Demagogue

As Arnold noted in this post, a verbal catfight is raging in cyberspace over Iraq. In this corner is Juan Cole, a University of Michigan history professor. In the other corner is National Review's Jonah Goldberg. The two have been engaged in a vigorous debate over Iraqi policy.

This morning, Cole wrote this post on his "Informed Comment" blog -- and the professor's fangs remain sharp:

First, I alleged that Goldberg has never read a book about Iraq, about which he keeps fulminating. I expected him at least to lie in response, the way W. did when similarly challenged on his book-reading ... But Goldberg did not respond in this way. I conclude that I was correct, and he has never read a book on this subject. I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion.

Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one.

... Goldberg is hoping to Kerryize me because my position on the war can't be reduced to a sound bite. I don't really care. I'm not running for office and I'm not making any money to speak of from this punditry gig. If people can't imagine that you can hate Saddam and also think a unilateral war and long-term occupation of an Arab country are bad ideas, that is their problem.

Anyone who has read Goldberg's insipid, predictable drivel would approve of this summation by Cole:

In the end, I am saying that Goldberg's punditry is empty. All he has to offer us is a party line and a strongly held opinion. Not all pundits are in this category. Goldberg is particularly unsubstantive.