Instead of a muffin with your coffee this morning…

“Critique” seems wrong; I think the word you’re looking for is “beatdown.”

In addition to the justified attack on Goldberg, Cole raises the more general point on the eagerness of the media to rely on utterly uninformed pundits, preferably young ones. This is especially pernicious for the likes of Goldberg, where actual lives get lost because of their bloodlust. But Howler picks up on Sunday’s Washington Post doing exactly the same thing for Social Security, another propaganda campaign with dire consequences for many people.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020705.shtml

One may have opinions on Iraq without reading books about Iraq or speaking Arabic. The only question is whether you make sense.

Jonah Goldberg doesn’t make sense. Gibberish is unacceptable; English, French and Arabic, for instance, are fine. Demanding Arabic as a precondition for opinions on Iraq mocks freedom of speech.

You know, blogospheric claims to be superceding the mainstream media have always seemed silly to me. A guy with a computer is not going to be to do a lot of reporting. However, this is a good example of how mainstream media pundits are made obselete by bloggers. Reading blogs has entirely cured me of my former desire to read newspaper opinion columnists or magazines like National Review or even the Nation.

I came up with a modest theory for dealing with pundits like Goldberg over the weekend: put all war plans to a public referendum, and (if it’s approved) staff the army for that war out of conscripted “yes” voters…

Unfortunately, Cleon fucked everything up. Not a solution.

Cole didn’t claim that you had to know Arabic. He did say, correctly, that it was one of his many advantages over Goldberg. A second advantage is that Cole may have written more books about Iraq than Goldberg has read.

Let’s fine-tune the “elitism” problem here. Cle is an elitist because he’s an academic and a scholar and because he shows disrespect for ignorant people who state ignorant opinions.

So far so good. So Goldberg is a victim. On the other hand, Goldberg is very well paid to share his ignorance with millions of people, and in his small way he is welcome in the circles of the mighty. He’s a tiny little mover and shaker, whereas Cole is on the outside looking in. (Note that he said that he made rather little money from lecturing? If he were conservative hawk — e.g. Ledeen — he wouldn’t be saying that.

It gets worse when you ask yourself how got to where he is. His horrible mother happened to play a rather shameful role in the ludicrous Lewinsky case. She parlayed this into a scurrilous right-wing website. Her son was bright enough to use her connections to get on at NRO. And god knows how he moved up to CNN, but I imagine that it was pressure for ideological balance, either from noisy right wing operatives or from CNN upper mangement.

It’s people like Goldberg, who are not few, who make me reject the idea that in the US it’s possible to be an intelligent conservative any more. Conservatives who can’t compromise and become Democrats have nowhere to go. The Republican ideology is hysterical mass delusion.

Hmmm … I suppose this rehabilitates Cole with me and makes up for the bum steer he gave us on Qaradawi. I have been thinking of getting a tattoo recently, and the phrase “the problem with not knowing what you are talking about is that you get things wrong” is certainly up there with a few other candidates.

Note the lack of the usual suspects of the right jumping here to a general defense of Goldberg. I say general because on some other issue when Goldberg, who entirely lacks credentials on any useful subject, faces less fierce competition they will be back.

The other bullies are hiding around the corner for the littler kids.

It is that combination of self-congratulation and willingness to let others take risks in service of your heroic self-image that rankles.

Precisely. Ted H. makes a good theoretical point–one can “support” a war without necessarily fighting in it–but there are other factors at work in this case. It’s one thing to “support” the war, in the sense of believing it is justifiable, while still respecting the views of those who may differ. It’s quite another to use that “support” as a club with which to bash those who disagree, however–throwing around accusations of treason, “pro-terrorist” sympathies, “America-hating,” etc. And this is the kind of trash-talking on which Goldberg has built his career in punditry.

Also, while it is certainly true that, as Ted notes, “some reasonably well-informed people” did support the war, it’s equally worth noting that many (if not most) of them have since reconsidered, or are at least willing to express some nuanced opinions on the subject. It’s only ideologically blinkered types like Goldberg to continue to insist that the war was not only fully justified, but that it has been a smashing success–a position that, at this point, borders on the delusional.

He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.

Case in point.

Ted, I see what you’re saying, and it’s a good point. It’s very easy to fall back on the “put up or shut up” argument when dealing with someone as obnoxious and unprincipled as Goldberg. But I would have to concede that you’re right in saying that, were Goldberg actually in the military, his ugly smear tactics would be no less offensive. The “chickenhawk” argument can indeed turn around and bite one in the ass, if one isn’t careful.

All that said, I can’t help feeling that the fact that Goldberg isn’t in the military–and apparently has never even considered the possibility of joining–makes his tactics all the uglier. Not that he would be justified in making those arguments were he in the service, but given the fact that he isn’t, it’s all the more galling.

I think that there’s a bit of a pattern that young draft-age hawks, including liberal hawks like Yglesias and Adesnik, see no problem at all with being very hawkish while at the same time never even thinking of the possibility of entering the military.

Having a volunteer Army is partly for that purpose, to disengage most people from the costs.

I come from an area with very high military participation (National Guards were regarded as draft dodgers in my day). When I think of war I think of people I know possibly getting killed. (And yes, I have two relatives who are at risk).

It’s just too obvious nowadays that most of the game planners are all people who are careful never to be at risk, and that’s what the chickenhawk thing is all about.

McCain is very hawkish, and while I disagree with him, he has credibility in this respect.

I think that there should be a police and fire department in which individuals put their lives at risk to benefit me and the rest of society. I have not intention of ever joining either department. I am never going to join the military, either, but I think that there are situations in which military force is necessary. Many people agree with me. Therefor, the chickenhawk argument is a waste of time. I am also unsure that I want many of the unthinking jingoists to join the military either. The kinds of things that we ask our military to do requires expertise and sound judgement under trying circumstances.

I think that there should be a police and fire department in which individuals put their lives at risk to benefit me and the rest of society

I do, too.

But then, I’m not a career criminal, or a repeat arsonist.

And that’s the position analogous to the one in which Goldberg finds himself.

Over on the corner, everyone is clapping Jonah on the back for delivering a knockout punch to Cole. Emails galore talking about what a great argument he had.

Goldberg made a good point a few days ago when he said “For the most part, folks who were introduced to me through him, agree with him and vice versa.”

As for the whole chickenhawk argument style, it makes as much sense to me as someone who says “You oppose the war but you’re not going over to Iraq as a human shield?”

It’s a lame argument. There are any number of military bloggers who give the same “talking points” as are given on the Corner and yet it’s always the person who did not join the army who are being attacked for giving those arguments.

Let’s say that someone like Lt. Smash or Cpt. Hook gives an argument identical to the one given by a so-called “chickenhawk”. Does the argument now floor you? Are you left with no counter-argument and left to hang your head in quiet shame?

No?

Then why not give the arguments you’d give back to a Lt. Smash/Cpt. Hook to the Chickenhawks?

It’s not like your arguments against the war are lessened by the fact that you aren’t chained to an Iraqi orphanage.

How many economics classes must you have taken before you comment on Bush’s economic policies?

More than two. I know that because that’s how many I’ve taken, and most of the discussion is over my head.

Does Jaun Cole really want to go there?

Why not?

Climate change? Do I need a degree before I can comment in an intelligent manner?

IME, yes, though that is not a sufficient condition.

As for the whole chickenhawk argument style, it makes as much sense to me as someone who says “You oppose the war but you’re not going over to Iraq as a human shield?”

No it doesn’t. A person who opposes the war might say that under their preferred policy, no one has the need to go to Iraq. A person who supports that has no such options.

“Why don’t you move to Iraq/Cuba/etc if you like them so much” is a closer analogy. Of course, a person who opposes a war needn’t hold the opinion that the status quo is ideal, so that doesn’t work either.

Let’s say that someone like Lt. Smash or Cpt. Hook gives an argument identical to the one given by a so-called “chickenhawk”. Does the argument now floor you? Are you left with no counter-argument and left to hang your head in quiet shame?

It’s conceivable. However, demonstrating that your opponent doesn’t believe his argument is as good a way as any to win the argument.
Considering we can think of this particular argument as having real-world consequences, winning the argument is as much of a value as coming up with clever counter-arguments.

Then why not give the arguments you’d give back to a Lt. Smash/Cpt. Hook to the Chickenhawks?

I guess if you have nothing better to do with your time, that makes sense.

Resentment of intelligence seems to be one of the basic values of today’s conservativism. Elitism is very very bad. Yes, bigmac, it’s true. People DO despise you because you’re ill-informed and not too bright. Live with it. Your friends control the government, but you still get no respect. Boo hoo.

What a shitty version of conservativism. What Cole said is that Goldberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Goldberg scarcely bother to deny it, and his ideological soul brothers are backing him to the hilt.

The chickenhawk argument, which is not intrinsically very powerful, was pretty secondary. I think that Goldberg especially attracts that argument because of his combination of loud hawkisness and egregious weeniness. Not a rare combination, of course.

Mg, it seems to me that dealing with the argument on its merits is a better use of one’s time than ignoring the argument and instead attacking the person making it.

Darn it, my apologies. I thought it didn’t take and I went out of my way to check the page again and refreshed and everything before trying a second time.

Color me stupid.

Everyone does it, jaybird. CT needs a new techie.

I got an error message the first time, if this is a second post.

If time management is one’s highest priority, agreeing is much more conducive to having more time on one’s hands than resorting to personal attacks.

In my experience.

Bigmacattack: Uncle Kvetch, please provide an example where Goldberg equates opposition to the war with treason.

OK, you got me. As of this writing, I have not found a post in which Goldberg does so.

Before I slink away in shame, however, I should point out that I did find a post on The Corner in which Goldberg refers to Patrick Stewart (who, as we all know, is second only to Michael Moore as a representative of the America-hating left) as a “traitorous crapweasel.” Stewart’s crime, apparently, is referring to contemporary Western civilization as “seriously flawed.” Which, as we all know, is tantamount to walking around with an “I [heart] Osama” t-shirt.

Link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_02_01_corner-archive.asp#024487

The argument about “specialized knowledge” and “being taken seriously” doesn’t amount to much. Some people take Cole seriously and some take Goldberg seriously. I’m sure both sides would argue that their positions are “informed”.

Let’s face it, fans of Cole and fans of Goldberg are just not going to have much common ground. And that comes down to different judgments on the available information. Information does not lead automatically to any one political point of view, those are essentially moral choices.

Someone should take Neil’s most recent post, pickle it, put it in a bottle, and take it around to high school classes as an example of deliberately missing the point. He just parrots Goldberg’s lame rejoinder: “It’s a free country and everyone has a right to his own opinion, and anyway, it’s all opinion and no one really knows for sure”.

Someone tell the New Criterion about the new conservative standards. And the new conservative “anything goes”.

The argument about “specialized knowledge” and “being taken seriously” doesn’t amount to much. Some people take Cole seriously and some take Goldberg seriously. I’m sure both sides would argue that their positions are “informed”.

Let’s face it, fans of Cole and fans of Goldberg are just not going to have much common ground.

Neil, do you really think there is no fact of the matter about whether Juan Cole is more knowledgable than Jonah Goldberg about Iraq, and Middle Eastern politics in general?

It’s an observation of the way the the argument goes not a justification for anything like “anything goes”.

The correct conclusion from your argument isn’t “And so this is essentially a moral choice”, it’s “People who think Goldberg’s opinions about Iraq are better-informed than Coles are deluding themselves” — whether anyone changes their minds or not.

Yes Cole is more knowledgable than Goldberg on the Middle East. But that does not lead to agreeing with Cole’s point of view. Look at the whole war debate. There are very informed and intelligent people on all parts of that spectrum. At some point it comes down to a judgement call

Uncle Kvetch,

:). I don’t want this to come wrong but it probably will.

Nice job. Stand tall and make fun of Goldberg for quoting his wife’s opinion that Cole is a dummy partisan.

But please a little slack on the the Goldberg as an evil blood thristy monster thing.(Or at last quote the actual post when he sidles right up to the drawing line between brutal and humane.)

Bigmacattack, didn’t you notice Goldberg’s remark, about the bet he proposed, that “[Cole] can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is”?

He suggested that Cole might be inclined to give financial aid to the enemy. Treason is certainly implied.

Michael, the proposed bet reminded me of the Simon/Ehrlich wager, so, no, I didn’t find it revealing.

bad Jim–al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is not at war with the U.S. They aren’t an “enemy” of the U.S. in the sense that it would be treasonous to support them. (It might be illegal to support them, but not treason.) Don’t let Juan know of your ignorance–he’ll post again and again.

mfb–the exchange between Goldberg and Cole raises two questions: has Cole been consistent, and is he willing to make predictions that can be judged? Goldberg offered good reasons, which Cole didn’t respond to, for thinking that Cole has been inconsistent, and Goldberg offered Cole a chance to make a prediction, which chance Cole declined.

Susan writes:
“Dr. Cole does not suggest that one must have specialized expertise before developing an opinion. He does suggest, and he’s absolutely right, that when one does not have specialized expertise in a given subject, and in fact has an avowed lack of any knowledge at all of a given subject, one should probably not insist on being taken seriously as a professional commentator on that subject.”

I agree that Cole is making this claim, but I disagree strongly. Pundits are a dime a dozen, but whatever value they have is in cultivating public opinion. That cultivation, however, need not, and should not, be left to experts. Goldberg doesn’t have Cole’s credentials, but he does give more thought to these matters than many, and so he is potentially a benefit to them. Goldberg has a degree of trust from like-minded people, and he has earned that trust not simply by being an echo-chamber but by challenging their self-understanding of what it means to be a conservative and how that might play out with regard to different issues. He doesn’t challenge you? So be it, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t doing something of value. (I don’t usually find myself challenged by him, by the way.)

I think some self-examination is in order for anyone who isn’t viscerally disturbed by Cole’s rhetoric, whether you agree with his views on Iraq or not. He is the perfect image of why people outside the academy take the academy so unseriously.

Eddie, I’m afraid that the finger points the other direction. I think that the prevalence of the kind of rampant anti-intellectualism represented by Goldberg at high levels in this country will have really adverse consequences soon enough.

Gildberg types can win elections, and Cole types can’t. But Goldberg types are harmful when decision-making needs to be done.

When Cole criticized the election plan a year after he had praised it, the new plan had been changed in ways Cole specified.

The original issue raised by Cole was that Goldberg ridicule a comparison Cole made between the Iran and the Iraq elections. Cole pointed out that Goldberg knew NOTHING aabout the Iran election. He went from there to surmise, accurately IMHO, that Goldberg knows almost nothing about those countries at all.

This reminds me, again, of the Red Chinese telling peasants to ignore the capitalist-road experts build homemade steel mills in their back yards.

“He does suggest, and he’s absolutely right, that when one does not have specialized expertise in a given subject, and in fact has an avowed lack of any knowledge at all of a given subject, one should probably not insist on being taken seriously as a professional commentator on that subject.”

The type of commentary offered by pundits does not rely on the specialised knowledge Juan Cole possesses. Goldberg’s initial comments did not address anything related to Cole’s expertise.

Goldberg’s comments addressed Cole’s pattern of carping and moving goalposts. They did not address much less question his knowledge of Arabic or mideast history. He isn’t bashing Cole’s academic competence, he’s bashing his judgment.

Goldberg complained that Cole was ‘appalled by media cheerleading.’ Not contested by Cole. Re: Iranian vs. Iraqi elections , the sterile facts of both elections have been widely reported in the anglophone media, including all the points mentioned by Cole in defense of his own remark. Goldberg remarks that Cole seems upset that his own advice re: Sistani is being followed by Bush (also accurate, and not addressed by Cole.)

Cole’s acknowledged expertise (in language and history) and Goldberg’s obvious lack thereof is irrelevant to any of Goldberg’s 3 original comments, even to much of what can be considered punditry. To the limited extent Cole’s knowledge of Shi’ism bears on the political issues, his advice has for the most part been followed.

It truly is amazing that Goldberg found an article where Cole made the opposite point last year, and even more amazing that Cole can’t (or won’t) respond. Let me put it this way: Jonah Goldberg could have written his entire original column by filling it with quotes from Juan Cole’s article last year praising Sistani’s election plans and denigrating Iran. And Goldberg’s overall point would have been exactly the same: Cole (version 2005) does not remotely give a satisfactory explanation for why Iraq’s election is such a “disaster” compared to Iran. Which leaves the question: Why is Cole so full of insults towards someone who is merely paraphrasing what Cole himself (version 2004) said?

Sorry, guys. Cole enumerated the problems with the recent Iraq elections and sexplained how the Iran election in which Khamenei wa elected was, in those respects, superior. Go to his site, for Christ’s sake. Read everything, from the beginning.

There were specific things wrong with the recent actual election. For wxample, candidates unknown to the voters who couldn’t campaign. These things were not part of the planned election proposed a year ago. Is that so hard to understand? Time had passed, things had changed.

The fact that Goldberg is no worse than most pundits doesn’t comfort me.

“Judgement” here means ideology. Like I said, backyard steel mills.

“But suddenly, as soon as Bush went along with the Iraq election plans, now Cole purports to think that the Iraq election is a “disaster,” and that Iran’s election was much more democratic.”

This is not an accurate summary of Cole’s view. He said, amongst other things, that although it would be impossible to hold satisfactory elections, it would be a bad idea to call them off.

Cole enumerated the problems with the recent Iraq elections and sexplained how the Iran election in which Khamenei wa elected was, in those respects, superior. Go to his site, for Christ’s sake. Read everything, from the beginning.

I’ve read all of that. None of it seems remotely plausible, for precisely the reasons that Cole himself (version 2004) listed in his article last year. To wit, the “hard line clerics” (his term) decide who gets to stand for election, and then the election is basically meaningless because the clerics still hold all the real power. Cole (version 2005) has NEVER explained his stunning reversal of opinion.

If you can’t read Cole’s 2004 article for yourself, let me summarize: He claimed that Sistani was the equivalent of Rousseau and Jefferson. (!) He hoped that Iraq’s election would be a model for the Middle East, particularly theocratic Iran, where elections don’t mean very much at all.

But we’re supposed to imagine — and “imagine” it is, because Cole certainly doesn’t explain it — that because the Iraqi elections were held without a complete and public list of the candidates, therefore Iran is no longer theocratic. Instead, its elections are “much more democratic,” in Cole’s words.

Bull. I think the real reason that Cole switched sides is that he is determined to oppose anything that Bush supports. Back in 2004, Bush supported one model for the Iraq election, and Sistani supported another model. So Cole wrote an article lavishing praise upon Sistani and lumping the Bush administration in with the “hard liners” in Iran. But by now, Bush agreed to go along with Sistani’s plan. What is Mr. Cole to do? Aha, he’ll switch positions based on transparently specious reasons, and instead argue that Iraq’s election is no big deal; that it is “appall[ing]” that people are praising it; and Iran is “much more democratic.” Upon my word, if Bush announced tomorrow that he was opposed to the Iraq election after all, Cole would suddenly decide that the Iraq election was the greatest thing in the history of the world.

“[Cole] should either ignore Goldberg or argue with him on the points.”

What he does is to demolish Goldberg’s “point”:

“[Goldberg’s] current response is that once Khatami was elected, he was unable to make substantial changes in Iran. But that was not the issue at debate. The issue was a narrow one. It had to do with the democratic character of the elections themselves, not with the aftermath. We can’t compare the aftermath of the two elections because we don’t know how the situation will evolve in Iraq.”

He doesn’t say that explicitly. But his new position implies it. You have to use your head.

I’ll explain. In the 2004 version of himself, Cole wrote the following:

“Sistani’s position that legitimate government must reflect the will of the sovereign people echoes Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Jefferson, and promises a sea change in Middle Eastern politics.”

“Elected parliaments are common in the Middle East, but they often have more of the form than the substance of democracy. . . . In Iran, the clerical Guardianship Council has excluded thousands of candidates from running, including sitting members of parliament.”

“In Iran, the electorate is free to vote as it pleases, but candidates themselves must be vetted by the clerical Guardianship Council. That council declared thousands of candidates ineligible to run in elections originally scheduled for late February, questioning their commitment to Islamist ideology. The ruling threw Iran’s politics into chaos, with its reformist President Khatami suggesting elections would be postponed. On February 1, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Islamic revolution, some 40 percent of members of parliament angrily tendered their resignations, raising the stakes in a tense game with their hard line opponents.”

“If the United States insists on stage-managing Iraq’s elections, it will miss a historic opportunity for Iraq to serve as a showcase for democracy that could contrast with Iran’s legacy of authoritarianism and deadlock.”

OK, did you read all of that? Pretty harsh on Iran, no? Iran has a “legacy of authoritarianism and deadlock.” It has more of the “form than the substance of democracy.” And Cole repeatedly emphasizes the theocratic nature of Iran.

Now, have you noticed that in Cole’s latest tirades, he rarely gets around to discussing the actual point of dispute, namely, whether Iran is more democratic than Iraq? And have you noticed that on the one occasion when Cole finally interrupted his ad hominem attacks to address that subject, he suddenly FORGETS to mention that Iran’s elections are, by his earlier account, fairly meaningless? No, suddenly he pretends to believe that Iran is “much more democratic” for a flurry of trivial reasons, such as voter turnout, voter security, and a public list of candidates. He even pretends to suddenly believe that although the hard-line clerics were in control both before and after the 1997 election, this doesn’t matter because there wasn’t much vetting in 1997 and a so-called “liberal” slipped through.

Boil it all down: In 2004, Cole (correctly) recognized that when theocratic clerics control all the real power, both before and after elections, then the elections are merely the “form” and not the “substance” of democracy. And in 2004, Cole said that Iraq should serve as the democratic model for Iran. In 2005, Cole purports to believe the opposite, and that nothing about Iran’s theocracy really matters, because a so-called “liberal” was elected in Iran in 1997.

OK, Kevin, let me put it in simple terms.

Cole, version 2004: Iran is theocratic. It is NOT democratic. Democracy doesn’t work there. Iraq will hopefully be a model.

Cole, version 2005: Never mind what anyone says about Iran being theocratic. They let a so-called “liberal” through! (Never mind that this “liberal” wasn’t given enough power to accomplish anything; let’s just forget about that.) And they had high voter turnout! That’s proof that Iran is more democratic than Iraq!

Again, use your head: Cole 2005 is completely inconsistent with Cole 2004’s insistance that Iran’s theocracy was preventing any real democracy from taking root there. You have a choice: Either Cole 2005 doesn’t believe Iran is really a theocracy anymore, or else he still does secretly believe it but is just lying about Iran in order to be able to bash Iraq.

Do you have a point? Or are you just trying to help me emphasize the fact that Cole (version 2005) is blatantly contradicting his 2004 opinion that Iran had the “form” but not the “substance” of democracy?

Sure, if you put on blinders and pretend that all that matters is “the election itself,” you might be fooled into thinking that Iran was democratic. But Cole himself knew better, as of a year ago. It is much more important to consider whether the election is taking place within a system that gives elections any respect or weight.

It had to do with the democratic character of the elections themselves, not with the aftermath.

According to Cole’s dippy criteria any of Hussein’s sham elections were more democratic. Security? Check! High turnout? Check! Actual name on the ballot? Yes indeed!

No ‘surprise outcome,’ I guess (why that matters is a mystery.) Still, 3 out of 4!

And we were subjected to a grotesque barrage of smug triumphalism, chest-beating, and “take that’s” from the warhawks…

I’m sure that made you and Juan Cole feel just awful, all that triumphalism.

So if deeper knowledge of a country’s politics is not that important to pass judgement on it and to establish if that judgement has a valid basis, I suppose it is perfectly fine with everyone if some foreign pundit who’s never been to the US, cannot read English fluently, and has never actually bothered to read up extensively on US politics, expressed the view that no Americans are interested in social security, public health care, or any form of welfare at all because they’re all rich and plump and too independent-minded to want any of that even if they needed it. There are bound to be some people for which this will “make sense” and fit in with their ideological framework; so we can discard the little fact it’s totally inaccurate, right?

“It was utterly predictable that the 1997 election in Iran would have the “aftermath” of being irrelevant, because as Cole himself acknowledges, the clerics hold all the real power there.”

Whereas the aftermath of the Iraqi election is not predictable. Cole has considered various possibilities: a weak Iraqi government dependent on American power, an American withdrawal followed by intensified civil war, a state run by laypeople but with sharia law. He does not pretend to know the future. So, being an intelligent man, he restricts his comparison to the elections themselves.

Functional, the contradiction you refer to is the work of an imaginary Juan Cole, a straw man of your own creation, which you are happily chopping to pieces.

IMHO the following statements are all true, and Juan Cole also believes them to be true:

1) Iran has been a theocracy since the overthrow of the Shah.

2) Iran’s last election was conducted in a more orderly manner than Iraq’s election and it produced a result that the mullahs did not desire.

3) Iraq may become a more democratic country than Iran, or it may degenerate into chaos. It is too soon to tell and therefore too soon to celebrate.

Juggle these any way you like; you will not derive from them the proposition that Iran is no longer a theocracy – the ludicrous claim made by your Straw Cole, just so that you can have fun chopping him up.

Chop away. Your only victim is yourself. Slashing straw men is bad for your mental development.