Decision ‘08

Hitchens On Cole: My Cup Runneth Over

Oh, the delight I felt when I saw the my main man the Hitch was having a go at the good Professor Cole! It warms the heart. Let’s not waste any more time on preliminaries:

Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community. At one point, there was a danger that he would become a go-to person for quotes in New York Times articles (a sort of Shiite fellow-traveling version of Norman Ornstein, if such an alarming phenomenon can be imagined), but this crisis appears to have passed.

Proof once more that no one does the deflation of egos quite as well as our Christopher.

The remainder of the column, which I highly recommend to you, defies easy summary and it’s not good form to go about copying other works in their entirety, unless, say, you’re trying to destroy the evil regime of TimesSelect. Suffice it to say that it’s a thorough dissection of a preposterous claim by Cole that the Iranian president has never called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’, and a vindication of what Martin Amis calls the art of ‘close reading’.

Or, as only Hitchens can put it:

One might have thought that, if the map-wiping charge were to have been inaccurate or unfair, Ahmadinejad would have denied it. But he presumably knew what he had said and had meant to say. In any case, he has an apologist to do what he does not choose to do for himself. But this apologist, who affects such expertise in Persian, cannot decipher the plain meaning of a celebrated statement and is, furthermore, in need of a remedial course in English.

Yes, yes…that’s the spirit!…

UPDATE 05/03/06 9:38 a.m.: mikedbot points us to Cole’s response. Cole is very indignant that Hitchens published his email from a private email discussion group. Unfortunately, Cole’s site is down at the moment and I’m unable to dig any further, but I’ll keep trying and I suggest you do, too…

UPDATE 05/03/06 10:13 a.m.:Cole’s site is back up now. Since I’m so often critical of Cole, I’ll highlight this bit as a welcome corrective:

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies. Nor do I agree that the Israelis have no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem. And, I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism over violence, so needless to say I condemn the sort of terror attacks against innocent civilians (including Arab Israelis) that we saw last week. I have not seen any credible evidence, however, that such attacks are the doing of Ahmadinejad, and in my view they are mainly the result of the expropriation and displacement of the long-suffering Palestinian people.

However, this is simply rich:

I’d like to take this opportunity to complain about the profoundly dishonest character of “attack journalism.” Journalists are supposed to interview the subjects about which they write. Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail. Major journalists have a privileged position. Not just anyone can be published in Slate. Most academics could not get a gig there (I’ve never been asked to write for it). Hitchens is paid to publish there because he is a prominent journalist. But then he should behave like a journalist, not like a hired gun for the far Right, smearing hapless targets of his ire. That isn’t journalism.

It takes guts to attack ‘attack journalism’ when you’re on the attack yourself:

I don’t think it is any secret that Hitchens has for some time had a very serious and debilitating drinking problem. He once showed up drunk to a talk I gave and heckled me. I can only imagine that he was deep in his cups when he wrote, or had some far Rightwing think tank write, his current piece of yellow journalism. I am sorry to witness the ruin of a once-fine journalistic mind.

But the other reason for Hitchens’s piece may be that he has become a warmonger, and it is possible that he wants a US war against Iran.

That’s something, isn’t it? Look: that Hitchens drinks is, in fact, well known. I don’t know that he has a drinking problem, and neither do you, and neither does Cole. It seems to me he has made a damn good living for himself, with gigs at Vanity Fair, the Atlantic Monthly, Slate, television appearances galore…I wish I had that drinking problem (I’m kidding, of course).

Cole then proceeds to go on an anti-war tirade complete with slogans, pictures of severed limbs, and denunciations of the warmongers. Judge for yourself who is more credible…

32 Responses to “Hitchens On Cole: My Cup Runneth Over”

1 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:43 am
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Mark, but Hitchens is a douchebag. You can read Mr. Cole’s reponse: Juan Cole responds. These emails were obtained unethically as Cole describes. This point is a small one anyhow as nothing Cole said originally is problematic (in my eyes)

You really need to think more about what they are telling you these people are saying with THEIR spin on it. Language is not always cut and dry. There is a lot out there on this speech and how it has been misconstrued. Iran poses no threat to us. Painting Ahmadinejad as the next Hitler is very disturbing. I don’t understand how you can believe anything this administration tells you.
2 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:18 am
mikebdot, I’ve read Hitchens for years now, thousands and thousands of pages worth. He is one of my favorite writers. That doesn’t mean you have to like him, but you won’t get far with me by insulting him in a tasteless fashion.

I’ll read Cole’s piece - but you should beware of the tendencies you accuse me of. Do some research on how Cole claimed 9/11 was a response to the ‘massacre’ at Jenin - an event that occurred seven months after 9/11.

Then amuse yourself, if you wish, by further researching how Cole tried to whitewash this mistake by after-the-fact alteration of the record.

Juan Cole lecturing Hitchens on ethics? Why not Ken Lay?…
3 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:22 am
Here’s a little background on the above; also, you seem to be in denial about the Iranian president’s repeated saber-rattling. It’s not the Bush Administration that has elevated this to a crisis.
4 Knemon Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
Hitchens may indeed be a douchebag - he’s always been an acerbic contrarian polemicist, and if you had such a person among your circle of friends, you’d probably tempted to calll him a douchebag, too - but he caught the good professor cold.

Of course, that’s no great feat - it’s been done so many times already.

Tell me the one about how expertise in medieval Sufism translates to an Olympian vantage on all matters Muslim. I love a good laugh now and then.
5 Knemon Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:11 am
On the other hand, mikebdot, on the off chance you’re referring to something specific: I’d appreciate a link or three on this speech and how it’s been “misconstrued.”

If your response is some form of, “I’m not here to do research for you!”, then BZZZZZZZZT! You’ve lost points. Link-fu is the essence of the blogworld.
6 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 am
I actually did type at one point “That is not to say Cole isn’t a douchebag too” but deleted it and a number of other points in order to be brief. In any event, one of the reasons I’m an atheist goes back to my distrust of mistranslated dogmatic beliefs that I don’t think were ever intended to be such. This is why I distrust things that are reported to me as translations and then attacked vehemently. I’m not pretending Ahmadinejad isn’t a poor leader or a pompous windbag sowing hatred towards Israel’s leadership, but I don’t think he is the next Hitler or really wants to provoke Israel’s military might. They would slaughter Iran if they were attacked (not to mention the fact that we’d be helping). It is my opinion he is talking about Israel’s current leadership and the leadership over the past 50 years not necessarily the idea of Israel altogether.

I am not old enough to be familiar with Hitchens work in real time (I’m 25) and have not been impressed with anything he has written in the past few years, thus have no impetus to read his old stuff. I’m sure Cole was wrong on the Jenin thing. That doesn’t mean he can’t take Hitchens to task for publishing something which really shouldn’t have been published. The forum he pulls the quotes from is to discuss things and I think the possibility of a misunderstanding of translated text is quite high in this case.

And, didn’t mean to “insult” him in a tasteless fashion as I think “douchebag” is quite a fun term to throw around. You can chalk that one up to immaturity (and to listening to “Toll Booth Willy” by Adam Sandler one too many times). In any event, it certainly showed my opinion of the man and framed it appropriately off the bat. Thanks for reading the rest of the comment though

Oh, and to deny that the administration isn’t playing up this threat is silly. Where do you think the media is receiving their information (or Hitchens for that matter)? CIA operatives who are democrats that are about to be marginalized? I think not.
7 megapotamus Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 am
“to deny that the administration isn’t playing up this threat is silly.”

Have to define some terms here. “Playing up”? Making it out to be more serious than it is? Sorry Charlie. Iran has emerged on its own nut and has been a-brewing since that douchebag Carter handed the place to the Mad Mullahs 30 years ago. If you think this is some kind of Rovian set-up, well, that is quite pathetic. If you think that nukes in the hands of a guy who DAILY declares he will destroy Israel at his first opportunity and us when he has the time, well, I hope the Democrats up for election take that view as their own. And they seem to be.

Oh, and the Jenin Massacre didn’t just happen outside of the given timeline; it did not occur at all. There was no massacre at Jenin, not by Israelis anyhow. Of course the Palestinian state is in a perpetual condition of self-massacre so that might have been hard to miss.
8 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 am
mikedbot, here’s the thing: we don’t have to talk up the Iranian threat - Ahmadinejad is doing it for us…
9 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:10 am
Knemon: I had a long response, but I inadvertently clicked on one of my links and it sent me there and now it’s gone. Crap. Well, informationclearinghouse isn’t the most reputable of sources but I think it’s clear from the rest of the speech Ahmadinejad gave that he wasn’t making a call for aggression towards Israel. It was a very mild speech and that comment (”wipe Israel off the map”) is way overplayed.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

mapapotamus: Yeah, cuz Reagan had no dealings with Iran? As Cole points out, Israel had dealings with them as well. How does that work? They’re all talk, the both of them. And yes, Rovian set-up indeed. Why would it be pathetic to assume this path is the same as Iraq? Forgive me for not believing everything you do. Iran has been crazy long before Carter, along with the rest of the middle east.

Daily declares he want’s to destroy Israel? Hyperbole much? Show me the money. What makes his call for regime change any different than our call for regime change in Iraq?

I don’t care about Cole’s comments about Jenin. If that is supposed to somehow show his history of being wrong and therefore he is always wrong, then, wow, good job.
10 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Cole’s comment about Jenin being wrong is not the point; the fact that he, a Professor of Middle East Studies who should know better, tried to cover up his trail by altering the written record is the point. We’re all wrong at times, it’s how we respond that matters.

The regime change call for Iraq and the regime change call for Israel equivalent? Please…you don’t mean that. One HUGE difference that should be immediately obvious is that we are trying to establish a democratic regime for Iraq through the overthrow of a tyrant, whereas Ahmadinejad is (yes, he has done this almost daily of late) calling for the actual destruction of Israel, a democratic regime already…
11 dmac Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 am
…”Ahmadinejad gave that he wasn’t making a call for aggression towards Israel. It was a very mild speech and that comment (”wipe Israel off the map”) is way overplayed…”

At what point do you determine when the comments advocating the annihilation of another country are “overplayed” here? Also, the President of Iran is really just a figurehead - he serves at the pleasure of the ruling Mullahs. Therefore, he is the de facto proxy for what the real rulers of Iran think and act upon.

Cole has been proven wrong on so many counts on so many occasions, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel:

Here’s his claim that OBL was responding on 9/11 to the Jenin situation, and the refutation (and his subsequent apology) of that statement:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/correction_2/

Here’s another claim he made, regarding the military airstrikes in Pakistan:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/strike-in-pakistan-fails-pakistan.html

His conclusions that all the people killed were innocent women and children have since been proven incorrect - local tribes have confirmed that it was indeed a terrorist hangout, and some of the intended targets were eliminated.
12 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I don’t particularly care for Cole. For a few weeks I read him every day to get a feel for him and it turned out it was the same old crap every day. Now I hardly ever poke over there. The only reason I knew about the response was because Atrios called Hitchens a wanker linking to Cole’s response. I agree with Cole here in that taking Ahmadinejad to task for comments that were not properly translated (or could be translated in more than one way) is ridiculous. The comment was made 6 months ago. What new quotes from Ahmadinejad indicate he wants to destroy Israel as a nation and not the regime that is running the place and has been for the past 50 years? I don’t agree with his sentiment that Israel is wronging Islamic people categorically, but I also don’t think the “wiping Israel from the map” comment means the destruction of Israel. He’s talking about removing Israel from the same territories that have been in question for 30 years (specifically, when he mentions “occupying regime” he’s talking about Israel’s advanced position into what many Muslims feel is “their land”). The fact is, one side or the other is going to have to bite the bullet (hopefully without a lot more being fired) and either give up some land (in the case of Israel) or allow Israel to exist as it stands today. Diplomatic solutions are definitely a high possibility if everyone can just calm the heck down. Going into Iraq did nothing to aid in that area.

Go ahead, call me naive. That’s fine.

My point about equating the ‘regime change’ talk is that why do we have a double standard? We are allowed to openly call for regime change if it suits our interests, but take someone to task for calling for one when it is obviously in their best interest? Sometimes you have to look at things from their point of view, even if their heads are up their butt. That’s not to say you can’t criticize them for their heads being up their butt, but right now there is a definite effort to paint them as a threat to this country and they are not. Going to war would be a no-win situation for Iran and they know it.
13 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
A recent comment? How about April 14th?

“The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was “heading toward annihilation,” just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.”

…“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
14 dmac Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Guess his comments were not “properly translated.”
15 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I could not find one link with the full text of his speech. They all pull from the annihilation part, rotten, dried tree and from the nuclear activities. The full text of the speech isn’t on the first 20 googles pages. I’ll look more. In any event, once again, he says “Zionist regime”.

Here are more quotes from ADL:

http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/ahmadinejad_words.htm

I just don’t think there is much there to be worried about. It’s all tough talk. Just like when Bush gives speeches about the Axis of Evil and Evil-doers. And I say tough talk because he mentions North Korea and has done nothing. Like the commenter said on the April 14th post you linked to, silence is no good because it means they’re planning something, loud talking is just that, talking. (I think it’s probably an Art of War thing). Except, in our case, you talk loudly AND invade, which is why I’m weary of all the Iran talk.
16 dmac Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
See Mike, here’s how this site works - if you take issue with something that Mark or another commenter has written, you need to provide actual links that prove your point. Can’t play without the proper equipment.
17 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
But, mikebdot, here’s where we come full circle - the entire point of the original Hitchens piece that started all this was that Cole was equating ‘Zionist regime’ with a temporary ruler of Israel, when clearly the context (50 years of the Zionist regime means Israel per se, not a ruler) is that the Zionist regime equates to Israel itself…

It’s part of the radical Islamist code (the foreign occupier, the Zionist regime - these are all well-understood terms, and Cole knows it - or if he doesn’t, he’s a damn fool)…
18 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pm
dmac: I don’t really have much of a point other than taking three quotes from a speech and claiming that those mean we need to strike Iran before they strike Israel is absurd. He gives one speech a month that says something like “Israel took our land and we want it back, go back to Europe” but uses rhetoric to gather support. It’s not the best tactic but it’s nothing to fear, especially to the point of contemplating an attack. If the quotes from ADL is all they can come up with to show he is the next Hitler it is just a very weak position to be in to argue we need to be worrying about them at all. Right now we’re preventing people from having nukes so they have no bargaining chips. It’s in our best interest short term, but I’m not so sure about long term effects.
19 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here, but it sounds more like Zionist regime means the current Israel state and what it has come to be. He obviously thinks Israel has wronged the Islamic community over the past 50 years and could have gone about their possession of the land in a different manner. There is definitely animosity there that is distorting his views, but with all his tough talk, he has no bargaining chips. To me, this is the equivalent of some radical lefty saying “let’s take the country back from these fascist thugs in power”. Is that a phrase of aggression towards the current administration? I suppose it is on the surface, but it is actually nothing more than empty rhetoric. Sure, this is a stretch as a comparison, but I have no other way to describe why Hitchens calling out Cole doesn’t matter at all. Cole might be wrong and maybe Ahmadinejad wants to literally kill every Israeli and is aiding in efforts to attack them, but I think the more likely case is him voicing the frustration of the past 50 years of perceived Islamic mistreatment by the Israelis.
20 Mark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Sorry, mikebdot, but on this one we disagree - when a radical Islamist speaks of the Zionist regime, he speaks of Israel qua Israel…but I’m not going to convince you here. Perhaps if I have time, I’ll revisit this at some later point in a post…
21 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I understand your point of view Mark. I have gone back and forth on this issue during the past few years. Sometimes I am 100% sympathetic to the Israeli cause and then sometimes I’m sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. I find it very easy to sympathize with both sides. I have this problem on a number of issues, so pardon me if I talk myself in circles on occasion, which I seem to have done here. I still think my point holds that the talk is all talk and it is not so much different than us talking about evil-doers and haters of freedom.
22 dmac Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
…”but with all his tough talk, he has no bargaining chips…”

Er, I think that’s why they’re desperately trying to get the bomb built. That’s the ultimate bargaining chip, and they know it.
23 mikebdot Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Yes, dmac. I agree that it is the ultimate bargaining chip. However, does that give us the right to attack them? I’m not thrilled about the idea, but I don’t think they’re stupid enough to use it if they do get one. He won’t need tough talk if he has a nuke (i.e. my point was that tough talk is his ONLY bargaining chip).
24 C. Clark Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
“However, does that give us the right to attack them? I’m not thrilled about the idea, but I don’t think they’re stupid enough to use it if they do get one. He won’t need tough talk if he has a nuke”
Let’s see……….. A nut job who believes he is part of the return of the 12th imman, declares that he wants to destroy the Zionist regime (that’s Israel) and the great satan (Thats us) is trying to develop a nuclear bomb to massacre millions of people. Does that give us the right to attack them?…………………………….. YES!
25 Dennis Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The danger is you’re assuming the Iranian regime is smart. There’s a long, bloody history of dictators who were not nearly as smart as they like to think they are. Sure, it would be foolish for the Iranians to start lobbing nukes at Israel or indirectly aiming them at the United States. That hardly means it’s impossible for them to miscalculate about the hand they’re playing with.

And that’s not even taking into consideration Ahmadinejad’s more messianic, apocalyptic references.
26 mikebdot Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 7:59 am
I see no danger in assuming the Iranian regime is smart. I see just as much danger assuming our leadership is smart.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/043006.htm#050406

They mention both the Hitchens/Cole deal as well as the very topic of whether or not the Iranian regime is smart and translation issues as well.
27 Knemon Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 8:08 am
“I just don’t think there is much there to be worried about.”

“… it is not so much different than us talking about evil-doers and haters of freedom.”

“I see no danger in assuming the Iranian regime is smart.”

You got it bad …
28 mikebdot Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 8:32 am
C. Clark: Great Satan? Where does he say that? I think you’re getting him mixed up with Osama. Did we develop a nuclear bomb to massacre millions of people? Some Evangelical Christians think the world will be coming to an end in their lifetime! I’ve seen a pick-up with a bumper sticker that says “kill all arabs”. My point? Those are isolated incidents, just like the dozen odd incidents they have showed of Iran acting “militant”. The scare tactics that are being used constantly to portray Iran as a crazy nation are very convincing, especially when the president uses them. I seem to remember the president doing the same thing about 3 years ago…

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-7.html

Money quote:
But now that I’m on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course — (applause) — the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and — (applause.)

At any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically. And so our message must be a united message, a message from not only the United States, but also Great Britain and France and Germany, as well as Russia, hopefully, and China, in order to say, loud and clear to the Iranians, this is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

And so, to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the job you want me to do — which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt us; and how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize; what do we do to protect us from harm? That’s my job. And that job came home on September the 11th, for me — loud and clear. And I think about my job of protecting you every day — every single day of the presidency, I’m concerned about the safety of the American people.

-End

And I think this is where our differences of opinion come into play. I find this portion of the speech revolting. I’m sure there are many of you who think he’s a great president because of this portion of the speech. They have not convinced me that diplomacy is even an option. Are we ever going to let a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons have them? Why are we allowed to keep them or replace the ones that are no longer operational with new ones? So we have all the bargaining chips? Can you not see why this might bother other countries? I just don’t understand how some people are surprised that some countries might not be ok with this arrangement.
29 Dennis Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Mike, the fact that you’re apparently unfamiliar with the long history of Iranian leaders calling the United States “the Great Satan” tells me just about all I need to know.

I don’t blame Iran for wanting nukes, either as bargaining chips or as weapons. I’m not surprised by that at all. But the reality is that not all countries are alike, and I’m not going to trust nukes in the hands of people who are our sworn enemies, and I’m certainly not going to trust them just because you claim, absent any evidence, that there’s no reason to worry when they talk about wiping nations off the map. You’re too young to remember the Iranian hostage crisis or much of the Cold War. I’m not. There’s some very hard reasons why you should be unnerved by the idea of the Iranians getting the bomb. And it’s no coincidence that many European leaders are unnerved by it. Or are they all revolting too?
30 mikebdot Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 9:28 am
“how you deal with an enemy that STILL wants to hurt us”.

I’ve already argued why I don’t believe the “wiping nations off the map” comment is even translated correctly. The context of the speech shows they want to “wipe the nation off the map” in the same way the USSR was wiped off the map. I am not too young to remember that no nukes were dropped during the fall of the Soviet Empire. Sure, it was tense, but cooler heads prevailed. Making the environment tense again is no way to start a diplomatic discussion. If you want a repeat of the Cold War, go ahead and applaud the president and other leaders for being unnerved when they really ought to be giving people other bargaining chips. There is no reason why the bargaining chips in the world of international politics should center around who has or does not have a nuke. Iran should not feel pressured to get a nuke. This is the root cause of the problem, not Iran wanting one.

I have not seen Ahmadinejad specifically call us the Great Satan. It’s not even in the ADL site I linked to earlier. In fact, there are very few quotes there that should cause us to stir. I’m sure there are just as many quotes that could be construed as hostile to the Iranians they have on a bulletin board somewhere as well too, especially when being translated.

And, of course, Knemon parses my quotes to make it look like I love Iran or something.

I’ll go ahead and clear the air here. My main purpose in this discussion was to show that I think Cole was correct in that the Iranian threat is far less than everyone is making it out to be. I do not think the Iranian regime treats their people all that well, but I don’t believe it is any of our business how they treat them (less gross human rights violations, which, it could be argued that that is a great reason to take out Saddam, which, I would have agreed with if that was how it was sold, but it was not). I feel that all this talk of protecting Israel when I do not believe they have been overtly threatened (and I’ve shown why I think that, mainly, that it would be an terrible tactical error on Iran’s part and they are not stupid enough to do this, which is very debatable, and I’m glad to have been challenged on that point). I guess I’ll stop talking now though as you’ve put the young child in his place.
31 Mark Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Nah, don’t stop talking…I don’t think anyone is trying to ridicule you (age has nothing to do with smarts). Dennis is, I think, just pointing out that it’s different to read about an era than to live through it (applies to this old-timer of 38 as well). Anyway, we enjoy the give and take here, and probably all of us have both been the offender and the offendee at times, so I hope you’ll continue to contribute.

Just because we strenuously disagree with you doesn’t mean we don’t respect your right to strenuously disagree with us. I take the Iranian threat very, very seriously…maybe I’m wrong (in fact, I hope I am).

You can keep posting as long as you like on this and any topic, and I hope you will…
32 mikebdot Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Y’all are too nice.

I realize this makes it look as though I’m taking the threat lightly, but I think a better description is I am putting the possibility of a true threat at a very low possibility, say, 5%. I tend to go the game-theory route when trying to rationalize my decisions, at least for my own mind. I suppose that might equate with taking things lightly. Regardless, I hope you’re all wrong too, and not just to say “told you so”. (Of course, hope is not a strategy - but true diplomacy is - not that I think the left would do any better here - it really sucks not being able to identify with either party).

I understand I did not live through the hostage crisis or the cold war, but I try to draw on what I’ve read from older folks on all sides of the political spectrum to form my opinions. I think being detached from certain events might add valuable insight at times since decisions/supsicions are not based on prior emotions. And, yes, at times it means I’m naive. I’ll freely admit that that is a possibility in this case.