Across the Bay

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Cole-Slaw and Sleazeballs

Martin Kramer comes back with a right hook and knocks Cole out, properly citing the 9/11 report to debunk all of Cole's claims, and giving a chronologically sound account.

As you may have noticed, the beacon of integrity known as John "Juan" Cole went back and tidied up his scandalous reference to Jenin as a motivator for 9/11 (it happened months after 9/11!). Obviously, the Majestic Pseudo-Hispanic didn't feel the need to apologize for the screaming error, or errors for that matter. For more see my "Terror and the Experts" post below.

Kramer, knowing the way Cole operates, had saved the original posting:

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 up to coincide with a planned Sharon visit to the White House (p. 250).

Knowing Cole's habits, I saved the original posting. It's here. (And at the time of this posting, Google's cache still records the original version.) The doctored version is here. Blogger etiquette demands that substantive errors be fixed by adding or posting an explicit correction. Cole exempts himself, as he must, given the gross inaccuracies that plague his weblog. So you quote him at your peril: his words might change under your feet. Here, for example, is a poor Cole admirer from Pakistan who quoted Cole Sahib's Jenin revelation. I don't have the heart to notify him that his hero got it wrong.

Further reading: See my Cole archive, where I revisit some of Cole's wackier interpretations of Al-Qaeda. See especially the entry entitled "Dial 911-COLE," which unearths his comparison of the 9/11 perpetrators to the Applegate people--UFO nuts. A year after 9/11, he dismissed Al-Qaeda as "an odd assortment of crackpots, petty thieves, obsessed graduate students, would-be mercenaries, and eccentric millionnaires." No wonder Cole has had so much trouble digesting the 9/11 report.

Take a look, it's a classic.

In his reply on June 22, the Montgolfiere of self-puffery huffed:

I don't usually bother to reply at any length to my Neocon critics. Mostly this is because they are simply insincere, and say what they say maliciously and in knowledge of its falsehood. ... What Neocon has come out and said, "Oops, we were wrong." ... The Neocons cannot for the most part imagine such a thing as a fraught internal debate over ethics on the part of the individual. This because they are mostly, quite frankly, sleazeballs. (Emphasis mine.)

Somehow I have a feeling the Majestic One won't be replying to these latest "Neocon" criticisms, and will instead "let them slide" into oblivion! That's why Cole's words right above describe him like nothing else.