Not to mention that Riverbend refuses to name herself, give interviews, or even talk to reporters anoymously over the phone, as opposed to the Iraq bloggers. Why is she anonymous and the "CIA plants" aren't? Who's zoomin' who?

A superb post, Michael. You made the points cleanly and well. I wonder if Cole can comprehend his own writing.

When you're writing the kind of things Cole has been writing, I don't think you have much chance of comprehending anything.

The guy has drank way, way too much of the Koolaid.

Bravo, Michael, Bravo!

Yeah, I'm still waiting for that liberal purge Peter Beinhart suggested. It has come to this, indeed.

I'm glad someone's applying the boot to the appropriate body part, but you might want to be a little careful about Cole. Seems like he's quick to rush to threats of lawsuits nowadays.

Of course, Jeff Jarvis himself gave Cole a pretty painful kick too, so I take back what I said. I'd like to see Cole scream "libel" after this.

Welcome to the working week, I know it don't thrill you, I hope it don't kill you.....

You've become the fool you railed against. You've become the martyr that you fight aginst and only cause the little space between your ears has been offended by sense.

Huh, laddy?

Eric,

I had the same reaction. Then I g00gled his post. Looks like lyrics to an Elvis Costello song.

Oh no. Not this "fisking" business again! :-)

This intellectually lazy technique involves the use of selective quotations with biased editorial bits in between, suggesting that the author is making some sort of malign, terrible argument...

Throw in a bit of name calling, and one is "fisked".

Of course what Cole actually said is rather mild and not particualarly noteworthy, although he does make some more interesting general comments that touch on the issues of commercialisation, corruption and viral marketing.

Quick, chaps - draw the wool over your eyes! That's better.

Anyway, so carry on with the "fisking" malarkey.

A factual point remains to be made:

"Pond life" or not - Cole knows a great deal more about the Middle East than Michael Totten. Michael Totten would rather indulge in "fisking" games rather than consider the issues more deeply free of personal insult.

Benjamin: Michael Totten would rather indulge in "fisking" games rather than consider the issues more deeply free of personal insult.

I'm not the one accusing liberal Iraqis of some sinister plot. Also, you see those articles on the left sidebar of my blog? In most of those I consider the issues deeply. None of those articles are fiskings.

And by the way, I didnn't use "selective" quotes in this fisking. I quoted all of Juan Cole's words consecutively.

Maybe next time you argue with me you can address the content, rather than the format, of the post.

Cole does not outline a conspiracy theory, just raises legitimate questions.

I personally do not think that Iraq The Model is paid for by the USA govt or similar arrangement.

But the notion that a political group or agency would fund/encourage sympathetic bloggers is not remotely far fetched, given past actions, irrespective of the truth in this particular case.

That is the wider question posed by Cole, and it's a legitimate one.

And by the way, I didnn't use "selective" quotes in this fisking. I quoted all of Juan Cole's words consecutively

Are you trying to say you do not use selective quotes? Of course you do.

Much of "fisking" I have seen is a technique whereby one selects smaller quotes (out of context) with linking passages of biased interpretation, editorial, often to create a caricature of what the orginal author (being "fisked") actually said.

Michael, GREAT job of doing "honest" fisking. Benjamin, either show an example of out of context in MJT above, or admit you're wasting attention span.

Two anti-Daschle bloggers were getting paid by Thune's campaign; most top Leftist bloggers were getting paid, in one way or another, by Kerry supporters. It's reasonable to develop better standards. Cole is getting paid by taxpayers -- there should be a way to stop those payments.

For those who won't read Jeff's blog comments:

Great job Jeff -- keep blasting against Cole and those who claim Iraqis who aren't PC (ie anti-American) enough aren't "real" Iraqis.

Hmm, maybe you should look at how Leftists treat black conservative, like Condi and Justice Thomas, who aren't "real" blacks. You might see some similarities in the treatment.

Of course, too bad so many Kerry supporters support this kind of treatment. I call it the Secular Inquisition. And it's the job of secular moderates, like you, to fight it.

(Just like some tolerant Christians have to fight excessively intolerant Christian Fundamentalists -- although where to draw which lines?)

“One reason he is in the political wilderness and I’m not is because he does and I don’t.”

Juan Cole is in the political wilderness? No, he is not. Cole represents the mainstream of the national Democratic Party. Have we already forgotten that John Kerry’s campaign also attacked Iraqis who are perceived as friendly towards the United States:

“Mr. Edwards was even more dismissive, stating: "Prime Minister Allawi's trip to the United States was filled with all the wrong lessons, lessons from an administration that just can't seem to tell the truth when it comes to Iraq." The ugliest treatment of all came from Mr. Lockhart, the former Clinton White House spokesman. After the Allawi-Bush press conference Thursday, Mr. Lockhart said that "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040926-094827-2869r.htm

Michael Totten is the political outsider. Sad, but true. Those who ultimately decide who will be the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party consider Totten to be a heretic.

The left intelligensia fits Tallyrand's description of the Bourbons: learn nothing, remember nothing.

Actually, what is interesting about this whole kabuffle is that it simply highlights the fact that Juan Cole has gone off the deep end.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Martini Republic has a clear understanding that neither the site nor its operators are the types one quotes in any context other than outright mockery. MR's 'political' analysis amounts to little than a semi-comical mix of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy black helicopter theorizing and misunderstood Marxist cant. They're big on labelling everyone who either holds differing views or are more prominent than they as 'warmongers', 'chickenhawks' or 'warmongering chickenhawks'.

That Juan Cole would uncritically accept Martini Republic as a legitimate source, and repeat, also uncritically, from this source explains to a great extent why Prof. Cole has been quietly dropped over the past several months as a reference source by most of the truly prominent Left/Liberal bloggers.

This is nothing more than the case of one Lefty Whackjob referencing another Lefty Whackjob in an attempt to discredit those they are incapable of debating.

It's just another example of why Republicans win elections...

Michael - look on the bright side. At least JC isn't blaming IraqTheModel blog on the Joooooozzzzzz. Not directly, anyhow. So that's an improvement.

As for Martini Republic's presumption that Complex Internet Applications (CIA) is actually a CIA front, based on their acronym...

Well, sure.

But then, Christians in Action (CIA) are probably a nefarious CIA front group too, along with the Chemical Institute of America (CIA), the Commission Internationale d'Aerostation (CIA)(International Hot Air Balloon Association); and most heinously, the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), where our deadly ninja chefs, and Wolfgang Puck, trained.

Pathetic.

Cole does not outline a conspiracy theory, just raises legitimate questions.

That's the eternal cop-out to these arguments from the left. Why not just have the stones to argue the conspiracy theory? Coming up with "legitimate questions" to suggest just about anything is a piece of cake.

Great post, Michael! Another good way to help fisk Juan Cole is to go to www.ratemyprofessors.com. This is a website that solicits comments from students about their professors. To date, it's evaluated close to half a million professors. To get the full range of comments, you have to join the website--it's like $5 for a year. But even what you can see for free gives more than a soupcon that something funny is going on in Cole's classroom: "...a hypocritical, double-standard spouting apologist for racism and religious fascism."

So, did Cole ever actually do anything towards that translate-important-political-classics-into_Arabic project he was mooting last year? I sent that prat $50 and never heard anything further about whether or not it was money pissed down the wish-hole.

Al Malviva: At least JC isn't blaming IraqTheModel blog on the Joooooozzzzzz. Not directly, anyhow. So that's an improvement.

No but he is blaming them, or their theoretical ilk, on the Neo-Conservatives, which is Code for the Joooozzzz. So it comes down to more or less the same thing, doesn't it.

Benjamin pops up everywhere! As I have siad in response to his posts over at Harry's Place, Cole actually does not present any argument at all.

He simply quotes smears from another blog, adds some spun speculation elsewhere, and leaves it for everyone else to draw conclusions.

It's a blatant smear, and one any academic should be ashamed of.

Juan Cole's Daily post:

Part One: How many Americans were killed today.

(If no Americans, find some Iraqis who were killed.)

Part Two: Prattle on about how some minor event is a prelude to an all-out-Iraqi civil war.

Part Three: Explain how it is all the fault of the Jews (sorry, the "neocons") who want to steal Palestinian land.

Repeat day after day after day....

Cole's indulged in wrongness before, but it looks as if he's escalating.

Cole suggested that a majority of Arab Moslems dislike Israel and America's support of same.
He further suggests that Americans due to American support of Israel will occasionally be targeted as a proxy target for Israel, which they can't directly attack.

Take away the hype, and that's what Cole wrote.
Regardless of what one thinks of Israel, how is any of this controversial?

But then you've spent a couple of weeks in Arab countries, and this Cole, what the fuck does he know about the Middle East?

Dunno about you, Michael, but it sure looks to me as if this post addresses the conspiracy-theory lunacy, and not what you're responding to.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, Juan is right, that the brothers are CIA. Why is this bad?
Juan is essentially accusing the CIA of fomenting democracy in Iraq.
This reminds me of Michael Moore's false charge about Bush smuggling out the rest of the bin Ladan family. You know, the folks that were worried that since their brother killed 3,000 Americans, some americans might want some payback and not be too particular about which bin Ladan they whacked? At that time, I was trying very hard to figure out where the bad thing was that was being accused.
Accusing people of doing good things, things that are benefitical to not just this country, but Iraq as well, is not a bad thing to accuse folks of.

Even if Juan's charges are true, it ain't a bad thing for the CIA, or anyone else, to be doing. And the brothers don't strike me as folks who would lie just because they are getting paid. They are doing what they do because they believe in the project. They believe in democracy for Iraq.

I guess in Juan's world, democracy is a bad thing, like smuggling folks who might be targeted by angry mobs is a bad thing. I don't know. I gave up on the left about a year ago.

I can with certainty say that Riverbend in NOT located in Iraq. I won't name the city she posts from here in the U.S. but rest assured that she is not anywhere near the Middle East. She can't even speak Arabic.

Nathan Hamm makes a really important and general point, I reckon. "raising questions" is just lazy and cowardly. In this case, MJT is granting much of Cole's implicit theory and asking "is that bad"? I certainly would find current controversies a lot more engaging if people would spell their stories out more fully. More example, I found Farenheit 9/11 boring as hell, because it never really claimed anything specific. Hard to get your teeth into innuendo. For example; "It's all about oil". Well, who exactly are you talking about? And do these people want high oil prices? Low prices? Interestingly, if folks like Moore understood even the rudiments of modern oil and other commodity markets, they could make a very interesting case. You make real $ by knowing where prices are going; up or down is fine as long as you know in advance. Of course, it also works to have Saddam sell you underpriced oil. OK, that is a conspiracy theory as well but it is pretty well laid out by now.

Sure, nice post and all, but have you been accused of questioning Professor Cole's patriotism yet? Only then you will know that you have really made it!

Reading Cole's piece I am struck by the pure weaselishness of it. The veiled accusations, the implied corruption, the assumed conspiracies, and the suggestion of malevolent motivation - and all without a shread of hard evidence. I mean, the fact that the blog is hosted in Abilene is evidence of what exactly? Perhaps the conspiracy that Senator Kennedy spoke about during the campaign? Or is Halliburton involved somehow?

These tactics remind me of the phrase "Have you no decency sir?".

But really, is this the best that the good Professor can come up with? Not to worry then, not to worry.

Cole and his ilk are in the political wilderness for one simple reason: Kerry lost because swing and other marginal voters realized Kerry and his supporters hate(d) Bush and America more than they hate(d) the terrorists and other enemies of America. Cole's latest rummy rumination only confirms the wisdom of the American electorate.

Juan Cole has a great post today on the absolutely abhorrent policy of annexation pursued by Israel since 1967. On the one hand, the Israelis pretend to want to find a negotiated solution to their conflict with the Palestinians, on the other they can't build settlements fast enough, on the very land whose status that is subject to negotiation. And all this hypocrisy is backed by successive U.S. governments -even though an entire generation of Israeli Prime Ministers have done nothing but deceive the U.S. Where is Michael Totten's indignation when an Israeli warplane drops a bomb in a heavily populated Palestinian urban areas? Israel in the U.S. is the great taboo subject. Speak the truth and you will immediately labeled "anti-semitic". Exactly what Juan Cole is experiencing right now.

Tim, I disagree. Certainly, there were plenty of Kerry supporters who literally hated Bush more than they hated the terrorists. But that is a two-way street. Just the other day, Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis compared liberals to the hijackers of September 11. Commenters on Mr. Totten's page have, in previous threads, stated that liberals are more dangerous to this country than radical Islamic fundamentalists. If it was a realization, it was a one-sided realization that did not take into account political fundamentalism and intolerance on both sides of the aisle, not just one.

But then, the suggestion that almost 60 million people ("Kerry and his supporters") hate America is a tired, but still vile, bit of nonsense. It's always fun to hear someone claim the psychic ability to peer into the private thoughts of tens of millions of people, and then make sweeping judgements and condemnations because they happen to disagree with you over a choice of candidate.

This is what happens when you give an idiot an education. You get educated idiocy.

Micheal has not posted about Isreali's doing bad things in the last five minutes, so it is OK to blame the guy who was shot because he looked Jewish. Did I get all that right?

Blogtheist: Thank you for your constant reminders it is two way street, so we can all be fair and balenced. I am sure some of the victims of 9-11 kicked their dogs. Hence they were not entirely blameless when they were disinigrtated. I just wanted to put that out in case anyone claimed the terrorists were bad people and didn't mention all the bad things the victims of 9-11 did.

Speak the truth and you will immediately labeled "anti-semitic". Exactly what Juan Cole is experiencing right now.

Note that doesn't make the converse true: just because you're being labeled an anti-semite doesn't mean what you're saying is true. But you already knew that.

Winger,

Thank you for rediculing me. Always appreciated.

There is a world of difference between condemning mass murder, and between equating mass murder with voting for the other party. Too often, from both sides, I tend to hear that. Bush is Hitler! Kerry's a traitor! If you vote for ______, you're a terrorist!

I just get sick of it after a while. But, being a Democrat, it hits a little closer to home when you hear people saying that friends, family, and neighbors support terrorists and hate America because of their voting patterns.

Dominic writes:

"On the one hand, the Israelis pretend to want to find a negotiated solution to their conflict with the Palestinians, on the other they can't build settlements fast enough, on the very land whose status that is subject to negotiation."

That's not hypocrisy, as you claim, but rather an attempt to get the other side to show that choosing the military, rather than the negotiation, option is a mistake.

Israel has uprooted settlements (Sinai) before and given massive amounts of land back (again, Sinai), if they're shown there is good will and the ability to back up promises from a decent negotiating partner. Egypt hasn't even lived up to all their promises (policing/eliminating smuggling tunnels from Egypt to Rafah), but Israel has refrained from doing anything concrete about it.

Strengthening their hand until a partner emerges on the Palestinian side is not "hypocrisy," just because you disagree with the strategy.

I'm actually not a fan of most of the settlements, but it's funny how certain people think that settlements are "aggressive" and "provocative" but suicide bombings, constant incitement of hatred and teaching that "martyrdom" gets you to heaven are not.

Settlements can, and have been, uprooted or exchanged. It happened with Egypt - it's about to happen in Gaza.

But anyway, the Palestinians could have had all of the West Bank, all of Gaza and most of Jerusalem - all controlled by Arabs from 1948 to 1967, but they couldn't give up their dreams of destroying Israel.

Oh well.

It seems to me that Cole suffers from the same basic problem a lot of Arab Muslims suffer from. When you have a religion (Arabs = Islam / Cole = neo-Marxist liberalism) that promises you will rule the world, and the damn infidels (Westerners and Jews / Neocons and Jews) keep winning, it must be a comfort to have lunatic conspiracy theories that explain it all away.

The good news is, not all Arab Muslims prefer the fantasy world of an all-powerful Zionist-Crusader Entity relieving them of responsibility for their own lives. Some believe their problems are their own fault, which means they can fix things if they want to. They can stop getting the short end of the stick if they just change a few things. The question of democracy in the Middle East hinges on whether there are enough.

Blog: First of all, I don't know you. I am ridiculing your post, not you. Second, you know what, I just read Tom's post three times and find no evidence he said all Kerry voters support terrorism. You shadowboxing with people who are not here.

Wow, we must have read different articles.

What I read from John Cole, was a commentary on a post written by Joeseph Mailander of the Martini Republic. I infered this from obscure comments like:

"Joseph Mailander of the Martini Republic weblog has an extremely important posting on Sunday about the dangers of "blog trolling."

The another cryptic allusion:

"What Mailander is talking about is not really astroturfing, but rather the granting of some individuals a big megaphone."

Of course, as you point out Michael, he goes way overboard by "[making] up a conspiracy theory (all by himself, this time) about the Iraqi bloggers who write at Iraq the Model"...

He says: "The MR posting brings up questions about the Iraqi brothers who run the IraqTheModel site."

I wonder if MR, could refer to Martini Republic? Surely not. As Michael points out... this is all Juan Cole's fault...

Well, unless you bother to click on the link in the story (the one that is at the very beginning...). If you do that (call me insane for clicking on related links), then you find that the Martini Republic is the one that developed the conspiracy theory, discussed blog trolling, accused, in a roundabout way the Iraqi brothers of 'less than honest' intentions.

In fact, the questions about the Brother's honesty, the accusation that they are outside the mainstream, the mention of suspicious ISP's in Texas and the commentary on Riverbend are ALL IN THE MARTINI REPUBLIC ARTICLE.

Not only is Juan Cole not making up conspiracy theories all by himself, he's reporting on and directly linking to the people that ARE making this stuff up.

But, dear gods, let's not have facts get in the way of a good fisking! It's the right of every sanctimonius Blog Captain; to publicly lash, slam and put down someone who doesn't agree with your worldview. It doesn't need to be factual or logical, because it's not like 90% of the blog crew will question the Captain and actually go look at the article themselves.

This is probably the most poorly researched article I've seen from you Michael.

Now, my reality tunnel may be different, but when I read Juan Cole's article it came across a little differently. In my reality tunnel, I read someone who was cautioning against the use of political blog trolling in the future, using the MR story as a backstory. More of a caution 'there may be problems', than an accusation of anything. It seems that he was only repeating accusations made at MR.

I personally agree with him, to a point. Anyone, with any agenda can build a website. They can lie, misquote, astroturf to their hearts content and most readers will never know. Look at companies like Microsoft who have been engaged in this kind of crap for nearly a decade. If you think that it won't eventually be used by the political parties, than you are terribly optimistic or utterly naive.

How many posters here check the backstory before posting to Michael's entries? How many of you ever actually get around to reading the links (and the reference links from them?). Now think about all of the people who read this site and aren't involvbed enough to post. Do you think that they check the sources? Verify? Or do they simply read, agree and move on, with no idea of truth, spin or honest mistakes?

The threat is real. People tend to believe what they read, and the Internet allows anyone to write something and post it on an official looking site. Think about how many Phishing schemes have taken money from naive Internet users.

Ratatosk

Sheesh.

Riverbend, originally encouraged to blog by her freind Salam Pax, reported on the Abu Ghraib abuses months before the news broke. She's a great writer, unlike the guys at Iraq the Model. She's anti-Hussein, anti-Baathist, and liberal to the core. And she's quite angry at what's happening to her country, as I would be if I were in her shoes.

Juan Cole originally supported the war, as he had friends who suffered at the hands of the Baathists. Early in the game he thought the regime change was being handled badly, and pointed it out, and has continued to do so. Most of his predictions have borne out, unlike most of the predictions of the hawk bloggers.

"Fisk" these mild statements of his if you must, Michael, but I find this stuff disappointing. It plays to the wingnuts, but I look forward to a change of topic.

When I visit my parents (retired members of the Marine community), they like to brag and introduce me as their "pride and joy, and he's a university professor," I've been known to intercept them before they mention the prof part and just say that I work at a research institute (underplaying my title and academic rank).

Though my current address has considerable "intellectual diversity" since it's a bastion of scientists and engineers (the real Reality-Based™ Community, Cole is a textbook example as to why I still do that.

MT,

I think there is something here other than ordinary lefty lunacy. Cole is emblamatic of what has happened to the humanities portion of the academy over the past few decades. Reflexive anti-Americanism, a complete focus on the "other," bowing at the altars of Foucault, Derrida, Marcuse etc and deconstructing not only literature and language, but the academy itself, as well as a willingness to step outside what are, by necessity, increasingly narrow areas of expertise and comment on world events. In doing so, many attempt to convey authority by attaching their title/professorship despite the fact that the event on which they are commenting has little to do with their expertise.

I graduated from a very lefty liberal arts school 20 years ago. So lefty that Spiro Agnew once referred to it as the Kremlin. I still take classes in various colleges from time to time. The level of vitriol, anti-Americanism etc. is shocking, to me anyway. The academy seems fundamentally different to me than it was. It is no longer about honest inquiry, it is now about pushing a specific agenda.

... make that "(the real Reality-Based™ Community)"

I'll blame it on an MPI bug making my parallel processing go all buggy... :-P

Not only is Juan Cole not making up conspiracy theories all by himself, he's reporting on and directly linking to the people that ARE making this stuff up.

Just as NBC news wasn't deliberately reporting a lie, they were reporting on the people who made the lies up, as if they had an ounce of credibility. Or is it your claim that Cole's actually pointing to the MR fellows as the blog agents provocateurs?

Cross-posted this to Jarvis' rant - this is worse than just libel; Cole is providing propaganda cover to justify the murder of these men. Accusing Iraqis of being secretly funded by a military or intelligence arm of the US government is, in the view of many of the radicals in the Islamic world, sufficient cause to justify a beheading. I know we don't prosecute that kind of thing, but it can't be denounced in strong enough terms.

Slartibartfast,

(nice name ;-) )

Actually, I was pointing out that Michael's claim of "making it up all by himself" is not only Not True, but that Cole never claimed to have made any of it up, and all of it can be found at the MT site.

It's one thing to positively discuss, perhaps even endorse some wild conspiracy theory (though Cole seems to fall just short of endorsement), it's an entirely different thing to "...[make]up a conspiracy theory (all by himself...".

My point was that Michael misrepresented Cole's article, probably because of simple human bias. Nonetheless, most people don't seem to have checked their sources, tending instead to simply accept Michael's interpertation of the article. Now, we know that Michael isn't intentionally trying to sway people with lies, innuendo and the like. However, if Michael, through simple human bias, can misrepresent an article to many people, think about the damage that could be done by someone intentionally trying to be subversive, or trying to run a psy-ops site.

That's exactly what Cole is warning us about.

Rather Ironic.

MJT: Why on Earth would an anti-American Iraqi be celebrated in Washington? Professor Cole might want to try really really hard to remember which country he lives in and, more important, which country Washington is in. That way he might be slightly less baffled by what happens outside his bubble.

I worked for a great company once. They had these massive quarterly meetings where they answered any questions submitted by the employees. There were some very harsh questions submitted, and to my surprise they were brought forward and answered honestly. I was very impressed, and the company continues to be a powerhouse with incredible employee loyalty.

Bringing the hard questions and criticisms into the light and dealing with them: honest and courageous.

Celebrating only your fans and rewarding praise while rejecting criticism as "anti-American": weasely, immature, and chickenshit.

Tosk: How do we knoe that Cole isn't a Karl Rove agent trying to make others look like paranoid assholes? That is exactly what I am warning all of you about - please shower me with praise.

DPU: Give yourself a pat on the back for your belief in your courage, honesty and maturity.

Funny coincidence, this. I posted once on a blog (I don't know if it's a big deal to specify or not, so I won't) disagreeing with the author's enthusiastic support for PETA and its project for scaring kids away from KFC with fake buckets of 'blood.' Before you could say 'Richard Hofstadter,' the blogger was accusing me of being an "astroturfer" and a corporate shill. He posted my IP and asked his readers to trace it and discover my identity. When he discovered that I was posting from Washington, DC, he concluded that I worked for a corporate lobbying/PR firm, based ONLY on this geographical information. He refused to answer any of the facts or interpretations I presented, instead attacking only my presumed identity (by the way, I am not connected in any way to the issue or these or any similar institutions, in letter or in spirit). I finally realized how far from reality this type of person is when he accused me (as a presumed corporate shill) of avoiding debate on the issues by defaming a challenger - exactly what he had been doing to me. The conspiracist mindset goes much deeper than suspicion on a particular issue - it's a completely different epistemology that flies in the face of all reliable systems of discovering truth. If you want to start a conversation, prepare to be an official disinformation agent.

Hey Slarti, haven't seen you over here before. Welcome to the mosh pit.

DPU writes: Bringing the hard questions and criticisms into the light and dealing with them: honest and courageous.

Is that what calling people CIA/Neo-con schills because they use blogspot and he doesn't know what blogspot is?

Honest and courageous. Awesome.

Winger: DPU: Give yourself a pat on the back for your belief in your courage, honesty and maturity.

Sometimes the snark level in here is so high that it makes everything blurry, so I have no idea what that either meant, or was trying to imply.

That's exactly what Cole is warning us about.

Ah. Well, that's all good then. But it brings to mind a Demotivator: something to the effect that maybe your (Cole's, in this case) purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Is that what calling people CIA/Neo-con schills because they use blogspot and he doesn't know what blogspot is?

Talk about missing the point...

It notes that their choice of internet service provider, in Abilene, Texas, is rather suspicious, and wonders whether they are getting some extra support from certain quarters.

Riverbend is hosted by a server in California.

That means...what?

Haven't been here for a while, ++!good, but there was a time when I was at least a periodic reader.

Mike: California - home to far right-winger and neocon-bushco pawn Arine Schwarzenegger. Nuff said.

Nate,

Well said.

Winger,

Sure he could be Karl Rove, and I could be Jesus Christ (A lot of people tell me that I look like him). The point is that you do not know who is on the other side of your network cable. Anyone can make anysite and say anything and the majority of people who read it on the net will believe it, especially if it fits with their preconcieved notions.

Now, if you want to discuss the topic like a adult, instead of tossing snippits of useless tripe at me, then let's get to it. If not, why don't you save your oral droppings for a more appropriate format, perhaps during fingerpainting time, or during cookies and milk time before your nap?

Ratatosk

Talk about missing the point...

Whatever, DPU. It's fun watching partisans defend a conspiracy monger.

Jarvis can see through it, thankfully.

Whatever, DPU. It's fun watching partisans defend a conspiracy monger.

If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I'm not defending him. I think that these posts are not up to Cole's usual standard, but I don't think they're worth all the clucking I'm hearing from the gallery.

Riverbend is hosted by a server in California.

[JiffyPopBeanie] Hmmmm... maybe she (or he) is a sociology major at Bezerkley working on her (or his) thesis on Gender Symbolism in Food.[/JiffyPopBeanie]

Tosk: Does being an adult mean I can walk around and marginalize people because I claim to be nire smarter and open-minded? If so, no thanks. We get it, everyone has preconcieved notions but you. Well maybe you are a Rove agent and we shouldn't trust your post.

If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I'm not defending him. I think that these posts are not up to Cole's usual standard, but I don't think they're worth all the clucking I'm hearing from the gallery.

Which would be defending him, except that he's made your job harder this time.

"I don't think they're worth all the clucking I'm hearing from the gallery."

But here you are clucking along with them. Delicious irony!

But here you are clucking along with them. Delicious irony!

Delicious!! Deeeelicious! Oh, the irony.

Winger, the poor sod thsat he is, typed (probably with much difficulty):

Does being an adult mean I can walk around and marginalize people because I claim to be nire smarter and open-minded?

No, being an adult means that one discusses issues based on things like facts. They discuss by exchanging differences of opinion, or opposing ideas, with the hope of comming to some sort of resolution. This is sometimes called communication and I do realize that quite a number of you succesful talking monkeys haven't grasped the higher functions like typing while you brain in engaged or communicating beyond the odd grunt or nationalistic "Ug like Pretty Stars on Flag".

If you would like an example of adult communication, I point you to the wonderful discussion that David and I had on Stem Cell research, here, just a few days ago. If you would prefer to continue to spout the intellectual equivelent of an 8 year old's "Nuh Uh" then I have no more to say to you. Could you possibly try to make at least one attempt at discourse, or am I expecting too much from a poor Thuddite like yourself?

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

patronizing (adjective) -- (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension

PS: RAW is a sophist dirtbag and you are a bad parody of him.

Winger: P.K.B.

One time I went golfing and did nothing but address the ball. This kind of reminds me of that, only it's even less interesting.

I did, however, shoot an all-time low game.

Par for the course here, Slarti. This is the place to be if you don't mind an elbow in the eye occasionally if you get to give the same.

And ObWi is the place to go if you actually want some discourse, thanks to the strict posting rules.

Public Service Annoucnment from The Invisible College.com:

If you're ever in an argument, you know things are going badly for your side when you have to haul out an old man in a wheel chair because he's the only thing you can knock down.

However, its very funny for everyone else to watch. So it all depends on your goal, the sucessful discussion of information or entertainment, pure and simple "as a hammer to the forebrain" (I miss you Brunching Shuttlecocks).

Toskie

Slarti,

Oh come on, I know you weren't swinging at the ball because you were distracted by some lovely fjords.

;-)

Oh we are having an argument? I thought you were busy patronizing me as being a flag-waving buffoon and that was your definition of being an adult?

Ah, that brought back memories of the Logical Reasoning Fairy. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

So it all depends on your goal, the sucessful discussion of information or entertainment, pure and simple "as a hammer to the forebrain".

This is not the place to be if you want informative discourse, Rat. And I think you've put your finger on it when you mention knocking down the old man in the wheelchair. Like I said, a mosh pit, and a pretty entertaining one.

I am sure Totten is happy how on-topic this discussion is.

Once again, you create a straw man: Juan Cole as the representation of everyone who disagrees with our involvement in Iraq and then destroy it. Rather than address the war, which any free-thinking person would have to admit has been disastrous, you simply choose those on the left who are most extreme and pretend that they exemplify all who carry a certain viewpoint. This is about as honest as someone on the left picking out Jerry Falwell, and then denouncing him as a way to denounce Bush. Totten, defend our involvment in Iraq on the merits. You can't, can you??

Winger, what the hell are you talking about?

Winger,

Hey, it always your choice, you can look like a fool, or you can engage in intelligent discussion. I'm more than happy to play either way. Eris is happy when I poke at poor soddish greyfaces like you, my dear Winger, and she's not too upset if I engage in logical discussion on occasion. I'd love to have a logical discussion about Cole's article, or even Michael's interpertation of Cole's article. You unfortunately, have added noting to the conversation. Instead, you simply seem to be spouting what I can only assume you consider to be 'witty remarks'. Alas that your wit is so constrained.

You can discuss, or try to keep up on barb trading. I'm all for discussion, but I'd rather pass on any more barb trading... you know what they say:

"Arguing on The Internet is Like playing in the Special Olympics.

Win or lose, you're still retarded."

Alas, truer words were never spoken (at least not with such disregard for being PC).

Tosk

"Juan Cole is the "national security" hero on the left side of the blogosphere"

Absurd. Examples please. I read Atrios, Kos, and Drum every day, and have never seen Cole rep'd as a "hero" in any way; in fact, I don't recall any of them really mentioning him at all. We might as well say, "David Duke, hero of the right wing blogosphere . . ."

Actually Cole's post seems to conflate two different phenomena: Blog trolling in the comments and phony blogging (aka astroturfing). While I disagree with him about ITM, the Daschle v Thune blog shows that there certainly is a danger of blogs posing as third parties who are actually bought and paid for by one campaign. That said, it certainly appears to me that in this regard the "neoconservatives" were far less likely to be paid agents than the "liberals".

Cincinnatus,

Gosh, I'm glad I'm not the only one who hasn't seen Cole called Hero... I thought I'd missed the secret Left-Wing memo.

Tosk: Is your condescension adding to the conversation? I think I'll just ignore you.

Pat,

I agree. The threat is real, it has already happened and it is likely the Left wing that will use the tool first (those not in power, tend to use the more questionable weapons first). It's not something we can stop, but its better to keep the threat in mind, than blindly accept whatever spews from the blogsphere.

I'm way late to this thread, but I just have to address a pet peeve. A couple of folks have pointed out that Cole is a certifiable Expert on the Middle East, whereas Michael is an interested layman. As in,

"Cole knows a great deal more about the Middle East than Michael Totten"

"But then you've spent a couple of weeks in Arab countries, and this Cole, what the fuck does he know about the Middle East?"

To which I say, Who the hell cares?

Look, Cole's status as an expert means that he should be able to win handily an argument on the facts with us non-experts. It does not mean that non-experts have no right to argue with him, and it sure as hell does not mean that he must be right in his interpretations of his doubtless extensive knowledge.

And the quotes I reproduced are no more than an effort to disqualify Michael from having an opinion, because it's just so damned inconvenient to argue with him on the merits.

Is your condescension adding to the conversation?

Nope, it was special. It was just for you my dear winger. Please feel free to ignore me, in fasct try to ignore me before you start posting snark, then you won't get your little digital binky taken away.

JPS,

True stated! Often the 'expert' opinion is heavily laced with bias from years of learning. Its often very important to have the experts questioned by the hoi polli. One of my favorite Discordian truths is:

"The silly question, is the first indication of a totally new development."

Toskie baby - even your blatent trolls are lame and unfunny. Nothing worse than a close-minded asshole who pats himself on the back for being so open-minded. For the sake of Totten's bandwidth, I am done with you. Good day.

Promises, promises.

". For the sake of Totten's bandwidth, I am done with you. Good day."

Whoo Hoo! One less greyface to darken my binary doorstep. Hope you keep that in mind the next time you want to post something innane in response to a post of mine. Add to the conversation or play in the kiddie pool.

I guess I'm the only one who has any curiosity about SysAdmin's rather provocative post from 7:34 am. Unless he's referring to her being hosted by a server in CA. But he said "posts from".

Hey Sysadmin - come back and clarify that....

If he'd wanted to tell, he would have. I'm curious, but only mildly. Considering the Internet's rather unreliable information-to-noise ration.

Just as an aside, I worked for the CPA when I was in Iraq and one of my side hobbies was monitoring Iraqi blogs. Until I left, I ended up with the absolutely thankless task of correcting Riverbend's information/disinformation/misinformation (depending on what side of the fence you're on) on the Internet.

She's the kid of a former Ba'athist foreign service officer who still lives in a rather exclusive neighborhood in Baghdad. This explains a lot about why she's anti-American.

She hates us because we ended the Saddam-sponsored gravy train for Ba'athists and their families. You know, the clubs, the discos, the pools, the booze, the 24/7 electricity in Baghdad but nowhere else in Iraq, the good life in general. Now she and her ilk have to make a life just like every other Iraqi, without having it handed to them.

That's just a little inside info for you in case you're wondering why she hates us.

And why you should take a lot of what she says with a huge grain of salt.

s/ration/ratio

Juan Cole reminds me of some of my professors. Living breathing proof of the old saw: "those who can, do; those who can't, teach".
It amazes me that some jerk, who has never earned a cent, is getting attention.

Major Bannion - Thanks for your service, and good point about the hypocrisy of asking "cui bono" only of one side.

As I've pointed out before, Josh Marshall and his friends only object to "astroturf" when it's not on their side.

Major Bannion,

Good information! It's yet another example of exactly the sort of thing that Cole was talking about. Of course, his reality tunnel sees Conservatives using it... but hey, everyone has their own world that they live in ;-).

I would hazzard a guess that we will see this sort of thing from the Left and Right over the next few years.

Don't believe anything you read, ever.

I mean it.

Seriously.

Even this.

Stop believing me, Goddamnit!!

OK thats better.

I'm getting the vibe here that both Ratatosk and Winger were beat up a lot during high school. The last time either of them said anything remotely mature or intelligent in a nongrammatical way is far in the past. :(

Major - that's exactly how she comes across and therefore basically what I had just assumed all along (i.e. end of the "gravy train"). Then double-plus-ungood above described her as "anti-Hussein, anti-Baathist, and liberal to the core". Huh?

Anyway, thanks for the clarification - obviously she is actually in Iraq - and thanks especially for your service! Must sound trite so please imagine it said with a great deal of feeling :)

The words of the foolish,
and the words of the wise,
are not far apart,
in Discordian eyes.

Tosk,

Okay, Martini Republic came up with the theory first. I didn't follow Cole's link. It looked to me like he used MR's comment about "astroturfing" as a launch pad for his own thery. My bad.

That's a nit, though. My post isn't about who came up with the theory, it's about how pathetic and lame the theory is.

Blogtheist stated: Just the other day, Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis compared liberals to the hijackers of September 11.

He didn't provide a link and neither did several other lefty bloggers would also touted this meme. However, I did find what may be an exact quote from the New York Times on a lefty blog, which won't be linked because the blog didn't link its source. Assuming the quote is correct and it is indeed from the New York Times, the context of the quote is still missing from any discussions I've seen, including Blogtheist's. However, the quote appears to me to speak for itself, as it appears to have for Blogtheist:

"It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go," she added. "I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back."

As is obvious, Rep. Davis is not comparing liberals to terrorists, only making the comparison that each took other people to a place they did not want to be. Inapt comparison? Possibly, as the terrorists achieved there objectives by illegitimate force whereby liberals typically try to achieve their goals through judicial fiat only after they have been rejected at the ballot box, both methods using only legitimate force to enforce the legislative/judicial outcome. And it may be that Rep. Davis is alluding to the propensity of liberals to use the judiciary to achieve its more unpopular objectives but without context it is impossible to say. But is Rep. Davis literally comparing liberals to terrorists in this quote? Clearly not.

By the way, Tosk, I've been accused of "astroturfing" and being a paid shill dozens of times myself. I've been accused of being paid by the White House and also by the Mossad. I have no patience for such idiotic nonsense. Absolutely none whatsoever.

I do get paid by Tech Central Station and Blogads, but that ought to go without saying.

I do get paid by Tech Central Station and Blogads, but that ought to go without saying.

Illuminati-Bildeberg-Freemason front groups, both.

Tongueboy,

Here's a link to the article. It's on the second page.

And no, you're right, she wasn't making a literal equation between liberals and terrorists. She wasn't saying liberals=terrorists.

But you're reading of her quote seems to be wildly different from mine. Try this:

"Like Hitler, Bush is a leader of a powerful country. Like Hitler, Bush has gone to war in foreign countries. Like Hitler, Bush has occupied them. Like Hitler, Bush..."

It's just as rediculous, and the intent is equally clear.

Major: She hates us because we ended the Saddam-sponsored gravy train for Ba'athists and their families. You know, the clubs, the discos, the pools, the booze, the 24/7 electricity in Baghdad but nowhere else in Iraq, the good life in general. Now she and her ilk have to make a life just like every other Iraqi, without having it handed to them.

Could you please site the post that made you believe this? I read her regularily, and I haven't seen anything that indicates this.

Michael,

That's a nit, though. My post isn't about who came up with the theory, it's about how pathetic and lame the theory is.

Oh come now Michael, your entire post is an attempted fisk of Mr. Cole. You base your fisk on the premise that he developed some crazy conspiracy theory, besmirched the Iraqi Blogger Borthers and was consorting with people that HATED his country.

Everything you attacked was something he was referencing from MR. You fisked the wrong person.

Finally, you didn't even discuss the main point of his post, which was that subversive activity on the Internet, partiucularly with Blogs could become a serious problem.

You're usually a pretty meticlious writer, I don't think you deliberately msirepresented anything... I think you just misread the original article. But, think about how many people read your piece, didn't bother to read Cole's article, let alone the link back to MR... now, how many of them have left with the idea that Cole wrote all of that stuff? Indeed, reading just your post, makes it sound like Cole's article was focused on Evil Government Blogger plants, instead of an article discussing the potential threat of blogger compromise.

It was a good fisk, you should have saved it for a better subject.

Ok, I'll bite.

Rat can you clarify in your truth/reality/facts tunnel where Dr. Cole is actually using truth/reality/facts in using IraqtheModel as a poster child for "blog agents provocateurs secretly working for a particular group or goal and deliberately attempting to spread disinformation"?

(At the very least I would hope that a tenured professor would establish if something was in fact true instead of double posting about something that was indeed hearsay at best, total bullshit at worst.)

This is the point of contention and the focus of Michael's post. Instead of sidestepping the accusations and going off on some wild "internet as a political tool" tangent. Let's stay on point, Cole willingly pressed upon using a rancid conspiracy theory in order to support his world view tossing truth/reality/facts aside and echoing statements that should be reserved for cafe's in Iran rather than the hallowed halls of a top-50 American University.

Michael,

I would never believe that you were getting paid by any source that would taint your opinion.

"By their fruits you will recoginize them."

I've always thought you were a pretty high quality 'fruit', err I mean... ;-)

- Tosk

What is stupid--I mean downright retarded--about Cole's arugment is it only worries about PRO-AMERICAN propaganda blogs. Does it ever occur to him that Riverbend might be an Iranian plant? Naaaaah. But people familiar with how wars are really fought, would have to be suspicious of all of them.

Look the deeper and smarter point is that you can't trust any of them. GIGO is the rule of the day. Garbage in, garbage out. Too many people will read something written on the internet by some crank and think the masons, in conjunction with the illuminati and the saucer people faked 9-11. And don't go thinking, "well, they have written for a while and has been right for a while, i guess i can trust them." During WWII, for instance, we had a double agent, "Garbo" tell the Germans the true landing site of the Normandy invasion. Mind we didn't have him tell them in time to do anything, but we did have him tell so to build his reputation, so he could better screw the germans later.

50 years from now, we might know the truth about the War on Terror, and whatever it is, i am sure we will be surprised. Not outraged, necessarily, but surprised.

gibson.,

I never once stated that Cole had any truth or facts on his side. I don;t think.

However, there is a large difference between saying "I believe that Iraq The Model is an evil tool of the CIA" and saying "MR says that...", particularly, if you read the article, when discussing the threat that some political groups may put shills in blogs for 'astroturfing'.

It's not a radical idea, its not crazy wild speculation. Corporations have done it for years, some liberal groups did it this very election season. Could other blogs be compromised as well? Of course they could, you'd be a fool not to accpet the possibility.

My problem with the article was that it was factually incorrect and accused Mr. Cole of making things up that he was directly quoting someone else on. We were nearly 100 posts in before anyone posted that Cole didn't make this stuff up, and instead was quoting it. Every other post on this board that accused Cole of making up conspiracy crap, was uninformed, indeed even misinformed.

That is my problem, not Cole and his Left-Wing tinfoil capped buddies.

A.W. of Freespeech.c om,

True Words! Well said!

"Juan Cole is in the political wilderness? No, he is not. Cole represents the mainstream of the national Democratic Party. "

Uh, the National Democratic Party is in the wilderness.

Illuminati-Bildeberg-Freemason front groups, both.

You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too?

Actually, it's the RAND Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires.

Rat,

Anything is possible, I can and have accepted that. It's also healthy to have some balance and not go diving off after every hair brained idea simply because it's different and presumed possible, especially if it fills in holes left void by facts/truth/logic.

However, I'm not willing to give Dr. Cole the benefit of the doubt when he tries to truncate an increase of disinformation on the blogsphere (as if we didn't know that already) using IraqtheModel as his example (to which he is uncertain) without also referencing the Daschle fiasco where we have established ties to political candidates and paid-for agendas.

Double, happy you read Riverbend's site everyday, I'm so glad to hear it. However you're NOT going to find what I wrote about anywhere on her blog because, as has been pointed out before, she doesn't clue anyone in. My info was gained on the ground in Iraq by people who knew her and of her. It was my business to know. If that's not good enough for you, then not much I can do about it.

gibson,

Well, he's obviously biased, much like most other bloggers. OOne must read it with that in mind. However, the facts (not necessarily the ones he used) support the point he's making. Blogs can and have been the home of shills and astroturf experts. Of course, he will suspect those that write things not in his reality tunnel, while you'll suspect those that disagree with your reality tunnel.

Frankly, this was a failed fisk, formulated from false facts.

Tosk

"My info was gained on the ground in Iraq by people who knew her and of her. It was my business to know. "

Oh dear lord. Why state it then? Why make extreme claims as fact if you have nothing to back it up except the 'word' of a 'Major' who 'was there'.

I don't know you, you might be right, but you might be a fraud. You may be an honest Major, but you may have talked to biased people. If you have no evidence why make the claim? Its unsubstantiated roumer at best, and slander at worst.

Why behave in such a fashion?

"I've been accused of being paid by the White House and also by the Mossad."

Ridiculous! We all know you're paid by Halliburton! ;)

"...while you'll suspect those that disagree with your reality tunnel."

I never said there was something wrong with suspecting people in which you disagree with by establishing documented truths to support your disagreements. I do, however, have a problem with people spreading half-truths in order to support a theory which as of this writing has only been proven factual between left-wing bloggers and fundraisers in South Dakota.

However you're NOT going to find what I wrote about anywhere on her blog because, as has been pointed out before, she doesn't clue anyone in.

Oh good lord. I'm happy to entertain the thought that she's from a wealthy family, that relatives may have been Baathist or whatever, but I actually thought you had something to back it up.

This is why the blogosphere will never replace mainstream media. Stuff like this falls somewhere between the highschool newspaper and grafitti.

DPU: Stuff like this falls somewhere between the highschool newspaper and grafitti.

...and yes, that applies to speculation about funding of hawkish Iraqi blogs as well.

"This is why the blogosphere will never replace mainstream media. Stuff like this falls somewhere between the highschool newspaper and grafitti."

Yeah kind of like using "unimpeachable" sources for prime time news stories months before an election.

This is why the blogosphere will never replace mainstream media.

Ummm...hold me back. I'm feeling a CBS moment coming on.

I'll certainly agree that the blogosphere is never going to replace what the mainstream media once was. But the current mainstream media's not going to anytime soon, either.

gibson.,

" have a problem with people spreading half-truths in order to support a theory"

I think I read the article a little differently than you (italics mine):

"The MR posting brings up questions about the Iraqi brothers who run the IraqTheModel site. It points out that the views of the brothers are celebrated in the right-leaning weblogging world of the US, even though opinion polling shows that their views are far out of the mainstream of Iraqi opinion. It notes that their choice of internet service provider, in Abilene, Texas, is rather suspicious, and wonders whether they are getting some extra support from certain quarters."

It seems to me that he was quoting an article in order to discuss the threat of blog based political astroturfing. Do you read that differently?

Tosk

Ah, crap. That last was me.

Accurately signed, though.

Yeah kind of like using "unimpeachable" sources for prime time news stories months before an election.

For the mainstream media, screwing up a story like the Rathergate memos is the exception. Passing on half-truths, quarter-truths, and negative-value-truths is par for the course in the bloggerdome. For every Rathergatesque cock-up in the mainstream media, there are a couple of thousand on blogs every day. Instapundit being responsible for half of them, of course, so that drops the average a bit.

He is simply pawning off someone's else conspiracy theory in order to make a broader point. If he was trying to make a broader point using established facts that thereby support his claims he'd be better off doing some investigating in South Dakota rather than trolling off some half-truth, would you not agree?

I realize the source and the bias but that doesn't excuse him or anyone from deliberately using half-truths to support a claim, whether the person be of the red or blue stripe.

"For the mainstream media, screwing up a story like the Rathergate memos is the exception. Passing on half-truths, quarter-truths, and negative-value-truths is par for the course in the bloggerdome. For every Rathergatesque cock-up in the mainstream media, there are a couple of thousand on blogs every day. Instapundit being responsible for half of them, of course, so that drops the average a bit."

And millions people probably view Instapundit daily on par with the average 60 min newscast, you know we are comparing apples and oranges. The impact of a Rathergate, I would hope you'd agree, is far more reaching than billsblogspot spreading half-truths about spoiled milk at Starbucks.

CORRECTION: The professor linked to a Martini Republic post about "blog trolling" (his characterization.) I didn't read that post so I didn't realize MR came up with this silly conspiracy theory first. Cole didn't invent it, he just repeated it.

This, no doubt a testament to the blind, insensate wingnut rage with which you misread Cole's blog.

But hey, it played well to the rightwing blogosphere, despite your inability to read and comprehend.

And millions people probably view Instapundit daily on par with the average 60 min newscast, you know we are comparing apples and oranges. The impact of a Rathergate, I would hope you'd agree, is far more reaching than billsblogspot spreading half-truths about spoiled milk at Starbucks.

Absolutely. Just pointing out that one isn't ready to replace the other.

gibson.,

I agree that Cole should have used the documented cases of actual astroturfing as evidence of the threat he talked about. I agree that it looks like Cole is biased.

It makes the threat no less real, in fact, one could say that Cole's very article proves his point (a meta-article). His bias is obvious to those that disagree with him. It's not nearly as obvious to those that agree with him. In fact, those that agree with him are likely to post supportive things on his site... much as many of the posters here cheered this article, though factually incorrect.

That's the threat of getting information from the Internet. It goes through the biases of the major news outlets, then it gets run through the biases of the Blogger, then it gets posted on a medium that has been proven to be one of the worst communication tools yet invented. Then it gets run the the bias and filters of the blog reader. On top of all of that, you never really know if the person who posted something is actually that person, or simply posing as something that they are not.

I agree with the meat of Cole's article, I disagree with his choices in examples and references.

Rat,

Thank you for clarifying. I'm with you on the salient points of misinformation and the internet. However, I think we'd have to come a long way to knock out bias from our news media, blogsphere, government, etc. In fact I damn near think it would be impossible, a little dose of bias now and again is good in my honest opinion, as long as it parallels my biases of course :)

Despite Cole's invalid speculations here, I still think he's an excellent source of information about what's up in Iraq. I first read of the threat of al Sadr on his site, and some excellent information about the various political groupings there. He's also made some pretty good points about the makeup of the insurgency, and has good suggestions about how to defuse it.

And of course he's biased. So am I. So is our host, and so is every blog that anyone can link to. I read blogs with those biases in mind.

So what's Cole's great crime here? He posted a link to a speculative article about political forces exploiting blogs. Worth a shrug in my opinion, not much else. I've seen far worse speculations in other places that didn't deserve a fisking.

gibson.,

ROFL, well said. It seems to me, to be impossible to get the bias out of our own worldview. I can't imagine trrying to remove it from the media, or the populace.

Well, short of full scale reprogramming.

Let's see 2300 Ton of psilocybin in the nation's drinking supply should do it. ;-)

Rat, it's not unsubstantiated, OK? It's not a "claim" it's reality. There is actually such a thing as truth that is not backed up by a hyperlink. Go ahead and ask Juan Cole on that score. If that is your only standard for evidence then we can close the internet down now.

I am a source, and you are free to evaluate what I say, along with what everyone else says, when you weigh the potential truth or falsity of what I am saying.

Rat, it's not unsubstantiated, OK? It's not a "claim" it's reality. There is actually such a thing as truth that is not backed up by a hyperlink.

That's not in dispute. What is up for grabs is posting an opinion on a form of media that can't be backed up on that media. Now, for example, I could email you, get the names of your contacts, fly over to Iraq, ask them myself, and try and judge for myself whether they are believable or not. That's how an ethical journalist would do it, along with getting more than one source for the information. But let's face it, I'm not going to, so it's just hearsay.

Dear Major,

Stating something in a blog does not make it a fact. It makes it a statement. In order to provbe the statement, we must back it up with facts. You don't need to provide hyperlinks, you don't need to point to quotes on the Daily Show.

Let's take a look at your 'statement':

She's the kid of a former Ba'athist foreign service officer who still lives in a rather exclusive neighborhood in Baghdad.

Well, that seems provable enough. Obviously, the officer has a name, the neighborhood has a name. Those bits of information would support your statement.

She hates us because we ended the Saddam-sponsored gravy train for Ba'athists and their families. You know, the clubs, the discos, the pools, the booze, the 24/7 electricity in Baghdad but nowhere else in Iraq, the good life in general.

This, my friend is speculation, unless you have something to prove it.

Instead of providing proof though you respond with:

However you're NOT going to find what I wrote about anywhere on her blog because, as has been pointed out before, she doesn't clue anyone in

Well, thats convienient. She doesn't tell anyone, no one knows except for the Major. Where did the Major come across this information?

My info was gained on the ground in Iraq by people who knew her and of her.

Ah, rumor and gossip. Well, its good to know where the millitary gets its intelligence from. Did you happen to ask them about WMD's while you were at it?

It was my business to know. If that's not good enough for you, then not much I can do about it.

What kind of arrogant huburis do you posses that leads you to believe that some post signed "Major Sean Bannion" is 'good enough' for any thinking person?

I could post that I am "Major Tom" and I personally wittnessed George Bush raping Iraqi prisoners. There's as much evidence to support that as there is to support your claims.

Don't assume people are unwilling to believe you if they ask for facts. However, posting claims with nothing more than "Cause I said so" is a quick way to get you discounted as a crank. I have no difficulty seeing that you may be correct, but without evidence I'm not (and most people on this blog aren't) going to blindly accept the ramblings of an Internet user.

I did a quick search on you, and found that a Major exists with your name and they were stationed in Iraq, so you get points for that.

I'm not demanding proof, you don't have to provide it... but prepare to be marginalized if you don't back up what you say.

Cole appears to be
polishing up his resume for
application to the Village
Idiots annual award. He
appears to be a shoe-in

Obviously, Mr. Totten is funded by subsidiary of the same military industrial neocon cartel that is funding these two so-called Iraqi brother bloggers. In fact, two college interns funded by R M Scaife wrote all the positive comments about Mr. Totten on this website using a number of aliases and hacking techniques. In fact the word 'blog' is an acronym for Bedeviling Liberal's Onanastic Gripes, and the art of blogging was created wholecloth by a joint venture between the Heritage Foundation and Rush Limbaugh.

Professor Cole sounds just like every other correct thinking academic out there in the trenches. Every day he faces a hard day of peddling obvious tripe to ignorant or disdainful students. That is bad enough, and a hard enough job for any man, excuse me, person. Worse, some of his students are dumb enough to believe his crap and are likely to start their own academic careers that may threaten his in the future.

Forgive the good professor, his life is so complicated. Or punch him in the face. I don't care.

If I were a journalist I'd worry about ethics. Or if I were a college professor, for that matter. But since I'm a guy with an opinion backed up by real world experiences, like you all are, then I get a vote. Feel free to ignore everything I'm saying.

While tripping the Blog fantastic
Comments are enthusiastic,
However, a fact,
from posts won't distract,
and yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

...then I get a vote

Oh! I see our miscommunication. I thought this was a place for conversation, and you obviously thought this was where your registered as a member of the electorate.

Thant makes sense. Conversation requires thought, proof and logic, while rfegistering to vote requires a birth certificate.

My mistake.

If I were a journalist I'd worry about ethics. Or if I were a college professor, for that matter. But since I'm a guy with an opinion backed up by real world experiences, like you all are, then I get a vote. Feel free to ignore everything I'm saying.

Fair enough, and no offense intended. But expect that if you post something like that, there will undoubtably be other commenters who do not know you that will ask for more information in order to determine for themselves the trustworthiness of the information. Just as I'd expect others to question me if I posted information that could not be verified.

"Conversation requires thought, proof and logic..."

I think your getting ahead of yourself Rat, converstation doesn't require all of the above Air America is living proof of this dichotomy.

What I find interesting out of you and DPU is your willingness on one hand to shrug off nonsense used by Dr. Cole to prove his point but stringently blast Major for making his, based on so-called ground truths? After all you've said to Winger in this post it kind of makes you look like, well, an idiot.

Double, OK, you and I are on the same page. All I am saying is, "I was there, this is what I saw." That is clearly not irrefutable evidence, it is one person's view. But it's a valid point of view.

Should I give you proof? Sure, if I could release everything I know without paying a 250K fine and doing 5 years at a minimum security facility I'd surely consider it. What I posted here was a view. It is no different than anyone else's view here also not sumptuously backed up by links and a bibliography.

Let me just say, since no one was reading between the lines, that I really can't go into how I know what I know. Because of that, you're free to disregard what I say. I will also note there are plenty of people here with opinions on both sides who are offering absolutely zero objective evidence for their opinions yet they get to have them too. If you are unwilling to give credence to what I say because I have no reputation with you, that's fine. As I said earlier, not much I can do about that. Don't have a problem being ignored, although I wish it would be with a touch less vitriol.

When I was in Iraq I used to write for Sasha Castel. You can check my posts there from the archives beginning in Ocotber 2003. www.coldfury.com/Sasha/. Maybe that helps establish I was actually there. If you want a more detailed accounting, email me.

gibson.,

Winger never tried to engage in conversation and merely snarked. He gets what he gets. If you look around in the archives, you find that I don't treat non-snarks that way.

Secondly, Major Bannion may have plenty of truth, but without facts, they're worthless. Especially in a situation like this Blog. We don't know if the poster is Major Bannion, Major Payne or Major Fsckup. He is pseudonymous.

I didn't shrug off nonsense from Cole. I pointed out that it wasn't his nonsense. I pointed out that he made some valid points... and I pointed out that I thought he was terribly biased. But, at least I could base that opinion on something somewhat solid. The Major has provided nothing more than pseudonymous statements. Is that what you base the 'facts' in your reality on?

Or do you only care about truth and facts when they conflict with your reality?

Gibson: What I find interesting out of you and DPU is your willingness on one hand to shrug off nonsense used by Dr. Cole to prove his point but stringently blast Major for making his, based on so-called ground truths?

Clearly, you're not paying attention.

Me: Despite Cole's invalid speculations...

Me: And of course he's biased.

Me: ...and yes, that [speculative blog posting ranking being between school newspapers and grafitti] applies to speculation about funding of hawkish Iraqi blogs as well.

Now, if Michael were to fisk Major Sean's posting, I again would say "Why bother?"

Major,

Thank you for the link. Much better. I notice you pop up on goo.gle quite a bit as well.

that 've got some support for your credentials, I'm more than happy to give some creedence to what you say.

Thnaks,
:)

"Double, OK, you and I are on the same page. All I am saying is, "I was there, this is what I saw. That is clearly not irrefutable evidence, it is one person's view. But it's a valid point of view."

DPU doesn't think your viewpoint is valid for as I can gather; (1) he disagrees with you, (2) your not a tenured professor with a appetite for Marxism and anti-semitism.

Now if you'd only change your tone, use unsubstantiated evidence to prove a point, and curse the US government for not hosting a anti-American blogger to a state dinner you'd be just fine.

"Winger never tried to engage in conversation and merely snarked"

NEVER? Somebody's reality tunnel is busted.

MjrSB - again, fair enough. I have no problem believing that Riverbend may be from a family with Baathist members, as several postings indicate that she lives in a high-rent district, and that there are former high-ranking Baathists who are neighbours. Not that I have a problem with that, as Zeyad of Healing Iraq is unabashedly pro-American, yet a former Baathist himself, and I regularily read his blog too.

Your remarks about Riverbend being upset about no more discos et al seems a bit harsh. She complains about lack of safety, power, phone service, hot water, etc, but so do all the other Iraqi bloggers. And so would I, given similar circumstances. And being critical of the conditions in Iraq do not make her pro-Baathist or anti-American. The fact that Salam Pax is a friend goes a long way in my books.

Winger,

Did you try to engage me in conversation?

I looked back through the comments here and all I saw was snark, snark, some poor wit and more snark. If you would point out where my reality tunnel missed I would greatly appreciate it. I have no problem realizing that I'm as likely to be biased as anyone else.

Because of course Major if you weren't popping up on G00gle then your a political hack paid for by GWB's CIA cover group funded by ex-oil executives used specifically to smear the good name of Riverbend, our loving comrade and patriot.

I'm not paranoid, trust me :)

"Secondly, Major Bannion may have plenty of truth, but without facts, they're worthless."

I guess you hold every reporter on the ground in Iraq with the same level of pessimism when your reading stories about what is "really" going on in country, or can you magically check statements made by disgruntaled Iraqis even when you've never been there? Or does the fact that they are hyperlinked give you comfort? Or do they have truth cards issued upon taking the oath of journalist?

In other words, how do you determine, using your massive amounts of intelligence spread so vastly upon this blog, who is exactly telling the truth without actually being there?

Toskie - there will never be conversation between us thanks to your condescending attitude. I save conversation for those whose opinions I respect. I intend to only grunt nationalistically and take cheap shots at your posts whenver possible. You get what you pay for.

gibson.,

Major if you weren't popping up on G00gle then your a political hack paid for by GWB's CIA cover group funded by ex-oil executives used specifically to smear the good name of Riverbend, our loving comrade and patriot.

I'm sorry? I don't use goo.gle as a touchstone, but its useful as a tool. If I hadn't seen the Major's name, I would have thought nothing of it. Since I did, and it directly related to Iraq, then I decided he is more likely to be telling the truth at some level. It's a useful tool, but not muy grail. As for comrade and patriot... I don't even read Riverbend, let alone agree with what she says.

I guess you hold every reporter on the ground in Iraq with the same level of pessimism when your reading stories about what is "really" going on in country.

Umm, yes, in fact I hold every reporter in question. I listen to what they say, examine (to the best of my ability) the supporting facts and then file it away for furthur consideration. If the reporter provides no supporting statements, I'm not gonna believe anything they say.

Do you?!

Winger,

Feel free. Hope you don't trip over your knuckles.

You guys do realize that Riverbend is a Shiite hating racist, right? I stopped reading her about the 3ed time she put some stupid anti-Shiite racist propaganda....

I have a hard time reading anyone whose views are so skewed by hate... So why do you guys read her? Are you not concerned that her hate gets in the way of the facts? Or do you simple want to hear the worst possible things just to reinforce your own views?

Ugh ug, flave waving good, arabs bad

"Do you?!"

Of course you don't - the only critical thinker here is Toskie. Don't believe anything else you read, including him. But I'm just a caveman with a simple mind.

gives Mr. Snark a nice chunk of raw venesion

Good boy!

Why do you assume I am male? Could it be your sexist reality tunnel? Please repeat Hail Eris 76 times until I forgive you, otherwise you will remain and your present Anal-Focused Level. PS: I know you are a Rove agent.

what is 'venesion'? Something that Karl Rove gives you?

Oh you poor monkey boy. I assumed that you were a male because you you placed the title 'Mr.' in front of your name. Now, if you have some sexual identity problems, I'm sure that someone can help you. Don't be scared, there are plenty of Republicans that need some help in that area.

I will pay the pennance and say Hail Eris 76 times.

PS - Rove is backwards for Evor. Evor was a demi-god in Atlantis pre-Sink. Don't tell me that you haven't already figured out that Rove is actually Hagbard Celine in disguise and Discordians have already taken over the Senate, House and the White House. We've had the Pentagon for decades.

Derek,

In this chess game, DPU would tell you that IraqtheModel's optimistic attitude about the future of Iraq, something which is severely lacking in both Riverbend and liberals when it comes to conflicts engaged by conservative Presidents, gets in the way of the facts.

"what is 'venesion'?"

It's like venison, except it comes from an Cthonian deer.

Ahh, but how do you know that I am telling the truth about being a Mr.? See how gullible you are?

Plus I am not a Republican, but hey you probably think I am bible-thumping Xian too, but that is beause you have very poor and narrow reality tunnels (probably because you are still on the anal-focus stage, meaning your "mind" is focused on feces and feces-related activities.)

Mr. Snark,

I do not think you are necessarily an Xian. I do apologize for lumping you in with republcians. No one derseves that kind of treatment.

You sure talk about anal things alot. How does that make you feel?

"Now, if you have some sexual identity problems, I'm sure that someone can help you. Don't be scared, there are plenty of Republicans that need some help in that area."

Wow, nice cheapshot. You better watch out you might offend the pandering homosexual wing of the Democratic party, oh wait my bad your a Democrat, you get a pass.

Ok, I'm off to have a wonderful evening with the Missus. Mr. Snark, behave and don't fling poo on the other commenters.

See ya'll tomorrow!

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of The Words of Eris

POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

and

other stuff

gibson.,

"oh wait my bad your a Democrat, you get a pass."

Ewwwwww!!!!!!!!!

Wash your mouth out with soap!

In this chess game, DPU would tell you that IraqtheModel's optimistic attitude about the future of Iraq, something which is severely lacking in both Riverbend and liberals when it comes to conflicts engaged by conservative Presidents, gets in the way of the facts.

Mindreading, -100 point. Poor mindreading, -200 points.

Actually, while I don't read IraqTheModel (the writing isn't very good), I do read other Iraqi blogs that have a more optimistic outlook on the Iraq situation (Healing Iraq, for example). I'm glad that there are some optimistic views out there to balance the pessimists, but at the same time, I don't get my knickers in a knot about bloggers that have a differing opinion than mine.

Derek -- I don't recall any racist anti-Shi'ite postings by Riverbend. Can you provide a link to them to back up that allegation?

Well if that's a double-whammy shellacking, then I don't think the good professor has anything to worry about.

"He wouldn’t want to let any individuals have a big megaphone. Especially not liberal-democratic Iraqis who don’t hate America like they̵