Keep jabbing, Hitch. The target is worthy, it's working, and every time out he digs himself a little bit deeper. Enough jabs, and he'll gladly bury himself.

This is a classic, should-be-in-the-dictionary example of what happens when a trained debater clashes with someone who has never really had to do it, and so is completely clueless about how it works.

As unseemlu public displays of paranoid hysteria go, this one is certainly rich in imagery. I can picture Christopher Hitchens drinking Beefeater right out of the bottle while he hacks into Cole's email and dictates notes to a right-wing think tank - via cranial microchip, of course.

I notice that this obviously-not-so-private email is moderated by Gary Sick, the man who popularized Lyndon LaRouche's October Surprise theory. Sick's own delusions about secret negotiations between Reagan and Iran have already cost this country millions in extra-useless congressional investigations, and may ultimately cause anyone who associates with Sick their sanity.

I posted this over at Cole's we'll see if it goes up.

Of course we will not have a war with Iran.

They will start one with us.

Something has the Iranians bothered. It is not just Israel.

I wonder if Cole uses sock puppets?

As I often do, I read the comments to this squirrel nut's (Juan Cole's) rant. The word sycophant came immediately to mind. I pray that the good professor doesn't suddenly stop as he meanders about the campus. I fear that he will have to have at least one or two of these characters surgically removed from his fundamental orifice. As to his sloganeering; nobody wants you to 'go' and nobody has asked you to 'go' so get the damn sign out of my face and move along you 1960s wannabe.

Paranoia will destroy ya. And it goes like this (i.e., here's my summary):

Hitchens: Juan Cole's no expert. He claims Ahmadinejad's statements about wiping Israel off the face of the map are political, not military.

Cole: That characterization is unfair! The day after I wrote that, I clarified that Ahmadinejad's statements about wiping Israel off the face of the map are political, not military!

Hitchens: Uh, but the Khomeini quote Ahmadinejad referenced uses the word "annihilate". And it makes it the religious duty of the state. Doesn't that concern you?

Cole: No war for oil, you anti-journalistic alcoholic hacking bastard!!!

I got as far as Juan's complaint about attack journalism before I began laughing.
That's been the point of Sixty Minutes (and the Washington Post, NY Times, et al) for the last thirty years.

Since Harvard is specifically looking for a far left political hack, I'm sure that he is making them very pleased. A true luminary in the Ivy league pantheon.

As I have previously said, as an alumnus of the U of Michigan History Department (M.A. 1971), the institution where Cole currently gloms his paycheck, I will be happy to hear that he has fled Ann Arbor.

Hey, Juan, Don't let that door hit you in the backside.

As for Yale, that once august institution has long since entered moral bankruptcy. It is time for the Judge to order its liquidation.

Thanks for the post I got out of your comment Undertoad. Most excellent summary.

I always find it amusing when folks fall back on the "hey, I was promised this list was private!" defense. Its usually a demonstration of the Internet naivety of its speaker to not realize by now that any list/email tends to lose security the more people are on it.

And furthermore, its common sense not to put into print something that you don't want repeated. I learned that one in grammar school. Its even more important on the Internet, where everything seems to be getting archived somewhere.

That was quite informative, AL.

My eyes glazed over and I think I slept through much of Juan's rant. But I was interested in all of his comments, which were surprisingly sycophantic.

This one caught my eye from some other guy named Dan.

"...I cannot get over how the media establishment (using people like Hitchens) is trying to build this Iran issue into a crisis. They must assume that we in the general public are all fools - and if the public buys into this war, it will have proved them right...."

Iran may be a crises for the next administration, or even 5 or 10 years from now, but I don't really see how anybody can say a crises is somehow being constucted from thin air. The Iranian government is bent on destroying Israel. The Iranian government is controlled by religious crazy people. The Iranian government sells oil and makes lots of money to support this craziness. The Iranian government is building nuclear weapons.

Now I don't think any of these statements are in dispute. Hitch was right on the money and caugh Juan slinging BS. Juan hated getting caught and threw a hissy fit. Perhaps Hitch shouldn't have ran the story -- I don't know the email group and could actually care less. It may be a personal mistake for Hitchens, but the point is well taken: too many people are making money playing the contrarian/apologist game.

The reason I read WOC is that I hear all sides of an issue. Perhaps there are people who only want to go to a site and shout "heck yeah!" all the time, but I choose not to be one of them.

Cole's accusation about the 'secrecy' of the Gulf2000 group is baseless. If you do a search for Gulf2000, you'll see that their articles and emails are quoted extensively.

Gulf2000 is based in Saudi-sponsored Columbia university.

It seems to be alliance of paid and/or unpaid marketing/academic/oil/publicity types promoting the interests of the Gulf states. Judging from statements made by Gulf2000 members, their membership is made up of Gulf-state sponsored academics, ex Aramco and State Department employees, Arab haters of Israel, the usual. It's no surprise that Cole is a member.

One interesting note: the Iranian blogger, Hoder, who has received numerous death threats over the years, said this back in January 2005:

Someone is spreading my email to Gulf2000 project mailing list about my project to get Iranian-born Israelis blogging about their daily lives, as if it's been a secret email and I'd be embarrassed by it being publicized.

It would be interesting to know more about Gulf2000.

So far M.Simon's comment has yet to appear. I also posted a comment. I guess we'll see.

Speaking of Cole's fib about the 'secrecy' of the Gulf2000 posts, here's a post from Gulf2000 on Cole's site.

[just scroll down - the post begins: *Here's my post from Gulf2000 today...]

One can only shake their head about the comments about Hitchens' alcoholism.

A real class act that Juan Cole.

Good post!

Absolutely, people here should read both articles, and find which articles have the most facts in them!

Because it won't be the idiot Hitchens, who has let propaganda blind any adherence to truth.

On a factual basis, Cole grinds Hitchens into the finest powder, that blows away in the harsh desert winds of the Mideast.

So please, along with A.L., I urge you, go read both articles! You'll learn something!

I just have a simple question:

Do folks like Cole pander to Arab oil money so they can get paid in return? Is there some sort of tit-for-tat going on here? In short, is our conversation (as in, the conversation inside our democracy) being slanted by external money from authoritarian states?

I don't believe it to be true, yet sometimes I do wonder. Anybody who knows anything about lawyers understands that you can argue any point. So many times I wonder if we're not seeing pointless paid-for debating on the web in places where we would not suspect it. On both sides of issues. Kind of "political guerilla marketing" at work.

"Hitch was right on the money and caugh Juan slinging BS. Juan hated getting caught and threw a hissy fit."

But that's the story of Cole's life. If you look at the lists of his actions over the last three years, he slings BS, gets caught, and throws a hissy fit. And then hides the evidence if he is able.

"hypocrisyrules"

you forgot the /sarcasm tag.

Unless you're a sock puppet.

Yehudit: "Unless you're [hypocrisyrules] a sock puppet"

I was wondering that myself about them. He has shown up on WOC before for a one post defense of Cole.

Whether they are or are not a sock puppet really doesn't matter. They haven't followed up their opinions before ... so I doubt they will defend themselves here. Of course one post is enough to check the IP.

-

It seems to boil down to whether Cole was giving a lesson in the Persian language or if he was making a comment on the context of Ahmadinejad's speech.

If it was a language lesson, Cole seems to be right.

If he was commenting on the contextual meaning of what Ahmadinejad said, Hitchens seems to be right and Cole looks like he being disengenuous in his rebuttal.

In short, is our conversation (as in, the conversation inside our democracy) being slanted by external money from authoritarian states?

I don't know if Cole is being paid, but considering the millions of dollars that Gulf Arabs pour into the academic community, I'd have to guess that the answer to the general question is a big yes.

Gulf Arabs don't have a lot of support from most Arabs or Muslims living in the United States. They don't have much support in the Middle East either, unless they pay for it. When they need to find someone to say nice things about them, academics, politicans and oil men are pretty much their only source.

Even shorter Juan Cole: Respect my authoritay!

David: "whether Cole was giving a lesson in the Persian language"

Yes. Because we all know that a Persian language lesson always includes pictures of wounded soldiers and children.

I wonder if that would spice up my math lessons.

-

Thanks Mary.

Yeah. I wasn't trying to denounce Cole per se. It just occurs to me that since the western democracies run off of public opinion, the best way to get them to do something would be to influence public opinion.

If I were a rich Israel-hating sheikh somewhere in the middle east, I wouldn't build a missile: I'd spend the same money on shills in the western media to support my cause. Much more effective. Get the U.S. to be hands-off the territory, then let the Iranians take care of the Jews. To me, that's a much more cost-effective and safe strategy than any other. And of course the same goes for other issues, including Iraq.

As far as Cole's "language lesson", if he was saying that Persian is a nuanced and metaphorical language, that's one thing. But if he was making a political observation (nothing to see here folks! Please move along!) and then trying to hide behind I'm-Mr.-Language-Man, that's being a lying, two-faced weasel. Not that he is, of course. I really don't know that much about the guy.

hey, hypocracyrules - I read them both, and obviously saw things differently. How about stepping up and showing us why I was wrong?

A.L.

Daniel, it struck me that Cole's piece was one long exercise in trying to change the subject, starting with the (false) accusation of Hitchens' unethical behavior and ending with gross-out pictures.

Even if you know nothing else about the man, I think that's enough to justify the "lying, two-faced weasel" conclusion.

Interesting to see that Cole's own blog is password protected; you need an account just to post, and as M. Simon notes, all posts are vetted before they go up.

One can only imagine what the comment section of that blog would look like if this pampered ivy-tower weenie had the moral courage to submit his ideas to public criticism, as do the authors of every other blog I've ever read.

What a loser. One can only imagine how he responds to a bright undergraduate willing and able to rebut him.

Yeah. I saw that too, Mark.

But I'm assuming he just has an undisciplined mind. Kind of thrashing around instead of making a counter-argument.

I guess without more information I would lean towards giving the schmuck the benefit of the doubt. But that's just me.

Call me a reactionary, but I don't think "an undisciplined mind" would or should be offered a Department Chair at a respectable University.

Oh, but wait, we're talking about Yale....

Whoever stands against the Perpetual War machine will be attacked, slimed, marginalized, and destroyed if the warmongers get their way. I don't care.

Actually, we don't mind people leaning on the Perpetual War Machine, we just don't want food or drink receptacles left on it. But obviously Professor Cole doesn't care about the rules.

Cole's picture should be in high school writing classes under the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. The view from his ivory tower is all encompassing, and apparently he has a palantir capable of seeing into the thoughts Iranian leaders thousands of miles away. Impressive. I dub thee: Juan 'Saruman' Cole.

How about stepping up and showing us why I was wrong?

I'm a big believer in game theory. The main people on this particular site - and you - wouldn't care about the truth if the truth came up, punched you in the face, sat on your face, and farted.

So all that can be done is pointing out the idiocy here. There is no "reasoned discussion" with people who are propagandists. The main mode of propaganda here being smearing, strawmen, and not addressing/breezily waving away any facts that disgree with the propaganda you are pushing.

And since there is no honest trading going on here (see game theory), I'll be happy with draws across the board.

Keyboard Commando pointing out right wing hypocrisy since 2003

"...How about stepping up and showing us why I was wrong?"

"...So all that can be done is pointing out the idiocy here..."

LOL! I'm thinking that answer was a "no"

Game theory! Wow. You've mastered a multi-syllable discipline! You must be so proud of yourself.

I know I'm thankful wasting my time reading some random person trashing an conversation with no substance behind his words. I know this must be a good use of your time as well. I only hope someone as mastered in the ways of game theory as you are could tell us more often that we are mindless propagandists. Perhaps, over time, we will learn to be better in your great eyes.

Hypocrisyrules,
You are not the first to come here, claim how much smarter, better looking and more moral you are than "us" but when challenged to put up - all we get from you is more sneers and no facts.

hypocrisyrules, Daniel and Robin's ridicule aside, there's a very serious point underneath.

Game theory is an interesting concept, and I'm also a believer in a little derivative of it called Gresham's Law. What you have said in #34, very forthrightly, is that you refuse to engage in reasoned discussion here, or to respond with substantive replies.

Is that in fact your position?

If so, and assuming one wishes to maintain an atmosphere that does encourage substantive discussion... what does game theory suggest the response to that ought to be?

hypocrisyrules: "I'm a big believer in game theory"

OOO! OOOOO! Pick Me!

Combinatorics, game trees, and game processes are fun. Just finished teaching a section on that about a month ago.

Of course, are you more interested in the philosophical concepts rather than the mathematics that make it useful? I supposed what I'm getting at is I wonder if are you a silly B.S'er who knows silly facts like the word "draw". I may be wrong on that, so how about a very easy test?

Prove which player will win a game of Nim when you start with two stacks stones, each having more than three stones, and each having the same numbers of stones.

There. That will at least let me know that you are a one-semester-"believer in game theory".

One cool thing though ... you do have a rather classic way of answering questions: "I don't have to, because I'm smarter than you!"

Ha. That made me laugh.

-

Joe,
Didn't intend the comment as ridicule per se. My intent was to point out that Hypocrisy fails to elevate himself above trollhood.

I heard Hitchens this p.m. on the Hugh Hewitt show. That guy can kill with his disdain, and when it's as amply justified as in this case -- whew!

Juan Cole will have to leave the planet to live this down. Hitchens hadn't heard the stuff from Cole calling him a drunk. He reacted quite calmly, pointing out what such a slur tells you about how Cole's side of this kerfuffle is going.

Talk about bringing a pocketknife to a gunfight.

Hitchens is awesome. The erudite replies, the accent, he really puts these anti-Americans in their place.

Then again, debating anti-Americans is becoming easier, as their positions are so intellectually bankrupt

Unhinged is really an understatement. What possible purpose would the posting of the accompanying photos accomplish? Is the man demented?

I am Iranian, and I can tell you Cole is wrong.

Let’s start with simple fact, that is not directly relevant. He writes that Khomaini said the Shah government “must go”. But “az bain bayad berad” does not mean “go”, it litterarly mean something like “must cease to exist”, and the most direct translation would be “must be destroyed”.

Now to the latter part:

“bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”

The translation is not perfect, the dear Professor is not convewing the action implyied the sentence, as I or any Iranian would read it.

I am not a translatior, but I can tell you that here is a clear note in that sentence that Israel must be made to wanish from the face of time.

Maybe this is not a theat, as it was not directed to Israel, but to his followers, but it clearly is an decleration of intent. The intent is to make Israel cease to exist.

The word map is not litterarly in there, but “wiped of the map” is a less exagerated translation that Professors Coles translation is underreporting the wording.

Now to the context. Here Cole is not a little of the mark, he is insane and ignorant.

Exactly as Hithens wrote the qute is not that ‘the occupation of Jerusalem must end, just as the occupation of Gaza ended’, implying that Iran want Israel to give Jerusalem to Palestine. The qute is that the “regime that is occupying Jerualem” must be destroyed.

Iranians clerics often use this way of talking, they always don’t say “Israel”, US? or “the war’, they make some negative phrase and use it as a synonym. Khomeini could have an entire speech and never say amrika, just “the great satan” etc. They wouls almost always take the effort to say “the war that was emposed on us” instead of the war.

Any student like me student with no academic credentials could tell you “een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” would best be translated as “Israel”.

As hichens wrote (presumably with the help of some iranian), the sentence is not about the occupation, it is about the state. Cole is completely missrepresenting this (which seems to be his main point) in the letter. Either he is intentionally lying for a good cause (stop a war), or he is just blind because of ideology.

The Ivy league professor, earning his 200 k or whatever it is, writes “He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.”

WRONG. The currect translation would be “the regime that is [defined by] occupying the holy city of Jerusalem” must be “erased from the page of time”, or must be “destroyed, or must “be whiped of the map” (I agree that eased from the page of time is closer than whiped of the map, but neither is perfect, and the underlying meaning is not in dispute, The State of Israel be destroyed).

Factually the “western journalist” Hichens is right and the western academic wrong. It is NOT just a question of context, it is a question of substituting the Presidents refrens to an entity (Israel, the state the occupyies Jerusalem) to a refrens to what Israel is doing (occupying Jerusalem, as they occupyed Gaza).

Cole writes that the Iranians have not called for a nazi-style exterimation. I would say this is true, they have not done so. Destrying Israel could be done by invading it and forcing the population to move to say Madagascar or Manhattan, it does not by itself imply extermination.

On the other hand I don’t know if people have reported the qute this way, they say Ahmadnejanian wants Israel off the map (a non perfect but acceptable translation, substituting one figurative phrase with another) and leaves the level of violance open. This is by the way exactly what Ahmadnejanian said after the press asked him, he said we don’t want to kill the jews, we want Israel gone, Europe can take them.

Lasty I really have to questions Coles knowledge about Iran in two points, one in the letter and one in the angry answer to Hitchens.

1. That the phrase is ‘A decades old qute Khomaini’ is hardly something that would reduce the seriousness of using it. Khomeini is to the hardliners what Washington, Lincolns and all the founding fathers are to Americans combined, and than some. His qutes are as close as you can come to a ideological program for the Islamic State as anyting.

I can’t come up with a good example, from the lack of knowledge of qutes, but if Americans declared to Japan in WWII “give me liberty of give me death”, the Japanese wouls hardly say “don’t take them seriusly, they are just quting Patrick Henry”.

2. That Ahmadinejad is not the complete ruler hardly means he has no power. If you say that you are completely ignorant of Iranian politics, which is very complex, and where there are multiple competing layers of power. Basically the President through his institutional role has control over a large part of the massive civilian Iranian state, and in this case through being a hardliner additional power, for example over the Bonyads, the “builders”, the Guard.

It is also context specific, just like America. Bush had more power in march 2003, not only because he is president, but because he used this role and though a political agenda and alliances moved the project of invading Iraq. In May 2006 Bush has more Republicans in Congress and is still the President, but has much less power.

Conlcluding that Khatami became powerless after the hardliners broke him (or after he willingly gave up, that is a question of dispute) and therefore Ahmadinejad is powerless is idiotic.

PS.

I hope this conflict can be resolved without violance, for example though sanctions specifically on the regime. If America feels that it must use violance I hope it is only arial bombardment against millitary targets and against the regime. But my hopes in this question have no bearing on what Ahmadinejad said, which Cole also should understand.

Very, very informative piece, Tino. Thank you!

Twok, The Futurist's post on how to "out" anti-American bigots vs. serious critics is great.

Me?

I'm a big fan of propositional calculus.

I was going down the street the other day when a very pretty woman crossed my path. I started talking calculus to her and got smaked in the face.

Some people just don't understand higher math.

Next time I'm doing game theory. Judging by the results here that ought to work much better.

Re: #43:

Wow, thanks Tino Sanandaji!

.

I wish Hitchens would just rejoin a la Churchill:

I've gotten more out of alcohol than alcohol's gotten out of me.
.

It is also context specific, just like America. Bush had more power in march 2003, not only because he is president, but because he used this role and though a political agenda and alliances moved the project of invading Iraq. In May 2006 Bush has more Republicans in Congress and is still the President, but has much less power.

If you start blogging, come back here and leave the address. (And if anyone from Yale wanders by, this level of discourse is what you look for in potential faculty. Geez.)

Any one who puts blind faith in anything Christopher Hitchens has to say should have their head checked. The man has a long track record as a shameless self promoter and jumps on trends faster than Calvin Klein. Prudence would dictate his contributions should be triple checked.

Michael Carroll #49:

Prudence would dictate [Hitchens'] contributions should be triple checked.

Since #49 comes after #43 Tino Sanandaji, perhaps the phrase you are looking for is "double checked."

First rule of dishonest debate: if you can't fight the message, slag the messenger.

Michael, if you've got supporting data for your thesis, by all means post some links, and let us judge for ourselves based on what you present.

OTOH, I have no philosophical problem with reading the work of a fine writer who hypothetically is shamelessly self-promoting and sensitive to trends. Or maybe you've never heard of Truman Capote or Tom Wolfe, just to name two hacks that come to mind.

Thank you for this site. I read both Cole and Hitchens. I may be an old lady, with a degree in nothing but life, but even I understood both and the comments through #51.

Hitchens is pure gold. He may not always be right but he can destroy lesser minds. Cole on the other hand truly sounds to me like a teenager caught smoking (we have one in our house so I know about teenagers).

Last, but most important: THANK YOU TINO! From your lips to God's ear. (did I get that right?)

“bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad” means it must fade away from the planet/vanish/wiped off the planet/

"az bain bayad berad" as Khomeini used to say means it must be destroyed/it must cease to exist

"een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" means the occupying regime of Jerusalem (qods)

I hope this also helps!

Our Iranian commenter is very right though

Mark Pohling

The Hitchens piece itself is a fine example of your first rule of dishonest debate.

"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."

I'll be surprised if I ever read a Hitches piece without at least one ad hominem attack.

How is that germaine? Any one who follows Christophe Hitches knows his first instinct is to malign the opposition then to argue.

I actually think Cole is wrong but Hitchens almost makes me change my mind.

You should not trust Christopher Hithcens to tell the truth. Check out:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/08/christopher_hit.html

Here is a classic:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/christopher_hit.html

And another:

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/christopher-hitchens/

I'd go on but this is like shooting fish in a barrell and I have better things to do.

Michael.

Just saw your post (#54) and thought I would comment.

I don't think Hitchens is engaging in dishonest debate.

I took it as just his writing style: trash the victim then point out all of their flaws.

If his argument consisted completely of "Cole is a bad guy" then yes, I would tend to agree with you.

If Hitchens only engaged in ad hominem attacks, he wouldn't be as good as he is (whether you like him or not.) Instead, I think he prods the victim first before skewering. It's a very effective tactic, as Cole's response indicates.

Just my opinion. I can certainly see it the other way as well.

Michael -

I clicked across a few of your links, and confess myself unimpressed. If you want to assert that Hitchens is a liar, you'll have to do better then - for example - asserting that his commentary about Niger is a lie, when I've asked the same question based on Wilson's own statements in the Senate Intelligence Report.

Sorry, next.

A.L.

Tino, Sir:

Are you Iranian or, as you claim elsewhere, Kurdish-Swedish? You write that your primary goal is to clarify the real meaning of remarks by Ahmadinejad and Khomeini, which you say Cole mis-translates. But you add: "If America feels that it must use violance I hope it is only arial bombardment against millitary targets and against the regime." Is that a characteristic Swedish, Kurdish, or Iranian view? Knowing Iran or any Iranians, doesn't it bother you that those tactical nukes and bunker busters might obliterate more than just a few of your kin? Will any of the survivers hold up "We Luv W" placards? If most already share the ideas Ahmadinejad and Khomeini, the answer is obviously not. But, even if they do not, might a US attack be just the sort of Pearl Harbo event that would unite all Iranians behind the regime?

After all, it was 9/11 that inspired a Trotsky Marxist, Hitchens, to drop his leftist banner and support Bush!

Please share your comments on R. Bett's article, "The Osirak Fallacy" in the Spring 2006 issue of http://www.nationalinterest.org (hardly an anti-Israel forum). He casts huge doubts on the utility of any air attacks to slow or deter Iranian weapons development. He does not even address the potential human carnage.

Shouldn't this vex one more than any philological blather?

Hitchen's is sympathetic to the bomb 'em hawks, Cole is not. One knows zero Persian, the other is disingenous about what he does know. One drinks. The other probably needs heavy drink. But does what either proves about what politician or cleric meant warrant all the hype and war fever being whipped up?

I sort of suspect that, despite all the anti-Israel pangyrics that Iranians hear in school and on state media, they are no more anti-Semitic on a person to person basis than your average Pole, Aussie, or Country Club Republican. People said Maoist China was full of suicidal loonies too, anxious to use nukes to extort the US withdrawal from Taiwan and Asia, but this never happened either.

jkoch #57:

You don't seem to put much stock in first impressions.

Look around the site and you'll find most of the points you raised have been discussed.

With a high level of civility.

Tino Sanandaji hasn't commented here regularly, so you may not get a direct response in any case.

AMac is right, though I will add this. Hitch may not know Persian, but he has quite a few Persian friends who do. From the Radioblogger interview:

CH: "....But he recently wrote in a blog conversation group he takes part in, that Ahmadinejead had never said that about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth, and neither had his role model, Ayatollah Khomeini. They'd never said it. It was a sort of slander. So I thought well, this isn't going to take me very long. And I have a lot of Iranian friends who, alas for them, can't live in their own country anymore, because of the hideous tyranny there, and who hate people who make excuses for their regime, as they should. And with their help, I was able to show very easily what I had long known, that Khomeini's statement that Israel must be completely destroyed has been a canonical statement in Iran for a long time. Ahmadinejead was only repeating it. He probably was a bit surprised at how much attention it got, given how commonplace the thought is to him. But that it is nothing but a lie to say that this is not a statement from the Iranian theocrats, and it also suggests very strongly, which is the fun bit, that Professor Juan Cole does not know what he is talking about, in any language."

Which is, of course, the key issue re: Cole's comments to the list. Cole's subsequent conniption seizure is another issue all its own, and speaks even more loudly to his character and unfitness.

Cole is an intellectual midget - stroke - lightweight compared to Hitchens. Not surprised he comes out gurgling from the weight of Hitchens argument. Where would academia be without moral equivilance?

Its not that Hitchens is any more intelligent than Cole. In my opinion, the difference lies in adherence to principle, something one can admire Hitchens for even as one might disagree on some if not many of Hitchens' principles. I've like Hitchens' opeds at times, and disliked his opeds strongly at times, but I haven't caught him in violation of his own principles.

Let's find out what brand he drinks, and give to Bush's speechwriters.

No follow-up from Mr. Sanandaji. Hardly "uncivil" to ask whether he would indeed sanction a US bombing of Iran. Not many Cuban Americans, no matter how much they dislike Fidel, would be keen to see the US bomb Havana. Many Iranian exiles are similarly discomfitted.

It would be good, though, if more native speakers of Arabic and Persian commented on Mideast news and events. Perhaps better if the major Op-Ed pages featured more from them and less from the usual cranks and charletans.

Mr. AMac:

You write: "Look around the site and you'll find most of the points you raised have been discussed.
With a high level of civility."

Some citations, please.

Sorry, nowhere do I find the elephant in the room (war consequences) seriously discussed. Nor do I see any restraint in ad hominem attacks. Most are by people operating under pseudonyms.

Unlike most people, I post using my real name, do not fudge on my nationality, but eschew most other labels or slogans.

Sorry if that offends you.