts: the first draft of Professor Juan Cole's latest cri de coeur]

              Christopher Hitchens owes me a big apology. And a free two liter bottle of Pepsi®.

              I belong to a private email discussion group called The MySpace Center for Global Strategic IM Chat Leadership. It has academics, journalists and many of the top popular policy makers on it. We abide by a strict guideline: “the first rule of Chat Club is, there is no Chat Club.” It is run, edited and moderated by former National Security Council staffer for Carter and Reagan, Gary Sick, along with Page Bennett, who is totally like one of the coolest sophomores at Glenbrook North. Participants talk about a wide range of controversial matters, from geopolitics to hairstyles to whether the new legwarmers at Claires are bogus, without worrying about being in trouble or looking like a total dorkwad. It is a rough, rough draft.

              Hitchens somehow hacked into the site, or joined and lurked, or had a crony pass him things. Page suspects he was helped by Jeremy Levitz, who is this really creepy guy who is always staring at her during 6th period geometry. However he accomplished it, he has now made my private email messages the subject of an attack on me in Slate. (I am not linking to the article because it is highly unethical, and totally totally uncool). Moreover, he did not even have the decency to quote the many sarcastic emoticons.

              Why does he owe me Pepsi? Because I believe Hitchens has also somehow hacked into my private Kroger Fresh Values card. I recently received an e-coupon notification from Kroger that I would receive a free bottle of Pepsi® product on my next purchase, and that this included my choice of Pepsi®, Diet Pepsi®, Sierra Mist®, Mountain Dew® or Mountain Dew Code Red™. Imagine the Orwellian chill I experienced when the checkout woman informed me that my e-coupon “has already been redeemed.” Where is your shame, Hitchins? Where is my Pepsi®?

              I'd like to take this opportunity to complain about the profoundly dishonest character of "attack journalism." Journalists are supposed to interview the subjects about which they write, not hound them endlessly, anonymously, in their chat rooms and checkout lanes. Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail. Worse, he continues to taunt me from his secret hiding place in 5th floor bathroom air vents.

              Major journalists have a privileged position. Not just anyone can be published in Slate. Most academics could not get a gig there (I've never been asked to write for it, and seriously, what’s up with that ****?). Hitchens is paid to publish there because he is a prominent journalist. But then he should behave like a journalist, not like a hired gun for the far Right, smearing hapless targets of his ire, and by hapless I don’t mean me because I am totally not hapless, and have an advance degree, and serve on many important committees.

              That isn't journalism. For some reason it drives the Right absolutely crazy that I keep this little web log, and so they keep trotting out these clowns in amateurish sniping attacks. It is rather sad, to look out one’s office window and see the teeming throngs of deranged rightwing crazy people, and their attack journalism sniper clowns. It is even more sad when the Dean will not approve my request for bullet proof office glass to protect me from the armies of menacing Zionist attack clowns.

              The reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private IM chat is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. Second, even if it were true, Hitchens acts like that’s bad or something.

              Since Mr. Hitchens wants to splash my private IMs all over the internet against my will, just like the local Korean agents of the Bush cabal who put secret monitoring devices in my dry cleaning bags, I'm glad to share the message stream from the chat room.

              Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:34:18 -0400

              Ahmad_as_hell: fokkin jewz they gonna get teh nukez!!!!!!!!!!!!
              PageGNHS08: lol!!! i no what u mean
              PageGNHS08: the jews at GNHS totally blow up grade curve
              Ahmad_as_hell: no serius i hate jewz & gt nukez yall!!
              Ahmad_as_hell: I m enrichin u rannium bizitchz
              Ahmad_as_hell: u r so totlly nuked jews!!!!!
              PageGNHS08: whoa dude thts hardcore maybe u shld see ur school counselor
              Juan_in_a_millyun: don’t be a narc page hez jst kiddin
              Ahmad_as_hell: no way dude those jewz are fokkn ded forilla !!!!!
              PageGNHS08: ur creepin me out we saw movie at GNHS abt columbine
              PageGNHS08: im jst sayn
              Juan_in_a_millyun: shutup page hez jst doin his a mad persian rhyme flow
              Juan_in_a_millyun: if u narc u r totally not going to UM or nicks prom party
              Maddie_Albrt: hi page!!!! Wow ur pic is so cute!!! my frnd Bill totally wants to meet u
              Maddie_Albrt: he used 2 b prez of US heres his pic
              PageGNHS08: eewwwwwww

              Hitchens is like, “you said that Khomeini never called for wiping Israel from the face of the map,” and I’m like, “dude I never said anything at all about Khomeini,” and he’s like “whatever.” Hitchens should please quote me on Khomeini and Israel and stop talking like he knows what I’m about, because I’m me, and he’s totally not.

              But you know what? I’m totally like, whatever. I bet Hitchins is just jealous of the cool kids because we have tenure and get the best campus parking places. It’s totally sad and pathetic, because I don’t think it’s any big secret that he used to hang out with the cool kids until he got drunk at the Modern Language Association kegger and totally booted all over the lobby at the Hyatt. It was totally gross, and Edward Said said that Susan Sontag told him that she heard he also totally peed his pants later by the pool. After that he started hanging out in the RPG rooms with the retarded neocon Bush warmonger dweebs, and now you can also totally tell he uses zit cream.

              But you know what, “Piss-to-pher?” I’ll tell you what.

              ONE TWO THREE FOUR!!!! WE DON’T WANT YOUR STUPID WAR!

              FIVE EIGHT SIX TWO!!! GIVE US BACK OUR MOUNTAIN DEW®!!!!

              NINE ONE NINE THREE!!! WE ALSO WANT THE PEPSI®!!

              gtg dude, I have a faculty interview at Yale

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                If a battered wife or rape victim is too afraid to bring charges, does it absolve the perpetrator?
                Mere rhetoric. Any number of countries could have brought charges against America, none did.
                Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                The war against Iraq was undoubtedly a war of aggression.
                What war isn't?
                Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.
                The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
                Again, no charges have been brought against the US by any organisation or nation against either the US or any other coalition partner, so quoting un-cited wiki articles isn't really germane.
                Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                The "Unlawful use of force" is legal speak for international terrorism.
                No it's not.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #53
                  I'm not tired yet.

                  This, too:

                  Scared Silent: Juan Cole Refuses to Respond
                  by Joel Mowbray
                  Townhall.com
                  May 25, 2006
                  http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...25/198694.html

                  "We don't give a rat's ass what Ahmadinejad thinks about European history or what pissant speech the little s**t gives."

                  Pop quiz: Which historian and noted scholar of the contemporary Middle East wrote these words?

                  What, you think no historian, let alone a top academic in his field, could have written this? Think again. OK, there's actually a good case to be made that he's not in the "top" of his field—but some obviously feel that he is. Yale is about to hire him.

                  The eloquent wordsmith in question is University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, who is better known as a prolific blogger. His rant on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was part of his "response" to writer Chris Hitchens' attacks earlier this month. As the quotes suggest, his supposed response didn't really qualify as one.

                  It started with an explanation of why he wouldn't refute his critics, after which he baselessly slandered Hitchens as either having been drunk or having utilized a ghostwriter. Finally, his meandering blog post evolved into an attempt at re-creating a Vietnam-era anti-war chant, which contained the infantile remark above.

                  This probably helps explain why he didn't respond to my column; he's just no good at it.

                  Cole has tried two different tacks in the past when confronted with his own incompetence: 1) digging in his heels and defending himself, and 2) smearing in lieu of debating. Neither approach has yielded pretty results.

                  Back in 2004, Cole wrote in an antiwar.com column that the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) "is funded to the tune of $60 million a year." His source? In an interview with this journalist, Cole said someone—whose name he couldn't remember—told him. At least give him credit for this much: he stuck by his nameless friend, even after the number was debunked by hard evidence.

                  When shown that the public disclosure forms (required of all U.S. nonprofits) filed by MEMRI listed a budget of less than $2 million, Cole was adamant that the $60 million figure was correct. His public reiteration was unequivocal: "I deny that I have misstated their funding." In an e-mail, he explained his reasoning: "I think they are getting very substantial in-kind donations of labor and services in Israel, possibly from Israeli military intelligence."

                  Asked about this incident last week, Cole finally admitted, "I was wrong."

                  After failing so miserably at defending himself, Cole shifted tactics. Peeved that National Review Online columnist Jonah Goldberg (briefly) challenged his assessment that the 1997 Iranian elections—in which the mullahs had disqualified 234 out of 238 candidates for prime minister—were more democratic and transparent than the 2005 Iraqi balloting, Cole called his critic "a fearmonger, a warmonger, and a demagogue." Not content to leave it at simple playground name-calling, Cole opined that Goldberg's motivation for criticizing him in the first place was because "he wants to kill thousands of Iranians and thousands of US troops in a war of aggression on Iran."

                  Goldberg was not the sole target of Cole's wrath. Other notable examples are Hitchens and highly respected historian Martin Kramer. Cole initially castigated Kramer, insinuating he was controlled by "Israeli intelligence." But he soon found that he was fighting a losing battle. Even his normally slavish sycophants at left-wing Daily Kos pointed out that his ad hominem dismissal of Kramer was insufficient.

                  Which brings us to his new "third way." In a post entitled "Responses to Critics: Open Thread," he neither references my name nor provides a link for his readers to judge for themselves. Heck, he doesn't even mention that any specific critique had just been published. He simply bemoans the "cottage industry" of attacks against him by the "US Right" (sic), then dismissing the entirety of them as "National Enquirer type pieces."

                  But Cole was, in fact, itching to defend himself. His obvious problem is that he really couldn't. The vote among Yale's history professors was that close, and Cole did write everything he was alleged to have written. He did, however, find what he considered a crack of daylight: the idea that he might have been wrong to claim, "Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction."

                  In our hour-long phone conversation on Friday (which occurred after the original column had been submitted), Cole strongly defended the chemical weapons comment. He stated emphatically, "I've seen many generals who have said the same thing." Cole added, "I've seen many high-level military personnel come on [TV] and say that chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction."

                  Naturally, I asked him to provide me one such example. He couldn't. I asked him to provide the name of just one general. He couldn't. I asked him to at least name the news outlet where a general, any general, made such an assertion. He couldn't.

                  The best substantiation Cole could muster was a think tank policy analyst who said in an NPR interview that it was "somewhat debatable" whether chemical weapons should be classified as WMD. Yet even that is deceiving, as the context was whether chemical weapons were "tactical" or "strategic."

                  With that extremely shaky foundation, Cole claimed he was vindicated. He even added that his rather out-there position is "not in fact controversial," meaning that it is not even in dispute that chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction.

                  So to recap, Cole rebuts critics by: 1) stubbornly sticking to an obviously incorrect position, 2) lashing out with scathing personal attacks, or 3) pretending he is above responding, but then doing so ham-handedly.

                  And Yale is poised to hire him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Pari, this guy's baiting us. He's here to spin everybody up. He likes the attention, and gets some perverse thrill out of being the object of our disdain

                    I not what course others may choose, but for as for me...he's on 'Ignore'.

                    I'm always never wrong about these things.:)) Just sayin'.:))

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      Pari, this guy's baiting us. He's here to spin everybody up. He likes the attention, and gets some perverse thrill out of being the object of our disdain

                      I not what course others may choose, but for as for me...he's on 'Ignore'.

                      I'm always never wrong about these things.:)) Just sayin'.:))
                      He's just in love with his pre-programmed righteous intellect, so was I when I came here.
                      Just a few of my type learn as we go along, I'm ever hopeful;)


                      Know thine enemy.


                      Edit: Damn fine swathe of posts BTW:))
                      Last edited by Parihaka; 14 Sep 07,, 11:29.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        Edit: Damn fine swathe of posts BTW:))
                        I had that whiff of grapeshot all loaded up. It's one of the subjects I followed with interest last year when it came up, and watching Cole destroy his last shred of credibility (to the well-informed, anyway) was just COOL, man.

                        So, when Tim hung that curve over the outside corner, I was ready to tee off on that, and BAM!...'deep, wwaaaay back, it's over the right field wall! Bluesman WINS!!!'


                        And the crowd goes wild.:))

                        Okay, mixed metaphors, with cannons and baseball, but it's 330AM here...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                          Mere rhetoric. Any number of countries could have brought charges against America, none did.
                          How might that have gone? Let's take Nicaragua as an example. So, the World Court demanded that the US cease its crimes immediately, and pay massive reparations. Nicaragua took its case the the UNSC, which is the only body that could enforce the decision.

                          The UNSC considered a resolution instructing the US to observe international law. More specifically, it called for all member states to observe international law. Can you remember what the US did? That's right, it vetoed the resolution.

                          So, it's kinda like me raping a woman, then sitting as a judge at my own trial, and instructing the Jury to find me not guilty.

                          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                          What war isn't?
                          Well, I gave you the definition. A war of aggression is one NOT waged out of self defence, OR not sanctioned by the UNSC. The iraq war qualifies as a war of aggression on both these counts.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                            Okay, mixed metaphors, with cannons and baseball, but it's 330AM here...
                            It's only 10.40pm here and the rugby's about to start.

                            GO TO BED.
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                              He's just in love with his pre-programmed righteous intellect, so was I when I came here.
                              Just a few of my type learn as we go along, I'm ever hopeful;)

                              Know thine enemy.

                              Edit: Damn fine swathe of posts BTW:))

                              your were like that Pari ??? ...

                              I think that this forum which is although by itself contains a lot of good information, has the bad sideffect of tipping people from one side to another, from left to right ...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                                You're welcome. Eat this:
                                I love the way in which you dismiss a reknown scholar as a partisan hack, then have the nerve to offer up Christopher Hitchins as a match. Is this the same drunken neocon pro war attack journalist I am thinking of?

                                I'm not going to quote entire articles at you.. If you don't have any thoughts of your own to add to your verbatim quotes, thats ok though.
                                Last edited by timhaughton; 14 Sep 07,, 12:29. Reason: Typo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X