home

Spinning and Smackdowns

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:08:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Cursor:

"The Republican Party spin machine was bouncing around the like an overloaded washing machine on Sunday," writes Juan Cole, "attempting to obscure from the American public that they had by their actions managed to install a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq."

Plus: Cole vs. Jonah Goldberg, rounds one and two.

< LAPD Needs Policy Prohibiting Shooting at Moving Cars | Feingold Conference Call: Questions, Anyone? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Spinning and Smackdowns | 26 comments (26 topical)
    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    So what exactly would Juan have preferred? That we tell the majority of the population of Iraq that they have no say in their government? Is this the liberal model of democracy?

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    Cole made this man look like a fool. The best was his excuse for not joining the army. Kudos to Dr. Cole his web site is a daily read for me and its about time someone put these talking heads in their place.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    Not to speak for Juan Cole but, I think he would have preferred that the people who determined Iraqi policy for the US actually know something about the Middle East.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#4)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:50:58 AM EST
    So what exactly would Juan have preferred? That we tell the majority of the population of Iraq that they have no say in their government? Wasn't that the original neocon plan? Install Chalabi and get outta Dodge?

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    Wasn't that the original neocon plan? Install Chalabi and get outta Dodge?
    The original plan was to install Chalabi and stay. Justpaul I have really missed your point. I belive Dr. Cole's point is that the establishment of a government based on religious Shiite law is an outcome that has been counter to American foreign policy for the last 20-30 years and has the potential to destabalize further the middle east. As yet there is no government in Iraq that has been established by the people of Iraq. Although its an outcome to be desired its a long way from happening. Since it is counter to Bush's interest to have a government sympathetic to Iran in Iraq, I am assuming that at the very least he will do nothing to help it along and more likely will try to find some way to prevent it from happening in any real way.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    soccerdad, My point is that Juan is complaining about the prospect of a free people choosing a form of government they prefer over one we would prefer they have.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    Justpaul Then you have misinterpreted his remarks

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:47:40 PM EST
    For a full Juan Cole smackdown see Powerline, Captains Quarters, and The Corner. Juan is a wanker, basically. I'd listen to soccerdad's opinions on social issues first. I'd pay attention to Andreas on economic policy first. I'd have Teddy Kennedy as a AlAnon sponsor first. -C

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    Soccerdad, How so. Juan says: "If it means a clerically-ruled state, then I agree with Vice President Dick Cheney that a) you have to look at what Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wants, and b) that Sistani does not want clerics to rule the country as in Iran. " Now it sounds to me like Juan is saying he doesn't want a clerically-ruled state in Iraq. Do you have another interpretation for this? If not, Juan is saying that, even if the people of Iraq choose to have a clerically-ruled state, he would disapprove. How is this compatible with democracy?

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    I read cole every day, its not what he says despite your pulling a sentence out of context. Pretty lame trick. He was talking about what is meant by a theocracy. Cliff - still resent people who know what they are talking about don't you. But thats old news.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    One of the true ironies of democracy comes when a majority of a country votes to snuff out the rights of others. Does one really want the Shiite version of Islam to become the rule or law for all. That seems to be the intent by making Islam only basis for law. I am sure that the Kurds and Sunni's will have some very serious disagreement with that view. The strength of the American democratic experiment has always been the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I really do not think that the Bush administration counted on the result that seems to be in store. Just one more misunderestimation of the situation by the Bush team.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    I was gonna pounce on the point that soccerdad already ably made. So, I'll just underline another of Cole's points: that Dick Cheney consistently lies to the American people. For instance, from his debate with John Edwards, after Edwards argued that Cheney had tried to connect Saddam to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11: "CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11" Yet here's the big, fat--well, there's not getting around it--liar asserting: "[Since September 11] We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003). Thank heavens he's not lying about sex.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    soccer - if you were talking about cranial-anal inversion I would listen to you. -C

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:31:38 PM EST
    Cliff - no i will not help you pull your head out of your a@@. Frankly I dont care if you listen to me or not. Better hurry back they have a fresh batch of koolaide hand made by Rove

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#15)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:32:05 AM EST
    How about Victor David Hanson v. Eleanor Clift?

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:37:37 AM EST
    "I read cole every day, its not what he says despite your pulling a sentence out of context. Pretty lame trick. He was talking about what is meant by a theocracy." How typical of you, Soccerdad. I ask you to explain how I misinterpreted what Cole said in his article, and your response is "I read him everday, it's not what he says". Is this supposed to imply that you, by reading Cole every day, have been granted of form of absolute clairvoyancy with regard to his meaning? And is this clairvoyancy so perfect that you can't even explain what it is he's saying without resorting to "that's not what he means". You've already made it clear that you don't think that's what he means. Prove it. Until you do, chances are you have misinterpreted what he's saying. Make an argument instead of an accusation. Or is that beyond (or beneath) you?

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:47:42 AM EST
    Just paul Now you're being an a**. I said that what he was talking about was what a theocracy was, i.e. what is its functional definition. He was not commenting on its legitimacy. Does a theocracy have to be led by clerics as in Iran or do you consider a government based on Islamic law but not run by clerics a theocracy? Thats the point. If you still don't understand I'll have my 11 year old get back to you. Another product of public education or are you being purposely disingenuous? Go back and read the last sentence of my post. I told you what he was talking about. Go back to Cole's article and read the surrounding sentences. But that wouldn't be cherry picking and then you wouldn't be able to wage another of your idiotic attacks.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:09:39 AM EST
    You should know about idiotic attacks, Soccerdad. It's all you ever do. You couldn't even refrain from one in what was otherwise a decent response. For once you actually attempted to argue a point instead of stating your opinion as fact and moving directly to the ad hominem. But then you just had to throw the ad hominem in anyway. Thanks for the response. I still disagree with you because I still see in Cole's piece a definite dislike for the mere prospect that the Iraqis may choose a theocracy of any kind over a liberal democracy. And he is complaining that the Administration is trying to spin the fact that this is a possibility (which I think they are), not merely commenting on what a theocracy might look like. But that's a matter of opinion, not of fact, since I don't pretend to know the inner workings of Juan Cole's mind. And if I have to read him everyday to know what he means on any given day, he's not much of a writer. As for: "Another product of public education or are you being purposely disingenuous?" What a completely assinine and idiotic attack this is. Since when do "progressives" such as you denigrate public education? I had no idea you were such a freaking elitist, but I guess it really doesn't surprise me all that much. It explains a lot of your positions. Can't help wonder, though, what your fellow travelers in the ranks of the NEA will think of that comment.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:41:36 AM EST
    Soccerdad, I would also note that Juan Cole's interpretation of 1984 being a commentary on the decline of captalist systems is highly questionable. The powers at war in 1984 are three socialist states which use coercion and brain-washing to control their populations, not corporations.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#20)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:55:26 AM EST
    justpaul He's a mideast expert not a literatue expert. BTW this has to do with our discussion how? Oh I know, you continue to try and smear him. He has written and spoken on the mideast for years and all you can do is pull sentences out of context and misinterpret them. Then still not admitting you erred, you then try to smear him by citing something irrelevant to the original discussion. Its the same old tired tactic. Frankly, although I had disagreed with you in the past, I really thought you were above such crap. Truly disappointing.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:57:35 AM EST
    BTW why don't you provide a link to Cole's comments on 1984 so we can all see them for ourselves

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:02:44 AM EST
    Here is Cole's comments about 1984 from LINK
    Although George Orwell/ Eric Blair wrote 1984 as an anarcho-syndicalist socialist critique of Stalinism, it is becoming increasingly clear that it was also prophetic about the direction of Late Capitalist societies characterized by corporate media consolidation
    Now justpaul the question is which of the following are you: uneducated, disinqenuous, a liar, a right wing hack, or all of these?

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    Soccerdad, Perhaps you missed it in your "daily" reading of Cole, but his comment on 1984, which is relevant because it was included in the piece that started this thread, is his own opinion. I don't know of any other person that takes the view that 1984 "was also prophetic about the direction of Late Capitalist societies", That's his own, nonliterate interpretation of what Orwell was talking about, and is, in my own opinion, just a classic exampel of the Left's love of using his book to try to smear people with which they disagree. Frankly, I don't care what someone with you elitist dimwit attitude thinks about my opinions. But if you really feel that way, simply stop replying to them. It's not that hard. In fact, with just a minimal amount of intelligent effort, you can even avoid reading them at all. It's a simple as not reading any comments that have "Posted by justpaul" at the top of them. Enjoy your ignorance and your arrogance, soccerdad, they go very well together. Cole may be an "expert" on the mideast, but that still says nothing about his attitude about theocracy in general, which was the point I raised and which you have yet to even attempt to refute. But don't bother at this point, I'm no longer interested in discussing the issue with someone who can't even bother to make an effort and I see no reason to believe you will ever do so.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    Justpaul you're an idiot. You got caught peddling crap deal with it. taking a remedial reading comprehension class might also help.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:38:25 AM EST
    nothing about his attitude about theocracy in general, which was the point I raised and which you have yet to even attempt to refute
    I don't think so, extract the part of your post which proves this. Plus you still don't understand his words. Just keep railing against me trying to blind everyone to your tactics. This is the same kind of crap that people use to criticise Krugman. They take stuff out of context mis represents what it means and then use it to smear him. Unless I missed something your own words have done you in.

    Re: Spinning and Smackdowns (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    Juan Cole, in his infinite wisdom, predicted a 30% turnout in the Iraqi elections. He's no expert, he's a crap peddler. Like Soccerdad.

    Spinning and Smackdowns | 26 comments (26 topical)