I actually agree more with Juan Cole. Do you honestly believe, with all the Egypt's military has been through, they were going to effectively evacuate half of Libya? Do you think they really want all those refugees?

You intervene when your intervention has a chance of success, not to be consistent.

And Rachel Maddow & Ted Rall.

And Amy Goodman & Juan Cole.

Juan Cole's site Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/) always has good links to analysis of events in the middle east generally.

Iran's official results...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iranian-election-results-by-province.html

The more info that comes out it appears that this election wasn't just indirectly manipulated by screwing with communication systems, putting out false news stories, false announcements, falsely canceling opposing political speeches and rallies. It was most likely directly falsified. The ballot counting doesn't seem to make sense.

Hear, hear! (with the little caveat that I think that at that notorious speech in church Palin did mean to say “let’s pray that what we are doing in Iraq is God’s plan”, because later in the speech she speaks about her surprise at the witch-hunter pastor praying for her full stop without adding a little stipulation like that).

In Amazon terms: if you like this, you might also like to take it a step further: What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick by Juan Cole.

"John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

Salon Article by Juan Cole.

Bcglorf, why don't you admit it: Reagan, I agree, sucks, but Juan Cole rules, at least with regard to all things Arab/Middle-East.

Re Libya, not only Cole realises that European sanctions against Libya had, in great part, already been lifted in 1999 (in return for owning up for Lockerbie), so to whom should Gadhafi have turned, if not to the US (who had stuck to their embargo)? Not to mention the fact that Libya had given up supporting terrorism long before that date.

If you really think Hitchens is that cool, try to find anything that supports his 10 points of "positive accounting" in the article Cole responds to:

overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism and exposure of highly suggestive links [I don’t know about those suggestive links, but the Taliban seem to be alive & kicking], a capitulation offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. [capitulating to Kofi Annan or the EU, that would be a novelty...], agreement by the United Nations that reform is necessary and overdue [war was waged on Iraq to make the UN realise it needed reform?], showing that Chirac and Schröder were cheating [is anybody willing to explain this to the Iraqis?], the ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat [Hans Blix a psychopath?], the encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon [videosifters in any of those countries, please respond], the violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators [I guess, just arresting, or even killing them, wasn’t enough], training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen/women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism [videosifters in the military, what do you think?]. Actually, I can agree (a little bit) with his # 7: the immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=2)

Am curious what the problem with Juan Cole is... because political criticisms and the 'liberal' label aside, he is one of the few intellectuals in this country with an actual handle on the situation over there, and having been a student of his I can say that his observation-based opinions seem to pretty much override any personal agendas.

Though I know it's a Juan Cole piece, I still give you *quality for bringing it here to the Sift.

Columbia University was right to let him speak there, and the people who were against it should realize there can be no dialogue when only one side is heard.

Enzoblue brought up some good points - I'm curious to hear what Juan Cole has to say about it.

Regarding Hugo Chavez - maybe he's no angel, true, but he's a damned sight better than the crooks and liars they had in there before, the ones who are still there manipulating the media (like here in the USA), the rich who will never be rich enough and who want to privatize everything.

I am somewhat surprised that Al Jazeera or Iraqi TV didn't have the full snuff film available. Yet.

We all know that American TV is reluctant to show the filthier aspects of war (because the advertisers hate that crap), but if you can show contractors mutilated in Fallujah, then you can certainly show a mass murderer swinging by his neck and surrounded by people in Halloween costumes.

Juan Cole does nail it. The Bush Administration's negligence, malfeasance, and simple boobery in Iraq is really breathtaking.

One of the best analysis about this was written by Juan Cole in Salon today.