I disagree with you. I read Cole daily and I read that post and interpreted it completely differently.

Note where he says: The phenomenon of blog trolling, and frankly of blog agents provocateurs secretly working for a particular group or goal and deliberately attempting to spread disinformation, is likely to grow in importance. It is a technique made for the well-funded Neoconservatives, for instance, and I have my suspicions about one or two sites out there already.

This is straight after reporting on Martini Repubic's questions. He said he had suspicions on one or two sites out there, he did not say he had suspicions on IraqTheModel. If he did have these suspicions then rather than simply report on another person's suspicious he would clearly have stated that he too shared the suspicions about ITM. No, he simply reported on Martini Republic's concerns and added some commentry and facts of his own (namely that blog provocateurs - my term not his - was a phenomenon that was likely to grow).

At the time I thought he was being silly in holding back on ITM, because it is quite obvious if you read ITM that the brothers are blog provocateurs, that they mouth the neo-Con BS and for goodness' sake even the name (Iraq The Model) is echoing neo-Con ideology about transforming the Middle East, with Iraq as the first example state.

I mean, to any independent and critical observer it would appear that these guys (ITM) are in the pay of the occupying regime and engaged in psy-ops. The fact that the right-wing blogs are making such a manic din at the mere hint of an accusation of this is the cherry on top.

Yes, yes, no doubt they're complete pills. And no doubt they're (now) in a small minority of Iraqi opinion. And as I said in the first post, it would hardly be surprising if the CIA hadn't figured out a way to coopt (or worse) some bloggers.

But just because what they say is convenient for the right, doesn't mean that they're in the pay of the right or the CIA or anyone else (in the more sinister, non-paypalish sense). Why not just think that they're wackjobs, or very naive, or self-hating Iraqis, or whatever? (After all, if the injustices of the U.S. in Iraq can drive Iraqis to wacky political positions, why not the depredations of the Baath regime under S.H.?) The accusation that they're funded by the CIA seems unfair to make without good reason - exactly as it was unfair of right-wingers during the Cold War to cast suspicion on lefties who made criticisms of the U.S. that (they took to) fit a broadly Soviet agenda.

As for what Cole said, well . . . part of my point is that what he said differed from what he could reasonably be construed as implying. I did not read Cole as saying, "Oh here's this possibility that I'm completely neutral on." I read him as attempting to cast suspicion without actually explicitly accusing anyone. If I've got him wrong, then clearly I owe HIM an apology. But I don't think I've got him wrong.

Cole writes: I drew attention to Martini Republic's questions about the independence of IraqTheModel without actually expressing any opinion myself one way or another, except to say that they are out of the Iraqi mainstream.

This is not the whole truth. In the original post Cole cites the fact (is it? I don't know.) that the ISP that the brothers use is based in Texas. That citation clearly outruns simply saying "that they are out of the Iraqi mainstream." And yes, the immediate juxtaposing of ITM with "Riverbend" signals some real suspicions on Cole's part.

However, Cole does not suggest that he thinks they are funded by the neo-conservatives. His statement that he has "suspicions about one or two sites out there already" is separated from his remarks about ITM.

Paul, yes I agree that the "suspicions" comment wasn't referring to ITM. But I also agree with your other comments.

By the way, Cole's ISP comment struck me as bizarre. The brothers are using Blogger, so why would their ISP be relevant? Surely it would just be Blogger's ISP . . . ?

Anyway, I'm not trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it is. I just thought it was worth commenting on.

For what its worth, after going back and reading Cole's blog I don't think he was accusing the bloggers in question.

Peter

Peter, he wasn't explicitly accusing the bloggers. My claim is that he was implicitly accusing them, which is a tougher call, but if I'm right is just as smarmy.

as much as i like cole, it's hard for me to read his mention of the ISP as anything other than a suggestion that the iraqi blog is fake. sure, it wasn't explicit, but as chris said, what else what the ISP bit supposed to mean?

as i think i commented in the last cole thread, i have my own suspicions about the iraq the model guy. but, in the end, i have to admit that my suspicions are almost completely based on my disagreement with the content of what he writes. like every other blogger i read, i basically have to give him the benefit of doubt that he is who he says he is absent some evidence to the contrary. offhand hints about american ISPs doesn't count as evidence

"The accusation that they're funded by the CIA seems unfair to make without good reason"

Ahh! Yes Chris, he has no "proof" but no definite accusation either, he was just making inferences based on very reasonable heuristics and history and common sense.

I don't understand some of your guys' comments. Cole said "suspicions have been raised" and didn't go the whole hog of supporting them himself. To me that is simple, and yet some of you feel that by raising that there are suspicions he must have an agenda of promoting and supporting those suspicions. That's not how ideas work in a free society. We are free to raise suspicions, and to report on other peoples' suspicions but to maintain an open mind. Later events and investigations can confirm or deny those suspicions. At which time we will have a fixed view. If we didn't report our own suspicions (or in Cole's case the suspicions of someone else) until we have facts one way or the other then we will never advance our knowledge.

It seems to be a peculiar American attitude where the dominant view is that nobody should voice this kind of thing until there is clear and unequivocal proof. And the basis of this cultural behaviour seems to be that if you raise suspicions (even other peoples') then you must somehow be supporting them. Am I right? Do Americans generally have a problem with a pluralistic, post-modern world in which there are multiple realities?

I don't understand some of your guys' comments. Cole said "suspicions have been raised" and didn't go the whole hog of supporting them himself. To me that is simple, and yet some of you feel that by raising that there are suspicions he must have an agenda of promoting and supporting those suspicions. That's not how ideas work in a free society. We are free to raise suspicions, and to report on other peoples' suspicions but to maintain an open mind. Later events and investigations can confirm or deny those suspicions. At which time we will have a fixed view. If we didn't report our own suspicions (or in Cole's case the suspicions of someone else) until we have facts one way or the other then we will never advance our knowledge.

It seems to be a peculiar American attitude where the dominant view is that nobody should voice this kind of thing until there is clear and unequivocal proof. And the basis of this cultural behaviour seems to be that if you raise suspicions (even other peoples') then you must somehow be supporting them. Am I right? Do Americans generally have a problem with a pluralistic, post-modern world in which there are multiple realities?

BBM, I agree that this is a tricky question. And no, I don't mean to suggest that no one should ever voice suspicions. But just imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Just imagine if a right-winger were raising questions about Cole or me or you in the same way: by linking approvingly to a site attacking one of us without much in the way of evidence; of hinting darkly at worse things; etc. It's very like the smears directed at lefties during the Cold War by winger types.

I'm not sure what my meta-position on all this should be; on where exactly the lines ought to be drawn. But the right lines, if we can find them, will be able to explain at a minimum why the Cold War smears were morally wrong. If we had those in place, then we could go on to ask which side of the line Cole falls on.

So I suppose my question for you is whether you have a settled view of your own on that question. Were the smarmy Cold War insinuations (without evidence) about the patriotism, honesty, integrity, etc. of particular lefties out of bounds? If so, why? And does the answer to that commit us to a position about Cole's remarks? Or is there a relevant difference I've overlooked (beyond the obvious differences in political sympathies).

(By the way, I'm a Canadian living in the U.S., if it makes a difference.)

I think there is a big difference between the right's cold war smears against the left and what Cole is doing. Cold War era lefties were not treasonous commies and the right had no genuine threat to seek out. The smears themselves were propaganda. On the otherhand, CIA and NED sponsored domestic propaganda does exist and people have a legitimate right and need to challenge it and raise suspicions about it.

Mann has some words about intellectuals according legitimacy to anti-intellectuals in the marketplace of ideas: "Today we can see clearly that it was a mistake of our civilization to have been all too generous in exercising such forbearance and respect - since on the opposing side we were dealing with naked insolence and the most determined intolerance."