Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 29, 2009

Juan Cole - Neocon In Liberal Cloth

The original source is not online so I'll take this from Wikipedia:

While lecturing in early 2003 in a University of Michigan course focused on the impending conflict, Cole expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, even though it might lead to unforeseen consequences.

Six years after that disastrous standpoint Cole today publishes a "Guest OpEd" from one of his colleges at University of Michigan at his widely read blog. That "Guest OpEd", from which Cole in no way distances himself, states:

It would be a mistake to think that people like Ahmadinejad are reasonable. It is counter productive to base policy on the untenable premise that he would be amenable to a cost-benefit analysis on the nuclear issue. Time and again he has announced that the nuclear issue is off the table. To believe or hope otherwise would be a profound and resonant error.

The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow.


How could the U.S. "more effectively" help an opposition candidate who lost an election? The U.S. already spends hundreds of millions to achieve "regime change" in Iran. What is more effective? Creating thousands of Nedas? And unless the U.S. does that it needs to bomb Iran and created ten thousands more?

The whole "Guest OpEd" Cole published is a collection of lies and assertions and its conclusion could well have been written by Ariel Sharon, Bibi Netanjahu and other right-wing other slaughterers. 

For publishing that and for his stand on the Iraq war Cole deserves to go to hell.

Posted by b on June 29, 2009 at 10:01 UTC | Permalink


I asked b to publish this, but in the absence of a reply I'll post it myself on this thread which seems most appropriate:

Dear all,

I'm leaving the Blog till further notice. I may return when future events corroborate my statements that this was a broad-based uprising supported by a majority of Iranians, and that the vote was rigged.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 29 2009 10:12 utc | 1

I joined this Blog because I admired its stand against imperialism
and its defence of Iran, but I have begun to appreciate the blog less and less with time, as it seems to be a reflection of one particular ingrained ideology defended with such ferocity that it has chased many good commentators away. If you want to end up as an ultra narrow leftist clique sending each other congratulatory and mutually supportive notes, so be it, but I believe you will be the poorer for it. I have not seen one thread posted (other than my own which was criticized mainly for one sentence about Arabs) in which experts explain why dissatisfaction in Iran is genuine, justified and widespread. Such omissions are, in my opinion, inexcusable. The reason I posted so often was not simply because of the slow internet speeds that forced me to split each post into 3, but because I was often answering commentary from 20 different people.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 29 2009 10:12 utc | 2

Understand that Juan Cole is a Bahá'i and has a dog in the Iranian fight as the Bahá'i are the largest religious minority in Iran.

Khomeini oppressed the Bahá'i faith and Ayatollah Montazeri has been at odds with the curerent leadership over that issue among others:

Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also issued a statement in support of the rights of the Baha'is in the Islamic Republic, saying that though Baha’is did not belong to the People of the Book like Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, nonetheless

they are the citizens of this country, they have the right of citizenship and to live in this country. Furthermore, they must benefit from the Islamic compassion which is stressed in Quran and by the religious authorities. [28]

Montazeri again spoke out against Ahmadinejad on June 16, 2009, during the protests against his reelection.

Posted by: Migeru | Jun 29 2009 10:12 utc | 3

It’s also amazing that so many armchair Leftists on the Blog profess to be ‘Iran-Experts’ and manage to comment on every aspect of the nation within minutes of hearing something. I am not an expert on Honduras and would be reluctant to provide even links on the current crisis, let alone offer an ‘expert opinion’. The problem is that MoA sees Iran exclusively through the prism of Hamas and Hezbollah whose activities, admirable as they are, blind Barflies to the enormous
injustices and corruption experienced by the vast majority inside Iran.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 29 2009 10:13 utc | 4

But back to Iran: The nation’s ‘democracy’ consists of unelected bodies who have perverted the very Koran that they worship by creating a Supreme Religious Leader (a mere Hojatoleslam before 'promotion', which is like promoting a priest to pope), who ban 400 candidates from running for the presidency, who permit stoning of women, torture of protesters and public executions of homosexuals, whose President denies the holocaust, where the word of a ‘woman’ has half the value of even an illiterate man’s in everything from inheritance laws to civil and criminal court testimony, whose economy has been entirely plundered by the reigning Kleptocracy, and whose economy is in a shambles despite far greater foreign exchange revenues in Ahmadinejad’s first term than during the entire preceding 6 presidencies combined!

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 29 2009 10:13 utc | 5

As I have often written, few Iranians are more ‘nationalistic’ than I am, the irony being that my criticisms of the Mullah-regime are designed to prevent the internal, domestic collapse of my nation in the same manner as the Soviet Union literally fell apart under the weight of ideological irrelevance and internal

I shall not reply to any posts, no matter how provocative.

I wish you all well.

Best wishes,


Posted by: Parviz | Jun 29 2009 10:13 utc | 6

I was a big fan of you b, but now... not so much.

I have been studying Iran for the past 40 years. I'm fluent in Farsi. Believe me when I say this, this election was rigged.

Posted by: Anthony | Jun 29 2009 11:22 utc | 7

Anthony we are not believers here, we are sceptics, so ... :-))

Posted by: outsider | Jun 29 2009 11:53 utc | 8

Parviz, do you want the US to "free" Iran like they did in Iraq? I'm just asking, because It seems to me that's were this is heading too.

Posted by: Hmm | Jun 29 2009 11:59 utc | 9

Dispatches from inside the bubble: 2

How can any reasonable person believe that the Iranian people have been observing the social instability, political corruption, demagoguery, sectarian violence, economic turmoil and foreign occupation of Iraq and saying to themselves, “that’s the life for us. Thank Allah that the great George W. Bush has planted this model of prosperity and freedom on our doorstep as an example”? The very idea that it is the example of Iraqi “freedom,” rather than recent economic woes or class conflict between urban elites and the rural poor or a power struggle between an upstart authoritarian populist leader and the more entrenched political interests that is driving the protests is so risible that one can’t help but wonder if Kinsellegh’s article is, in fact, some kind of a satire of the Weekly Standard.

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2009 12:16 utc | 10

Recount of 10% votes ( 10% random for every states) are underway. All recounts are recoreded by vedio.

Late last night Musavi's representative presented GC new proposal. Proposal was studied today but rejected .
Results will be publish today. Early results from small districts so far showed no difference.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 29 2009 12:17 utc | 11

Good riddance.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 29 2009 12:21 utc | 12

Let's go back to the beginning:
"A reformist opponent of hardline Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared himself the "definite" winner of Friday's presidential election, as voting hours were extended to accommodate a massive turnout at the polls.

Former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi made his declaration at a news conference in Tehran before polls were scheduled to close at midnight local time"
Iran Reformist Presidential Candidate Declares Himself 'Definite' Winner

Now, I don't profess to be an expert on Iran, or Iran's electoral process, but, as I have participated in many elections, I can say that it's quite unacceptable and the height of disrespect for the elecorate, for a party or candidate to declare victory before voting is even completed!!

So Parviz, your rants have only exposed to me that your basic concepts are tainted in the first place, if you find it acceptable that YOUR preferred candidate shows such utter disrespect, by declaring even before voting has finished. Let me tell you, this type of behaviour would cause riots anywhere.

Posted by: LeslieM | Jun 29 2009 12:38 utc | 13

MOA seekers of truth & understanding,

If I were a Mossad, MI, CIA or NED station chief in charge of a highly volatile situation that was due to erupt within the next year or so, I would use a major portion of my PR budget to infiltrate and influence either the potential opposition or supporters of the foreign policy directives of my area. I would cultivate both conscious assets and unwitting dupes. I would finance those who I thought had excellent communication talents to ‘communicate’ their views within the community or any forum of potential importance.

There are many here with MOA who, in my opinion are doing their best to help create a future for a more evolved human culture which will have obsoleted Western Culture’s less than human or psychopathic tendencies. If this forum is or will become a viable instrument to those ends, we must maintain the most rigorous of honest, open but skeptical scrutiny. Those who have demonstrated that proclivity in the last several weeks, you all know who you are, both prolific and reserved, make my heart proud to be a student of your excellence. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You are the ones who are leading the bifurcation.

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 29 2009 12:43 utc | 14

To: LeslieM

There were 45713 Ballot boxes with over 450,000 persons in charge of counting and monitoring. Most of these 450,000 individuals were local school teachers. Any cheating of that magnitude must involve large numbers of conspirators among these school teachers from all provinces.
This is a typical pictures of election, election boxes and people involve.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 29 2009 12:59 utc | 15

Juan Cole on war against Iraq (1/23/2003):

"I think there are grounds for such a war, but think it highly unwise to launch it without an explicit, second UN Security Council Resolution.


If the left is wise, it will begin holding the administration's feet to the fire about the need for democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. The former is being re-talibanized by our allies, and the Rumsfeld-Cheney axis would be happy with a less repressive dictatorship in Baghdad. If there is going to be a war, the US should do its best to get a genuinely democratic Iraq out of it. The worst case scenario is we risk all this world opprobrium and kill 30,000 Iraqis, just to end up with another iron fist, only garbed in a velvet glove."

Posted by: Carlos Sardiña | Jun 29 2009 13:05 utc | 16

Parviz, I presume the reason you made MoA your regular hangout is similar to everybody else's cause for coming here, the fact that what’s for certain is that you’ll find commentary of people who, when it comes to Main Stream Media, belief half of what they see and almost none of what they hear. It’s been like that since its inception. Why did you expect that to be different on Iran’s election issue?

The last 1000 or so comments made interesting albeit in parts disturbing reading, no doubt by people who invested a lot of thought and heart into the subject matter. Billmon’s visit as the ghost from x-mas past, Antifa’s emotional and in my eyes unfortunate departure, a memorable week.

The Iranian Political Wrestling Federation proudly presented the 2009 Grand Final. And what a great setting for this year’s showdown. Flanked on either side by foreign troops from nations who openly declared their intentions to attack the country and its people for developing nuclear technology, the people of Iran had as usual the choice between depressing and bleak. In the left corner we had camp Ahmadi Nejad, a gang of religious nutcases backed by oil money & the revolutionary guards, with no scruples when it comes to oppressing dissenting people. And over in the right corner, team Mousavi, a former prime sinister with plenty of blood on his hands, backed by Mr Corrupt himself and his gang of religious warheads, keen on privatizing what’s left of Iran and the declared favorite of those nations who are keen on attacking the country.

Political spring time in Iran and the boots come out. Thank you B for your timely reminder that in Angela’s Berlin the boots worn by riot police are just as black and heavy as they are in nearly every other country, run by governments ranging from pseudo-democratic plutocracies to openly totalitarian kleptocracies. It doesn’t matter if you are in Seattle, Beijing or Greece, come out in numbers and you’ll get to smell the boot. Indiscriminate arrests, police violence, legal proceedings against peaceful protesters, blacklists for surveillance, state authorities and their fleet of barely human terminators are cut of a similar cloth all over the world. Check out the pictures of any decent rally and you’ll see your Darth">">Darth Vaders">">Vaders

I do agree with you on one issue though, the ultra violent beatings of helpless protesters we saw in Tehran over the past days, the atrocious murder of civilians daring to speak their mind, brutality of crassest proportions to hold back a flood of citizens disputing the election result, show however that the Iranian leadership and its goons are rotten bastards of the more extreme kind. I’ve never been to Iran, as a matter of fact I’ve never been to the ME apart from a short stop over in Dubai once, but from what I’ve read and seen, in its current state it’s most definitely not a place I’d be all too happy to live. I sympathize with any person who feels oppressed by a corrupt and self-serving government enforcing draconian rules and/or aeons old customs on its people. I don’t really care if they were validly elected or not, nor if the protesters are young or old, rich or poor, nor if the thugs giving the order to escalate the troops violence wear needle stripes, turbans or military uniforms. It is irrelevant where and for what reason people march the streets, governments have no business in intervening apart from ensuring the gatherings remain peaceful.

In my years I have spent numerous hours at protests only to find out that all efforts were for nothing. I have also spent many hours sitting at home on my arse wondering why on earth I am not out making more of a stink about the unfairness, discrimination and most of all hypocrisy our systems generate. It’s all nice and well to write sensible comments on blogs and have the rare discussion with a colleague or friend, but to get the change happen the world so desperately needs, we need to mobilise, organise, and put our money where our mouths are, even to the point of having to put our body on the line. So my heart goes out to all those folk who were able to muster the will and courage to go and march the streets in order to demand the right to be heard. I hope their efforts will not have been for nothing.

However, based on my admittedly pretty limited insights I get the sense that what we are witnessing is an internal power struggles amongst the rich and famous, fought out on the backs of unsuspecting Iranians courageous enough to stand up and be counted. From where I am standing it looks like the activist movement has been taken for a ride, designed to change one group of sadists for another.

I am all for a popular uprising Parviz, love the smell of protests in the morning, but supporting Rafsanjani’s crew, with ex-butcher Mousavi who as prime minister oversaw the cultural revolution which turfed out many academics and left-wing activists in the 1980’s and to this day is a member of the cultural council, the group tasked with ensuring Iran’s culture stays fully Islamic, makes very little sense. To me it appears the protest movement is selling out its ideals, or buying into a political scam, depends how you wanna look at it. Whilst I can sympathize with their cause, their choice of Heroes makes me shake my head. But hey, who am I to judge your sentiments towards Mousavi, although I can’t see people in Burma risking their lives only to have a different general running the dictatorship.

Be that as it may, I hope that whatever it is Iran's winning clique will take away from this, it does include an appreciation of the huge numbers of protesters who were prepared to make a showing. Even though Mousavi and his band of gangsters have messed things up, their failings do not negate the sincere and entrenched desire by a large but more importantly growing minority in the country for less restrictive and overbearing laws and regulations.

Although the election debacle might be drawing to an end, I doubt very much that the protest movement we got to see over the past two weeks will vanish into thin air. The humpty dumpty has fallen of the wall and all the mullahs in the world can’t put him back together again. If Ahmadi Nejad has the brains he is supposed to have, he’ll recognise the ground swell of disenfranchised Iranians demanding their human rights and realise it would be far more advantageous for the community as a whole to engage with each other in a constructive and conciliatory manner, compromising wherever possible. If the grievances of the millions of disillusioned Iranians are not addressed in any meaningful way, the issue will only fester and ultimately destabilize the nation.

Ideally lessons will be learned on all sides. For the government, the masses and their wish for greater emancipation and freedom of religious oppression must be taken into account by those who decide on where to go from here. For the protesters, don’t be disheartened, try again, but do not repeat the mistake of counting your chickens before they hatch.

Greetings & fare well,


Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 29 2009 13:11 utc | 17

Carlos Sardina @ 16--From you Juan Cole quote:

The worst case scenario is we risk all this world opprobrium and kill 30,000 Iraqis, just to end up with another iron fist, only garbed in a velvet glove.

If only...only 30,000 Iraqis had been (are being) killed....

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 29 2009 13:54 utc | 18

On Juan Cole's partial approval of the 2003 invasion, I don't think he can be sent to hell for that. He simply made a mistake.

If at the time you had known Saddam's Iraq, which was truly awful, even before 1991, you too might have had mixed feelings. I myself knew one guy who had been mixed up in the Dujail massacre, the one for which Saddam was executed. He told me about it the year after it happened, and long before anyone heard about it in the west.

We have to be historical about this. Hindsight is lovely, but we have to judge people by what they could have known at the time.

In 2003, I certainly thought the US was going to invade Iraq, take out Saddam, and the WMDs which I knew didn't exist, and then withdraw again a few weeks later, as had happened in 1991.

I didn't think many people thought it was going to be a pillaging expedition by idiots who had no idea how to run a war. It was that difference that made it the heinous crime that it was (though it was also a crime before).

So I don't really blame Cole on that one. He's no neo-con. Just a vaguely liberal middle-ranking professor, from a military background. His books are not that good, though I've only read the one on Napoleon. He is not up to getting a job in Harvard Yale or Princeton. He was not rejected simply because of his blogging. He does not have the intellectual quality. Most of his posts are not very penetrating, though he has the knowledge. He is not as incisive as b is, for example.

Posted by: alex_no | Jun 29 2009 14:17 utc | 19

I don't know why I'm bothering to defend Cole; after all, he's pretty much banned me. I think it is because I include the US among the possible culprits for terrorist attacks in Iraq, and he wants to be read in Washington, indeed is proud of his inside-the-beltway readership. Doesn't want his Pentagon readers sullied by nasty smells that could well be true. Nutcases, no problem.

That provokes just the greatest contempt in me. How can a creep who's never been to Iraq, pretend to know more about a country than someone who's spent a good time there?

Posted by: alex_no | Jun 29 2009 14:29 utc | 20

Jesus, b. I'm surprised that even by your standards of dissembling, you feature as a paramountcy of truth the errant thoughts of your new internet boyfreind, arnold evans.

His whole thesis (no proven fraud) is based on a single assumption: the "assembly of experts" did not announce a fraud, and so proves the election is fair. That's all he's got, is faith in an institution controlled by anti-democratic religious nuts.

Some knuckleheads will say that arnold has supplied a detailed deconstruction of that Chatham House report, the Benford>first and second digit stuff.

But arnold has not. All arnold did was demand obedience to the proclamations of bearded theocrats.

If you don't believe me, just go read arnold's blog.

At a minimum, all b can say (all anyone can say)) is that there is no way to prove or deny fraud. Period.

So, where does that leave us? You are either for islamic totalitarianism, or you're against it. It's that simple.

b is for totalitarianism because he strangely believes that whatever opposes "empire" is good.

And the only way to defend b's view, as a leftist, is to say that this brand of political islam comports with traditional leftist methodology and practice. No, sorry, doesn't work.

b's argument is very simple. Don't be fooled.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 14:47 utc | 21

Juan Moment@17

Nicely worded post, thanks!

Posted by: DavidS | Jun 29 2009 14:49 utc | 22

How can a creep who's never been to Iraq, pretend to know more about a country than someone who's spent a good time there?

Also, it's good to remind ourselves that any person who posts here or anywhere else, must be lying about their personal claims. There's just no way for the average person to verify personal claims.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 14:55 utc | 23

must be lying about their personal claims

No, not must be lying, may be lying. The text you read here has its own value, and you detect its truth or not from its internal content.

Did you mean me, sloth? In that case, I can assure you that I am not. You can have my cv/resume if you like

Posted by: alex_no | Jun 29 2009 15:06 utc | 24

I've always understood that Cole works for the CIA--which, if so, doesn't tell me much about his personal agenda, but still puts his thoughts in a decidedly hollow light.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 29 2009 15:09 utc | 25

Come on, b, do you ever publish stuff from which you in no way distance yourself?
Sure, all the time.
But now you tell Professor Cole to go to hell because he publishes something, written by someone else, that he may or may not agree with.
Cole once published a guest military commentary on Iraq with which I disagreed, so I sent Cole an email with all my specifics.
He wrote back: "Well it made you think, didn't it?"
That's a professor. That's an academic -- get it all out there and have at it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 29 2009 15:21 utc | 26

Cole has also been called up as an 'expert' for TV commentary. I have seen him speaking and answering questions many times, which will give you a hint since I very rarely turn on the TV yet have managed to see him there often over the years since the invasions started.

Now, I personally don't know if he is getting paid (in cash or kind) for these media interviews and talk shows. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that if he isn't, he is one of the very few not getting something out of it. Of course this is not to say that he is lying in what he says, but bias can be bought.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 29 2009 15:21 utc | 27

Cole, from 1/28/03:

Those who support an Iraq war argue that the potential negative fall-out consists of improbable scenarios that are no more likely to come to fruition than did the dire forecasts about overthrown Arab regimes in 1990. They argue that if we can get a genuinely democratic, modern Iraq out of the war, its beneficial effects will radiate throughout the region. They may be right. But it is worth remembering that we were promised a democratic Kuwait in 1991 and a democratic, stable Afghanistan in 2002, and have yet to see either.

For anybody who actually reads cole's excellent blog over there parlous years, your characterizations of him are deeply dishonest.

At least he had the courage to be ambivalent by seriously including in his evaluations whether it was moral or right of humane to continue sanctions, or remove saddam. It seems to me cole's reaction was eminently intelligent.

My position was always that the US could not unilaterally depose saddam, because US-anglo foreign policy created the problem in the first place. Without int'l consensus, the war is illegal.

But for our euro-comrades: Saddam Forever!!

You should think about this next time you praise b's "incisiveness," alex no.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 15:24 utc | 28

alex no

I can't verify who you are, so your claim (like parviz, efc.) about personal experience doesn't matter. It just doesn't.

Cole, cia?

alabama, c'mon.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 15:28 utc | 29

i am obliged to agree with alex_no here because it is absolutely clear that professor cole is not a serious thinker, that as alabama suggests his public text must be seen in a hollow light. i am not in the least surprised that there is an affection for cole by slothop but also by billmon because these two poster want to ignore not only the massa assasinations, the extra judicial killings & of course they want to imagine their warrior kings are not capable of the salvador option or in fact of simple murder

haditha creates only a mild headache for them

slothrop, i ask a siple question - if you do not find the texts of be incisive - then why are you here - to be the 'honorable opposition' - i understand your insults are a way for you to work within your obvious illness but why are you present if so much you find here is written as you say, by 'knuckleheads'. i cannot for the life of me understand your presence here. you wrote a long dismissal here a few days ago & though i found every single point of it borne in your fictions - at least it was longer than a missive & at least it possessed some coherence - but that has been extremely rare, indeed - i have not read a long or a thougtful post from you for a very long time

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 16:09 utc | 30

Since Parviz, unlike most of us here, is living in the thick of things in Iran, most of us here have no business dismissing Parviz's support for Mousavi as nothing more than Iran's version of Repub-vs-Dem (Coke-vs-Pepsi) style partisan politics. He must feel, with good reason, that trading in Ahmadinejad for Mousavi isn't by any means the Western equivalent of trading Bush in for Obama. In other words, he must feel, and rightfully so, that a Mousavi presidency, unlike a Obama presidency, will bring real and meaningful change for the betterment of Iran and her people. Otherwise, I seriously doubt that Parviz, being that he's such a fierce advocate for freedom and democracy, would be so adamant and vocal in his support for Mousari.

Having said that, though, I must say that we as Americans have far too many problems of our own to solve to be meddling into the internal affairs of Iran. So unless we have concrete evidence that Iran is out to do great harm to the US, it's best, IMO, that we stay out of the business of telling the Iranian people how to run their government. Be mindful, though, when it comes to foreign affairs, I'm about as non-interventionist as they come.

Now I won't go as far as b in saying that Juan Cole is a full-fledged neocon. But since the way he wants us to intervene in Iran closely resembles the way he wanted us to do so in Iraq, he comes across, at least to me, as a borderline neocon.

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 29 2009 16:18 utc | 31

juan cole, a neocon? is that why cheney pulled strings and lobbied to block cole from getting a tenured professorship at yale?

Posted by: get a grip | Jun 29 2009 16:25 utc | 32

You are the most fact-free thinker in the universe, which accounts for the inviolable purity of your thoughts.

You are also incapable of linking portions of your dissent to a general defense of your basic ideas. And about iraq, your basic belief is: Saddam Forever!!

That's the difference between you and Cole. It's pretty simple.

And as I said, you think people haven't read what you have read (but mostly you lie about what you read), and so you crazily think that you can pull these fast ones on readers here: shit they haven't read supports your beliefs, when in fact, the texts you often refer to betray your uses of them.

And why am I here? I know you want people to adore your auto-fellations. But I don't have to be here only when I agree with b.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 16:27 utc | 33

And I'm frankly surprised someone of b's thoroughness cites this guy arnold evans as an authority.Really should be beneath him. Oh well...information in the service of ideology brutalizes history.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 16:36 utc | 34

it is you, my cretinous friend, who has not read or who reads selectively. i am happy there are the archives here because what i have written & what you have written rests & all anyone need do is read them - & be able to tell who is creating the fictions here

nou doubt you support the coup in honduras or at the very least you will suggest the empire has nothing to do with that - you are as predictable as you are perverse

& some things are very verifiable, my friend

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 16:38 utc | 35

Hahahaha. Oh man. That whole steve coll thing was a doozy. I suppose one of your epigones here might read the thing and twist & turn in moa fashion to support your Taliban Forever!! view particularized as it was wrt "Ghost Wars" as a verification of your insanely stupid claim that the taliban did not actively support AQ.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 16:46 utc | 36

I mean, that's just an example. You do it all the time.

And that claim about "the US intended antiquities plunder" is just stupid. None of your heroes like p. cockburn back this up. I guess you'll have to scratch another apostate off your holy scroll of allies.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 16:49 utc | 37

again in this particular case all a reader has to do is read ghost wars & see whether this is yet another of your fictions as i know it to be & it is not the first time you have turned a book on it head - robert fisk's grande tôme, comes to mind. ypu may teach minors how to frame a sentence but your own sentences are stained by your unforgiveable stupidity. given that you are speaking about people's lives - never their deaths

again the archives will assert that

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 16:54 utc | 38

Incase someone is interested in votes and recount.

So far published results from various provinces have not shown significant change. Results from few large cities of Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz has yet to be published.
GC will publish their finding and report in few hours...

I don't expect Musavi to accept recount results, since he only wanted re-election and not recount.

Should results of random 10% remain consistent with earlier vote count that would be an slap in face of those ( was Juan Cole among them ? not sure) who claimed vote have not been counted and regime has fabricated results.

Should 10% results contradict previous results, full recount will begin next day.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 29 2009 16:56 utc | 39

I don't know jack shit about the things going on right now in central america. That's why I read this blog, among others.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 16:57 utc | 40

all a reader has to do is read ghost wars

Go for it!

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 16:59 utc | 41

GC published results of recount
Results consistant with earlier count.
Text will be publish soon.

Musavi still can resort to general court , but i doubt he will dare doing so.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 29 2009 17:02 utc | 42

you act as if people do not possess memories. you think they do not have the ability to verify what either of us has said. they can. & i do not have any fears of what i have written here since the moon began. you, however are clearly frightened about some of the terrible things you have written here about the arabs particularly & the middle east generally. your arrogance before the empire's crimes as someone pointed out the other day, scorpion warrior i think, is an obscenity. your ignorance of that obscenity constitutes you principal perversion

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 17:05 utc | 43

however are clearly frightened about some of the terrible things you have written here

Ohhhh. Such a liar.

It's all you have left are crazy lies.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 17:07 utc | 44

Everybody in favor of reading personal battles raise their hands.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 29 2009 17:21 utc | 45

I can't stand ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 17:31 utc | 46

it's not personal, it's business

when you post you are obliged to take responsibility for what you have written, that is all. i am not in the least interested, in what others may think of me personally (even if i have happily met some of the people here physically) - it is what i have written that i am responsible for

in this instance i am simply asking another poster to take responsibility for the things he has written

it's not personal, it's business

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 17:31 utc | 47

that being said. i am quite happy to end these interminable exchanges. i have stopped learning anything from slothrop a long time ago

other than saying we have a record of what has been written about this illegal & immoral war & it is sometimes necesssary to go back to the archives to see how events & ourselves have changed & how it informs what we say today

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 17:36 utc | 48

b said: The whole "Guest OpEd" Cole published is a collection of lies and assertions

which part were lies? instead of issuing a such broad brush dismissal, can you be more specific? tell us how mansoor moaddel's description of iran is wrong. tell us how you know more about iran than he does.

Posted by: get a grip | Jun 29 2009 17:36 utc | 49

we have a record of what has been written about this illegal & immoral war & it is sometimes necesssary to go back to the archives to see how events & ourselves have changed & how it informs what we say today
Posted by: remembereringgiap

please do dig those up. every last morsel. i'm dying to review them.

Posted by: get a grip | Jun 29 2009 18:05 utc | 50

Juan Cole directly referenced and linked to the Tehran Bureau report to advance the scenario he invented in which Khamenei panicked at seeing positive results for Mousavi and in a few hours executed a clumsy fraud in which none of the votes were actually counted.

Posted by: hans | Jun 29 2009 18:18 utc | 51

Link to Hans' quote: The Tehran Bureau: Possibly ground zero for the key lie that fueled Iran's election dispute

@Loyal - thanks for the news you are delivering here. It is important as we have little chance to get it elsewhere.

Posted by: b | Jun 29 2009 19:04 utc | 52

@Loyal - thanks for the news you are delivering here.

yes, thank you for being loyal to the regime.

Posted by: get a grip | Jun 29 2009 19:09 utc | 53

From NarcoNews, via The Agonist, about 4 minutes of video of the initial moves of soldiers into the presidential palace area. At one point, some women on the sidewalk are shouting at soldiers, shaking fists at them, finally one hits several on the back of their shoulders as they go by.

I wouldn't dare do that to a US policeman, since they tend to be taser happy at best.... Soldiers? Might have more discipline, but if they're taking part in a coup? Yikes.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 29 2009 20:13 utc | 54


You keep writing Saddam Forever! and now Taliban Forever. Iraq was the most developed arab country under Saddam. It was secular, the women were westernised and in the work force, freely available alcohol (nothing pleases a westerner more than seeing booze in the streets and coloured women dressed up western - the epitome of personal freedom. Unfortunately the Islamists think it is just plain sluttish behaviour, no matter what kind of spin you put on it, and public consumption of alcohol should be stopped instead of glorified), free education for all and they repaired all the damage to infrastructure from Bush I without external help. To a certain extent this was true of Taliban rule - no warlordism, no crime, no poppy (personally against elimination of poppy, they should grow all they want. You guys should stop using the shit).

In essence you are justifying all western action because otherwise it is Saddam or Taliban forever. The converse would be an attack by Afghanistan on the US because otherwise it is Brittney Spears or Madonna Forever!

Posted by: noshit | Jun 29 2009 21:00 utc | 55

Saddam's pre-'91 human rights record is enough to send him to the gallows. Never mind the illegal invasions of Iran and Kuwait.

To compare or make commensurate the reign of pop idols with the tyrant Saddam or the neolithic barbarism of the taliban isn't amusing.

Having said that, Bush admin officials should be tried for war crimes--in a fair universe, of course, or in a universe in which the US "loses" in Iraq.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 22:07 utc | 56

If Juan Cole has worked for the CIA, I say all for the good: he is the kind of person they need: a scholar,intelligent, capable. MOA seems to be moving towards irrelevent; all you getting your panties knotted up over issues you know nothing about.

Posted by: BlueGeneBop | Jun 29 2009 22:08 utc | 57

"Neolithic barbarism"

The imprisonment of nearly 2 million brothers on trumped up charges is closer to barbarism, neolithic, medieval or post modern. I bet if you were to go around in the villages and small towns in Afghanistan or the NW of Pakistan there would be huge support for the Taliban as opposed to what is happening now or what existed after the Soviets withdrew. Very soon I suspect that the chinese will use their liberation as justification for invasion, not withstanding the fact that most white people very much want these people to stay in prison for as long as possible. Yes the last 8 years have not been amusing for Afghans or Iraqis but hey otherwise it would have been Saddam Forever.

Posted by: noshit | Jun 29 2009 22:30 utc | 58


why don't you go & play with the other hysterics at dkos & learn what colour panties michael wore over at huffington post

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 22:37 utc | 59

I don't understand why someone like Cole doesn't sue identifiable libelers like alabama and barnett, etc.

even as a limited purpose public figure, a friendly court might find actual malice.

Or he could just sue in Britain and force alabama to prove the allegation.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 23:04 utc | 60

unlike you, you little twisted shit, i assume responsibility for all i say. you are not even responsible for the words you wrote last week

once a very long time ago i apologised to you. i will not make that mistake again

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2009 23:20 utc | 61

Anyone justifying the invasion of any other country (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama) or causing conditions that lead to the invasion of a country by a third party (Somalia, East Timor) or coercing the leaders of that third country to invade or giving a green light to a vassal (Iraq, Israel) to invade a neighbouring country should be first taken out of their host western country and dropped in a combat zone in the Congo or Sierra Leone or better in down town Baghdad or in Tora Bora with a sign summarising their tacit encouragement and advocacy of said invasion. If they make it out in one piece they should be summarily executed in the name of the innocents that have perished and a drink concocted after their name in a nice western bar.

Posted by: noshit | Jun 29 2009 23:21 utc | 62

I bet if you were to go around in the villages and small towns in Afghanistan or the NW of Pakistan there would be huge support for the Taliban
Posted by: noshit | Jun 29, 2009 6:30:33 PM | 58

a faulty assumption you've arrived at from watching too much mainstream media, who've stereotyped the nw region as chock full of nothing but militant fundamentalist.

Posted by: get a grip | Jun 29 2009 23:24 utc | 63


Creating these kinds of moral equivalencies as you do is sophistry given what is known about the weird Pashtun sect known as the taliban. Same goes for Saddam.

In any case, a cosmopolitan consensus is needed to justify any intervention. There are "rights beyond borders" justifying intervention.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2009 23:48 utc | 64

Cole is posing a false dilemma, and I believe he knows that he is doing it. There really is no excuse for this.

Posted by: crasmane | Jun 30 2009 0:31 utc | 65


Posted by: yuri | Jun 30 2009 0:57 utc | 66

MOA sure does have some true believers, I guess you're waiting for the dictatorship of the proletariat, under the direction of the revolutionary vanguard to put the world on the right path. Where is Bob Avakian when you need him?

Posted by: BlueGeneBop | Jun 30 2009 1:23 utc | 67

Loyal @ 15:

This is a typical pictures of election, election boxes and people involve.

Those are pictures of Parviz's enemies.

On a side not Cole supporting the invasion of Iraq should be no surprise. Those against were a tiny minority.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 30 2009 1:30 utc | 68

In the early days--that is, back around 2003--I thought of Juan Cole as an expert on the Middle East, including Iraq. As time passed, though, I could see that his comments made no sense. That is, even knowing essentially nothing about Iraq--and I don't, being confined to reading history and commentary written in English--they made no sense: They lacked the coherence that accurate writing about real things always has. Not that they lack consistency: His writings consistently mirror American delusions of power.

Yes, Cole paid for his disagreement with Bush. It was a sharp and bitter disagreement--about tactics, not about goals nor about American capabilities.


Posted by: Gaianne | Jun 30 2009 4:46 utc | 69

Gaianne: good to see a familiar name who hasn't stopped by in awhile, this round's on me!

and tantalus, if you're out there, stop by and have a drink!

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 30 2009 5:21 utc | 70

Ditto, on both accounts..

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 30 2009 6:02 utc | 71


The little neocon in you is itching to get out. Holding 2 million negroes in a gulag justifies intervention under "rights beyond borders" doctrine. Sounds like you got donkey punched by Wolfowitz. Anyway, be my guest. Intervene. You will get the shit kicked out of you again. But then you don't care because I bet your loyalty is to that "shitty little country". BTW the Taliban don't qualify as a sect. Read up a little.

Posted by: noshit | Jun 30 2009 7:30 utc | 72

The comments to this entry are closed.