Wednesday, July 13, 2005

"If historians could be disbarred, Juan Cole would have lost his license." 
Juan Cole gets busted.

Cole has been summoned by certain media to pronounce on the motives of Al-Qaeda in striking London. He hasn't got a clue. He can't keep the basic chronology of the 9/11 plot straight, and he doesn't have any notion of overall Middle Eastern chronology, which means he regularly mangles cause and effect. Reason? Bias trumps facts. If historians could be disbarred, Cole would have lost his license long ago. Instead, the Middle East Studies Association has elected him its president. So much for scholarly standards.

Addendum: Experienced Cole-watchers know that when he makes a mistake, he just goes back and tidies up his postings. So he's purged the Jenin reference. Instead, he writes that Bin Laden wanted to move up the operation "in response to Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001." That's not what the 9/11 report says. It says Bin Laden may have considered speeding up the operation to coincide with a planned Sharon visit to the White House (p. 250).

But he's still a media darling. How many times does this guy have to immolate himself on the fencepost of stupidity before the press figures out he's talking out of his ass? At least on the kinds of things they ask him to comment on.

Martin Kramer goes on to convincingly show how Cole covers his tracks like an incontinent cat.

If Cole ran a balance she
I don't bother to read his stuff often. When I do, there's invariably something frightfully moronic on it. Here's an example.

Here's another.

This guy's a charter member of the idiotocracy, and one of the clunkiest cogs in the media-military-moron machine.

Splash, out


Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!