(a) – Juan Cole disseminates demonstrably fantastically false material, some of which he should know is false.
(b) – I don’t trust him, because of that.
(c) – Because I don’t trust him, I don’t accept any of what he writes because I cannot rely on him to be truthful.

As to the Bush administration, it’s one thing to be wrong because of honest mistakes (yes I believe his mistakes, and he has definitely made them, are honest ones) and another to be deliberately and/or maliciously wrong, as is the case with Cole based on all the sources I trust.

I’m sorry if that escapes you. It really is a straighforward and fundamental concept.

# Kevin H Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 9:54 am

“Now who’s making ad hominid attacks?� I backed everything up with references. I wasn’t ‘just calling names’.

No, your saying the article under discussion is worthless because of the author.

NO, I’m saying his opinion is worthless because it is wrong, and HENCE because of his resulting bad reputation, BASED ON HIS PENTIENT FOR EXECRABLE MATERIAL, I don’t accept anything he says. Are you really that unable to make the connection, or are you just hoping you can fool some of those who read what you write into not seeing it?

Read the links I provided for the comment you don’t like.
http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005/07/weekly-jackass-number-thirty-five-juan.html
— sorry, the first link didn’t get enterred correctly, and should have been —
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17422
(…as well as ALL the others I have provided in other comments). They have the facts I base my assessment of him on. Deal with what they say before you make any more superficial criticisms.

It is not wise to trust someone who is often really wrong.

So obviously, you don’t trust this administration….

I don’t have time to check EVERYTHING he says.

You seem to have plenty of time to make thoughtless rants….

“Now who’s making ad hominid attacks?� I backed everything up with references. I wasn’t ‘just calling names’.

No, your saying the article under discussion is worthless because of the author.

Would you go swimming in alligator or piraña infested waters? You know, maybe there aren’t any around THIS time. If you wouldn’t, then why would you rely on material written by someone with a history of spreading falsehood as truth. If you think you are smart enough to catch him when he’s wrong, you are fooling yourself.

“little slide show”???? Your two OUT OF CONTEXT pictures are a “slide show” that wouldn’t even fool a bright grade-schooler. Sheikh Palazzi has tons of material with references. His much more extensive “slide show” is just visual IN CONTEXT supporting material. And his collection of references is the most complete on the web. Evidentally you didn’t bother looking at any, or couldn’t understand those you did. One has to have standards for scholarship. When someone doesn’t, it makes it a lot easier for a Juan Cole to fool him.

“Now who’s making ad hominid attacks?” I backed everything up with references. I wasn’t ‘just calling names’.

“If you don’t like his article point to where he is at odd with the facts in that particular article. Just because he was an idiot before doesn’t mean he’s an idiot now.”

You are missing the point. If he has a pattern of dissembling, he is worse than unreliable. I can’t trust him, even if he is accidentally correct at times. I don’t have time to check EVERYTHING he says. And if something he says is wrong, or deliberately missleading, I might not pick up on that. It is not wise to trust someone who is often really wrong. It is foolish to ever trust a person for whom truth isn’t their gold-standard, even if they can be shown to be correct about some things.

Rudi Says: “CaptainsQuarter, Volokhl Conspiracy or Balkinaztion are respectable Right leaning sights, . . .”
April 13th, 2007 at 7:08 am

(The others are also reliable but for the moment I’ll only consider what you will accept.)

So, let’s see where that takes us.

volokh?

Balkinization? – couldn’t find anything on Cole there.

Captain’s Quarters?

So, that’s two negative, and one which (conveniently for you) provides no information.

The sum is definitely negative. There may not be enough info there to get a complete sense of the malice that Cole exudes, but there is sufficient to see it is definitely there.

If what I’ve provided up to now doesn’t change your mind, I see no need to waste any more time trying.

Cole is an anti-Semitic conspiricy theorist who’s statements are frequently at odds with the facts, and apparently with malice of forethought.

AND YOU TRUST THIS MAN WITH YOUR MIND?!!

Now who’s making ad hominid attacks? If you don’t like his article point to where he is at odd with the facts in that particular article. Just because he was an idiot before doesn’t mean he’s an idiot now.

“He [Juan Cole] is blindly anti-Israel to the point of supporting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, an apologist for radical Islam, and someone who despises America and its citizens.” (link)

“Cole suffers from many other common Arabist misconceptions that deeply prejudice and compromise his writing. Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole’s analysis of this era is essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom among Arabists and Orientalists regarding Islamic and Arab history, the creation of the modern Middle East in the wake of World War I, and its relations with the outside world. Worse, Cole’s discussion of U.S. foreign policy frequently veers toward conspiratorial anti-Semitism. This is hardly the “informed” commentary Cole claims it to be.” (link)

Jeff Weintraub is relatively kind when he says

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

Cole is an anti-Semitic conspiricy theorist who’s statements are frequently at odds with the facts, and apparently with malice of forethought.

AND YOU TRUST THIS MAN WITH YOUR MIND?!!

If you have some deeper knowledge of Islam or world history than Sheikh Palazzi, by all means enlighten us.

Just stop the name calling, unless you can CLEARLY show WHY it’s appropriate. You see, when I call some of the Left’s people “KoolAid drinkers” it’s because they have a demonstrably long history of being unreliable, and often deliberately so. On the other hand, when someone uses that term solely because that’s the only way he thinks he can discredit his opponent, that’s simply puerile.

Can you say “ad hominem?”

Yes, I reference people I have found to be reliably accurate, not people who present clever but meaningless theoretical nonsense. Sometimes my refs are wrong, but it’s a lot less often than those on the Left and as far as I can determine, it is never deliberate (if I thought it were, I would stop referencing them).

When I say Juan Cole is a liar (or at least amazingly deluded) I can back it up, as I have above. When you attack my references, you just call them names. That says a lot about the quality of your arguments.

So, come on, Rudi, give me something factual. Go ahead, make my day.

The sane, wise thing for the USA to do is not pull out but to redeploy our forces away from the battles that will rage and to protect the borders in efforts to prevent influx of these so called “Freedom Fighters” into Iraq.

What the antiwar seems to be raging against I guess is the deaths of Iraqis. Yet it is Muslims killing Muslims. Not Americans killing all these people. Car bombs are not detonated by Americans. So I fail to understand why redeploying our troops into defensive and interdiction modes is so offensive to them.

We can do this and still cut the troops about in half and give our forces a much needed rest and break. All this and still maintain a presence in the middle east that will hopefully prevent a civil war that engulfs the entire Middle east.

This is beyond saving Bushs legacy. The antiwar has already destroyed that with a great deal of help from him and his cronies. To me this is about saving America’s legacy and ensuring your kids and grandchildren have a better place to call Earth.

It is perfectly acceptable for the left to want to tackle Global warming 100 years before it happens. Why is it not okay to tackle Terrorism 100 years before the Jihad becomes a worldwide civil war?

Ill make a deal with you. I will fight against Global warming if you fight against Jihad terrorism.

For those who have studied ancient history, they will perhaps recognize history’s repitition, wherein a mighty nation undoes itself, may they fail this time.

For more on the “Muslim Brotherhood” and their, uh, ‘friends’, see here.

“mikkel Says:
April 12th, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Is General Odom “working for the enemyâ€? as well?”

Apparently so.

Benedict Arnold was a general, too. And, except for the little matter of treason, he was also a pretty darn good one.

Don’t look at the trees, mikkel, look at the forest.

No, W.A., it’s the Democrat front of the Leftist fifth-column that’s bringing that about.

If they would start working for America’s success, and stop their obstructionism, things would rapidly improve. Unfortuantely, they are so invested in defeat, that isn’t likely any time soon.

Look, Jeb, Iraq isn’t going great. But, it is important to finish the job there, because leaving early will only strenghten our enemies. Of course, with so many Democrats working for the enemy, it might not make much difference either way. But the blame for that lies with them, not Bush or the “neocons.”