There's being a dumbass, then there's being an arch peckerhead. Rosen went a bit past 'arch peckerhead'. I think you probably shouldn't invite him on the blog since you might be tainted by association, even though he has something to offer. I personally feel like a schmuck because I bought two of his books for my Kindle a few days before he beclowned himself.

an "explain yourself to stay" kind of thing. Those are reprehensible comments, clear headed people don't post that kind of stuff. If you can think assault is funny and wish it on others, what moral ground are you going to defend?

Didn't he exile Samatha Power for a while, but she's now within the pale?

This is an illuminating post. What Nir said about Logan was hideous, but not more so than things he's said before about Israel (e.g. "Israel is a blight unto the nations", "Israel's existence is an abomination", "I have always opposed Israel and supported anyone who opposes Israel"). That's not just disagreement with Israeli or IDF policies, that's bigotry and hatred, an extremism no less disgusting than that expressed by replacing "Israel" in the above quotes with "America". To learn that he was a "friend of the blog" before his most recent comments, and that his views on Israel were not enough for you to question what should be a "proper response", makes me question both your character and your judgment of.

Long time reader, probably no more.

His comments show him to be a shallow, petty sexist jerk. Any comment or opinion he might offer in the future would have to be seen through that filter.

Tom, you might not choose to 'ban' him. But I certainly will choose to avoid any future posts or articles that include him.

I've never seen Ms Logan reporting so my concerns as BD reader are about Mr Rosen bias. Once I read his remarks in dailycaller.com I find that his comments come from his animosity towards Ms Logan because he thinks she's a "war monger" and a supporter of Gen. McChrystal and not of the Rolling Stone journalist. Since I don't have any further background on Mr Rosen (apart from Mr Ricks appreciation as a commentator) I would like to know if he is trustworthy in his comments or not, if he is capable of presenting honestly his point of view.

And of course, an apology to Ms Logan (and Anderson Cooper) first should be required

Again, apologies on my english.

His comments were inexcusable, and his "apology" was hardly that. Ban him.

Jeff has done some digging on this guy. Take a look and then decide.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/the-america-bashing-pro-taliban-tweets-of-nir-rosen/71378

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/the-creepiest-thing-nir-rosen-ever-said/71398/

One never likes to hear that anyone is an ass, even if one is predisposed to view everyone as potential asses. Rosen, an insightful critic of US policies, may very well have off'd himself. This isn't Stalin's Russia, the forces and institutions that run this country don't need to use violence to quell dissent or criticism.

This might be triggered stress and general anger about the situation in the ME. If you follow Rosen's tweet's that seems to be the case. Considering the body of Rosen's work vs. Logan's work, I wouldn't be surprised that there might be some bad blood. I don't think we should resent Rosen dismissing Cooper or Logan, that's his prerogative. But to joke about a physical attack on another peon- Logan doesn't control US foreign policy she just approves of it- is ugly.

It's you blog, Mr. Ricks, I wouldn't presume to say one way or the other, nor judge whatever decision you make.

Ban him for a couple years.

I froze in place when I read (banned-dumbass)'s comments and mentally scanned back over the past several years of coverage, and tried to remember how many crucial moments of the wars I learned about that were colored by or influenced by (banned-dumbass)'s reporting. I felt unclean, like I wanted to scrub every word I'd ever read by (banned-dumbass) from my memory.

If he repents, and I mean seriously repents through serious actions and changes, in a constructive, soul-altering, transformative way - then maybe reconsider his case then.

As some other commenters have already noted, Mr. Rosen's most recent comments are only the most publicized of his relatively long line of fairly outrageous statements. While differing points of view are vital, and the man obviously has the freedom to say as he pleases, the tone of the discourse absolutely matters. Any forum is in large part judged by who is participating. If Mr. Rosen continues to participate in this blog, the blog will be judged in part by that fact.

The choice here is not mine, but if it was, he would no longer be welcome. I see no need to tarnish what is an otherwise insightful and deep resource with the views of someone who has shown such a profound lack of judgment, not to mention crass and incendiary commentary.

Nir Rosen was on thin ice but since he apologized profusely and seems sincere, give him a 2nd chance. I am assuming he has not done this before. Redemption Tom. And thanks for allowing us to voice our unsolicited opinion.

Debbie Schlussel on the other hand can go burn in hell as far as I am concerned. Here is her link though I loathe to post it.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/33031/how-muslims-celebrate-victory-egypts-peaceful-moderate-democratic-protesters/

As a woman, but more importantly as a human being, I can not and will not ever forgive Rosen for the insensitive comments he has made. Such thoughts (not to mention WORDS!) are hateful and backwards, and I think we should hold him accountable for these actions and punish him accordingly. I can think of a few things he deserves (none of which I'm stupid enough to share with an entire online community), but what he certainly does NOT deserve is any more of our attention OR support.

Words have consequences, especially when you're a public figure. And from what other readers have shared -- and the vast body of Rosen's own Tweets and writings confirms -- this is not a one-off incident.

I frequently decry the lack of accountability for the deeply offensive writings and broadcasts of those on the right. The underlying principle for me is -- it's not acceptable for *anyone*, no matter their political persuasion (and Rosen seems to be classified as being on the left).

I think perhaps he needs some time in the wilderness. Your blog -- your call.

Tom,

You would diminish yourself as a person by continuing your association with this man (well, child in reality).

Even flawed people sometimes have interesting ideas to contribute.

Many have to work out the kinks of understanding the attribution of seemingly anonymous communication means.

I vote that he remain on the island.

never a good idea; the best part about letting people say things like that is you get to see who they really are...and if the fake admiral can still post, so should this guy

Having read Mr. Rosen's sorry excuse for an apology on Salon, I have very little interest in reading anything he ever writes again. His refusal to take responsibility for his postings by shrilly screaming about the right's vitrol....I'm at a loss for words.

A journalist--an independent observer serving as the eyes and ears of the world--was brutally assualted while doing her duty. If you can find any sort of humor in that, you're all kinds of jacked up.

Five days in the brig should be sufficient.

Nir, made a mistake within the framework of American culture, but he was probably thinking within the framework of Middle Eastern culture (as an Israeli he is somewhat Middle Eastern, and his experience in the past few years has been in the real Middle East).

Western women who operate successfully in the Middle East make some compromises with their Western women’s personae. Most of the longstanding western women correspondents in the region show some of this accommodation – even on air. They dress very conservatively; they don’t flaunt long manes of uncovered hair; they use moderate gestures and body language, and they show a modicum of deference (whether they actually feel deferential or not) when speaking to older people, adult men, officials etc.

Without excusing his stupid tweet, I am quite confident that Nir was reflecting a degree of irritation that Lara Logan was unwilling to play by the rules that professional MidEast correspondents like Lise Doucet, Mishal Husain, Hannah Allam all observe regularly and with considerable skill.

Lara has shown herself in the past to be both a bit of a drama queen and a practiced femme fatale with respect to the male press corps in Iraq. My bet is that the underlying thought that gave rise to Nir’s unfortunate tweet was something along the lines of “this whole story would not have happened to any of the real professional women correspondents who know how to operate in the region”.

If he had tweeted just that, some folks might still have taken umbrage, but almost all his colleagues would have quietly agreed (including BBC's Lise Doucet, I suspect).

Sure, he was a jerk. HOWEVER, everyone screws up. Heck, I screw up at least once a week. That being said, few people ever notice when practice poor judgement.

It would be better for him and what he wants to stand for not to make his return too easy, but an irrevocable death penalty or declaration of non-person-hood would also be contrary to the spirit in which he's rightly being criticized.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his claim of not having read the full Logan story before commenting on it on Twitter. As for the pixel trail of excessive statements on ME issues, though in most instances as even in this one they may be based on good intentions, they betray the same weakness for exaggeratedly judgmental and thoughtless rhetoric, and that may do as much harm to his and his allies' political causes as years of hard work may help them.

In short, he claims to seek peace and offer better understanding, but does so in the most divisive, combative, and willfully un-comprehending manner he can. I'd be interested in his response on this and other questions raised by his own verbal conduct. Anything he else he contributes as an author rather than merely as a source would be taken, probably rightly, as coddling him and, no doubt wrongly, as condoning his "sin."

After he's convincingly demonstrated that he has engaged in serious and consequential self-reflection, on a better path, you would be able to take him back into the fold without unnecessarily harming your own reputation, offending many readers, and encouraging him to revert sooner or later to his old ways.

Allow, but in parenthesis you could put statements such as "Yes, the same Rosen who said Laura Logan had it coming," or that "Yes, the same Rosen who said the Jewish state of Israel is an abomination and called for the destruction of the mainly Jewish city of Tel Aviv," or "Yes, the same Rosen who made pro-Taliban statements in the past," etc. That way people new to the blog know who he really is and where he is coming from.

Counter bigotry with decency. Everyone blurts out stupid shit every once in awhile... :)
Nir's next writings may also reflect this recent humbling anyway and may therefore be interesting.

He made a mistake, and I'm sure he will pay for it. As a women, I wasn't really offended by his remark. I don't think he should have said it, but it was on his mind for some reason or another. It shows he isn't very sensitive, but get real, a lot of people aren't. Why should he be held to a higher standard? Everyone deserves a chance to say what they think and you can take it or leave it. There are some real idiots out there, but I still listen to what they have to say.

I think banning ought to be a remedy for bad conduct on the site of the banner. This Rosen fellow, if I'm not mistaken, is no more than an occasional commenter here, so banning in this instance would look a little much like something done just to make the banning blogger and some of his readers feel good.

Having said that, maybe Rosen ought to ban himself for a while, not just from BD but from Internet sites generally. His reporting has immersed him in Arab culture, and particularly Arab attitudes toward women; his job has given him access to media that allow anyone with anything to say to say it, immediately and to large numbers of people. Going native in both worlds at the same time is a bad combination. If I were him, I'd put some distance between myself and both of these cultures for a while. Like some other journalists, he probably thinks of his insights as indispensable. They're not.

Tom,
What this guy said was stupid and bigoted to the extreme and, given his outright lies about what he actually tweeted, he should be banned, no question. But, because he plays the role of FP's resident anti-American, Israeli-hating agent provocateur, I'm sure some will give him a free pass.
Tell you the truth, when you called him your friend in your post, i was more than a little surprised. The guy comes off as a self-righteous, mean-spirited blowhard
that doesn't like those "women to steal his thunder".
Come on, Tom, you seriously call this guy a friend?
He diminishes the Blog. Period.
Best, Astral Swamper

Rosen may be a sexist bastard, but he happens to be the best war correspondent that writes for US papers.

Let's take a moment to look at this in the larger professional and international context within which it played out.

Unfortunately the PC rules that govern elite Americans decree that if you say anything that is remotely prejudicial or bigoted (within the very narrow spectrum of what counts as prejudicial or bigoted in America), then your career is ruined. So I suspect that just like Rick Sanchez (whose role as an infotainer means he shouldn't appear in the same sentence as Nir Rosen), we will presumably never hear from Rosen again. I suspect he may find a job writing for a Euro paper for much less pay, or he will be writing for the Asian Times or something.

Then you have Lara Logan, who exemplifies everything that is worst about American infotainment-- she is loud, she is obnoxious, she does everything she can to draw attention to herself and not the story. For a sense of what an embarrassment she has been to her profession, read this stinging indictment by Matt Taibbi from a few years ago:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/lara-logan-you-suck-20100628

The worst thing about this, however, is that Logan has violated the professional code of journalism about a zillion times (read that article for proof of this), but such violations, rather than getting her fired, have only helped her career.

Rosen on the other hand has been an exemplary professional, going far beyond the call of duty in his profession, but I am sure his career is ruined. In the end, the US with its Soviet style self-censorship will be the real loser. People who were reading Rosen knew that it was only a matter of time before the ME blew up, but how few elite Americans were actually reading him? That is our problem in a nut shell.

(On a side note, I often joke to my European friends that an American president could launch a 1000 wars killing millions of people, but if he were proved to be a racist or an anti-Semite, he could kiss his presidency goodbye-- and sure enough, when G. Bush's autobiography came out, what was he most embarrassed about during his lifelong career of failure, that Kanye West had accused him of being a racist!)

Tom,

Referring to your more recent post, I think the more appropo thing to do is ask-- what other means does the journalism profession maintain for itself by which Rosen, or any other bad actor, may be held accountable?

There's freedom of speech, and there's professional responsibility. To my mind, the whole proposition of banning him retains at its foundation the assertion that the man is a professional journalist-- a peer. What vote does the profession have in acknowledging whether such individuals may be considered peers, and how does it balance retaining them against the overall esteem of the profession?

People talk all the time about how they disapprove of congress, regardless of the dominant party. Shouldn't journalists look at how they're regarded, whether FOX or CNN are getting better ratings?

I think it boils down to this-- anyone can be your friend, but is this guy your peer? And if he is, what does that say about you and what you do?

Looking forward to seeing how you and the community answer that one.

What was so repulsive to me was the way in which Rosen seemed to be finding such joy in the absolute worst moment of this poor woman's life, all because they had ideological disagreements.
He ceased to be a true journalist a long time ago and to me he allows himself to be a spokesperson for extremists who makes himself the center of every story he writes.

His apology was sincere and he made his tasteless jokes before he knew that Logan was assaulted sexually.

Should you ban Nir from the blog? No, in fact now that he lost his gig, he should write for FP.com.

Foreign correspondents (the good ones at least) can be rough around the edges, and use dark humor. It is the cost of working conflict zones. What Nir said in his tweets was real; it strayed from the infotainment narrative, so naturally he has to be crucified for it.

Was it crude and insensitive? Yes.

Did he make a mistake in tweeting his comments? Yes.

Should his career be ruined because people who had never even heard of Nir Rosen 48 hours ago feel the need to express their outrage over having their delicate sensibilities ruffled? No.

One good thing here, Mr. Ricks, is you've gotten comments from lots of folks who may have been reading in the past, but weren't commenting. Guess their sense of outrage or whatever compelled 'em to say something.

What to do about Nir Rosen? Well, Rosen is kind of a dipshit—and yeah, he's a little over the top in some areas—but, as has already been noted, he's probably the best reporter we've got in this area. Based on his track record, I'm inclined to kind of view Rosen's work favorably. Furthermore, and unlike some more politically correct folks, I'm not in favor of banning even the bad reporters. When it comes to Rosen vs other reporters, e.g., Lara Logan, etc., one thinks of Lincoln's comments regarding General Grant's drinking habits: "find out what he drinks and send cases to the other generals." Rosen is that much better than corporate mediocrities like Logan.

I never favor banning anyone. Rosen's voice is too important—especially if he offends the Israeli lobby—if for no other reason than that no valuable source of information should ever be cut off. I'd actually be interested in hearing something from him about this latest contretemps. And I don't need any kind of apology. He didn't do anything to me.

Nir Rosen is learning the hard way that he was not as attuned to a world where gendered jokes are unacceptable. He apparently also realized that his private banter was actually not that private. Really? A journalist realizes that twitter is not private??

I'm not sure which is worse...that he so lightly referred to Lara Logan's attack or that he also thought that it would have been funny if Anderson Cooper experienced something similar.

I saw his interview with Anderson Cooper in which he denies that he knew that Lara Logan had suffered a sexual assault and also denies that he actually knew exactly what had happened to Anderson Cooper. (!) Still, a journalist who jokes about other journalists being assaulted, without really reading what has actually happened to them, is really despicable. It reveals a very insensitive side of Nir Rosen. Journalists are risking their lives on a daily basis to report the news in dangerous situations throughout the world...and Nir Rosen finds the time to joke about it on Tiwtter in a private banter with his friends. Wow!

The main issue here is that in Mr. Rosen's field, credibility is everything and he's lost a lot of credibility with his readers, with his peers, and even with those who really admired his work.

I understand that Mr. Rosen proptly flew to the Middle East yesterday to begin documenting sexual harrassment against women. This is an obvious attempt to redeem himself. Maybe he'll do such a good job and he'll surprise us. I believe in second chances, but Nir Rosen has a long way to go.

... but don't ban him forever. A second chance, after an appropriate punishment, is almost always indicated.

Is it possible to seek Ms. Logan's opinion on this question?

but Nir Rosen is now a Thought Criminal?

Stop second-guessing yourself and do what you think is best.

I wouldn't presume to tell Mr. Ricks what the tone, biases or bradth of his blog should be; presumably that's his call.

But I'd imagine the main consideration is, who's your audience? From the commenters here I think the general Ricks reader is pretty familiar with this blog and many of Ricks' other writings. That mens you could have Bozo the clown or Josef Stalin do a guest column and, whatever -- they still pretty much know what they'll _usually_ get from _TBD_, it's a gimme.

On the other hand, Rosen voices opinions unprofessionally and terribly in public, and some of those opinons are awful -- and the unprofessionalism, in this context, is more disturbing than the awfulness. So if he writes here with any frequency at all that will have an effect on your readership. Maybe not a big effect since a lot of that readership may be one-offs directed here by the true believers! But still. And that will affect who the other writers here, and Mr. Ricks, can reach.

So the question is, Do you want the readers who will be alienated if you include Rosen? And none of us who comment here and read regularly will have much to tell you -- we're _exactly_ the wrong people to ask for this advice -- because most of us have a general if not totally accurate "fix" on Tom Ricks, so Rosen posting here or not doesn't really move us in or out of the readership.

From the links above that I have read and the other "news" about him that I have looked at, all I see is someone who is not olny flawed in his reasoning, but also doesn't value human life at all. His violent rhetoric lacks intelligence and is clearly the sign of an unstable mind. Self-loathing, violent, woman-hater, are just a few words that come to mind when I hear his name. Those and dumbass not worthy of my time. Kick him to the curb.

Today Rosen's come out with a long, windy mea culpa at Salon in which he basically blames his faux paux on Twitter. This from a so-called Modern Journalist, ha! In truth, he doesn't really sound apologetic for being so callous and insensitive as much as indignant that some of his "rivals" (his term) are using this episode to bitch-slap him.

He's a jerk, but I don't think banning him will serve a useful purpose. It would just be additional validation of his neurotic narcissim.

The story is:

1. Was the assault in question a targeted-but-deniable gov't act? Egyptian 'plainclothes police' are known for brutally targeting women, even dispensing viagra to their paid goons !!

2. Lethal, global assault on freedom of the press, which includes massive intimidation, particularly against female journalists, by todays gestapos.

3. Rape as terror is an ongoing major war crime, and one sanctioned by gov't authority in many of the last 40 years wars, from Bosnia to Pakistan.

If female journalists (and soldiers) are being attacked and terrorized, and those acts excused even by members of the war correspondent fraternity, consider the individual woman in the war zone, trying to protect herself and her family.

Rosen adding insult to a star reporter's potentially lethal, terrifying injuries mostly hurt himself. But that's a distraction here. Tom, you took this in the wrong direction, imo.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Media-Rights-Group--44-Journalists-Killed-in-2010-116240839.html

The real issue is that Nir Rosen's take on the half century and more of US screw up in the Middle East is far more perceptive of realities in the Islamic world than are the militarized banalities of Tom Ricks and the like. I'm old enough to recall that there was a time when the United States was widely respected in the Middle East, a part of the world in which, I might add, I have spent most of my professional career. I can assure you that deference to the United States is now a thing of the past. Instead, this country is widely despised and seen as a war monger and threat (except, of course, by the autocrats who it installs and props up). Rosen does not need the imprimatur of either Ricks or Foreign Policy. He already has wide readership, which will only grow as the hypocrisies surrounding US foreign and military policy become increasingly manifest. Let Ricks and Foreign Policy ban Rosen. They and their readers will be the loosers.

He should be able to comment, but his remarks reveal a profoundly prejudiced and warped mind. In order to say what he has about the attack on Lara Logan, he must be mentally ill. He is saying, because of the way I disagree with her reporting, she deserved to be raped. He calls her a "war monger."

Yes, he apologizes later - but it's too late - we have seen who he really is. Please do not again elevate his writings as worthy of being read. He should be shunned.

Lara, thank you for your work and heroism. I hope you will be able to get past this horrible assault on your person and soul.

Tom - I read this blog because you are credible, challenging of conventional wisdom and do bring together disparate voices. So, as for Rosen goes, his comments were repugnant, and it hurts you a bit to be associated with him, despite the fact you do not endorse his words anymore than you do mine. Even without your endorsement, you do offer him a platform and that conveys a degree of credibility based upon your own reputation. But as others have raised, do you silence repugnant voices so they only whisper their trash unaccountability - or do call them out, engage them head-on and maybe enlighten them a bit along the way? I dunno, in his case I lean towards letting him go sit in a corner alone and think awhile longer before I'd let him back as a respected voice on my own personal site.

But..there is the larger -- i think - issue of his credibility (as opposed to his repugnant views re: Lara Logan's attack). He told Anderson Cooper he retweeted the CBS statement without actually reading it first (that's how he claims he was unaware of the FULL seriousness/sexual assault nature of the case as he joked and made light of that very attack). Really? A journalist sends a link to others so they can read it but he did not read it himself first? Is that credible anyone would do that? I don't think so. And, that is really what happened, it is supposed to be ok that a journalist sends out stuff he does not even bother to click on first to read and consider? No, that's just reckless and dumb. Either way he sullies the term "journalist" and does not fully own up to his comments as a result. His apology is not credible since he did not come fully clean on it. Also, he tried to cover his tracks and delete the offending Tweets (duh, the Internet sees/records all..there is no "delete" button...).

He should take a long leave of absence from your site due to his sheer lack of candor and credibility, not just because he's clearly an @ss too. His voice is not so uniquely important as to let his credibility gap tarnish your credibility surplus.

I've found that most people here, across the "liberal" persuasion of the U.S. and the nutty "right" have already made up their minds about crucifying Rosen. At this point there is little he or anyone can do. Many have probably made up their minds simply as a result of what has been reported about the Rosen tweets and subsequent media articles and interviews mainly by corporate media journalists who view Logan as one of them and Rosen as an outsider.

Now, I've read his tweets. The most I can say is that Rosen made a real dumb mistake. Not dumb because he let the cat out of the bag, meaning he is really a sexist, misogynist, scumbag in progressive clothing. But rather because he became the story and the stories that he's been trying to tell at once became irrelevant. And that is the real shame here.

He is one of the finest and bravest foreign correspondents. To ostracize him because of a temporary lapse in judgment seems to me very childish. To do so would be to deny your audience one of the true, honest and unique voices in American journalism today. Don't do it. Don't let sensationalism, fear and peer pressure get the better of you.