Good on him... 
Too bad he didn't wade into the audience and kick some dirty, ignorant hippy ass.
and really unfortunate...some of them vote..;o(
You do know Hitchens is a longtime socialist, far to the left of anyone the Democratic party has ever nominated for president? He has argued that Kissinger should be tried as a war criminal for what he did as sec state in the 70s....
Of course, and Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, whoops, an Independent since you guys kicked him out for being rational.
You should read Hitchens' piece in Slate about Tenet.
About Hitchens being a long time socialist, far to the left of anyone the Democrats have nominated for president?
Without trying to be facetious I could say the same about Pelosi.
I would also argue your point because its in error.Roosevelt was a socialist
in everything but name, was a president for life, ignored the constitution whenever he saw fit, threatened to dismantle the Judiciary branch of government by swamping it with hand-picked appointees.If you have the stomach for it, read THE NEW DEALERS WAR.An excellent, insightful
and thouroughly frightening book.
Interesting point about FDR, and one could argue that he is the farthest left that the Dems have ever nominated by some standards (possibly McGovern could beat him, depending on how you evaluate FP, and the domestic issues were so different). I still think Hitchens is much more of a socialist, and surely much more of a conscious socialist, than FDR ever was. FDR was more of an experimenter than a true lefty. He was for what worked, and was not much of an ideologue either way. I commend to you the finest FDR biography yet, the Geoffrey Ward two volume (so far) account. To understand why Hitchens is still to the left of FDR, you'd have to read what the man wrote in the 70s and 80s.
If you guys think this vulgar and disgusting Hitchens, or even FDR, were socialists, you must be referring to something other than the educated rest of the world.
Socialism means democratic control of economy incl the large means of production.
FDR was a patriarch of great personal wealth, Hitchen is a paid mouthpiece, auctioning himself off to the highest bidder.
Seeing people like you using "Socialist" for an insult makes me proud, though, because it means you still fear the triumph of the will of the people.
Hasta la victoria siempre!
Socialismo o muerte: "the triumph of the will of the people" came about with the birth of the American republic. The dictatorship of the proletariat has been cast upon the dustbin of history. A few tragic clowns linger; Castro and Hugo Chavez come to mind.
I guess that leaves you "muerte." So sad, go cry.
Too bad, Mr. Death, that this "mouthpiece" has pointed out some rather disconcerting things about his former comrades in arms---or pens, or whatever. 911 was the death knell of the organized left, and in the aftermath of this it splintered off just like the Empire did after the destruction of the last and final Death Star. Still around, but toothless.
Hitchens now understands that his putatively secular and leftist allies of "progress" hold no hope for their own future if they mulishly refuse to even defend their own ideas from Islam and by extension the larger societies they claim to want to help.
They prefer to attack Hitchens for speaking out against consumate liars and morons like Richard Clarke, the surrender experts in the Democratic Party, and of course duplicitous harpies like Hillary Clinton.
And for that expose they can never forgive him.
interesting debate! I'd say that I agree with death that FDR wasn't really a socialist. He was a liberal, in the American sense of the word. He wanted to inject just enough government regulation of the excesses of capitalism to maintain the free market system with a social safety net. If you're a liberal, he "saved" capitalism. If you're a conservative, he walked the country closer to socialism, but really, it is kind of pathetic to call him a socialist. It's an insult to real socialists. As Death points out, he lived in a palatial mansion, and never advocated government control of industry. Some socialist!
Hitchens isn't a paid mouthpiece. I think he really believed in the invasion. He's been campaigning against Saddam long before, back when he was our bud. Back when Rummy shook his hand! He just wrote a good piece on Iraqi kurdistan for Vanity Fair. He's wrongheaded on foreign policy, and, for my money, remains a socialist on domestic issues. So for me, he's wrong twice...it is amusing, though, to see so many conservatives embrace him as the voice of reason. I think this is because he truly is an amazingly erudite and articulate man. You'd want him on your side in any intellectual debate.
He turned on the "left" before 9-11. His book on Clinton, No One Left to Lie To, was just so vituperative. Fun to read, but at every point, in every question, he took the worst possible interpretation towards Clinton.
Hitchens is a drunken fool who just happens to be a right wing blowhard.
Wait, that's sort of the same thing. Nevermind....
Umm, Matt? You might want to check on Hitchens' political orientation...
How horrid, Matt--
You might say you "jumped to illusions" instead of jumping to conclusions.
Hitchens is still dyed socialist at least of the semi-soft Brit type. The difference is that like some other Brits he's been around long enough to wade through the American style of Leftism being a transplant of hatred and crap (like yours) bereft of all idealism other than to find some point to annoy people.
Roug I don't have time today to get into FDR. Suffice it to to that book like "The Roosevelt Myth" have the backstory on what really happened. The analogy from some libertarian types is that a penny was put in the fusebox to overcorrect for speculation--which in turned was caused by the orgy of easy-go credit. This is what primarily caused the Great Depression. And you might know that this continued unabated until the War, which was the TRUE source of the production and turnaround, not FDR policies.
As to Hitchens: Roug, Hitchens main source of angst against is revealed by--and comes from---his post 911 commentary, for which he said that was the living end of the Left. This putatively agnostic secular liberalism he critiques that utterly refuses to see REAL danger from REAL "fundamentalists" (not Southern Baptist chaw-chewers and country folk), and has instead focused its hatred on Bush rather than the real problems. Hitchens is certainly still Left of center but has left behind all those old limey statements to the effect that only radical revolution changes things or that capitalism is all dirty diapers and little more.
Imagine how utterly absurd Harry Reid's comments the other day sound to someone like Hitchens? Not to mention our allies and enemies alike? If there was ever a question to the effect of "How can you make a jihadist laugh out loud?"---this is it.
How asinine is it in the middle of ANY war to set a surrender date and ADVERTISE this to the enemy? The Dems have all along been the ones to have a vested political interest in defeat. Regardless of the ugly consequences later on to the whole nation, not to mention the Iraqis who will no doubt be decapitated and sliced once the last troops hop on the helicopters, Hitchens justifiably remains stubborn. Because, you see, he knows that a truly unified nation would make this work. Unlike his detractors, he's kept up with who-said-what and knows full well what and WHO caused this current divisiveness in politics lately. It is not Bush. It is the party that got rid of the "war on terror" marquee and decided that their previous comments are not meaningful.
This makes them trustworthy,then?
I think not. Like Master Yoda said, Do---or do NOT. There is no "try."
At least not in warfare.
roug--You mentioned Edmund Burke as another sage one to advice. Can we assume you agree with him, then, when he said that the way evil wins is not by sheer force but when good men do nothing? Iraq is merely the focus of the main war, which is actually GLOBAL scope, encompassing 19 nations.
It is NOT "all about Bush" or "all about Iraq." Right?
Then why take your current position?
Also, roug, something else here that is irritating. I mean, other than the white flag some have waved here. I usually keep my emotions under cap fairly well and use humor and asides to liven things up. At the moment, though, I have a hard time believing my eyes that someone on this posting forum actually said that Bush, and not his detractors and the looney bins (and the MSM), is the one who "divided" the nation after 911. Divisiveness, you say, being Bush's fault? He's stayed the course where others drifted, and where others left the wheel of the ship of state spinning. It is this consistency that makes some people mad as hell. Democrats are fretting about upsetting Muslims in the name of political correctness and now taking the opportunity to use the VT massacre for weird comparisons to issues like abortion. Huh?
Divisiveness? Like when the former VP candidate and moderate Democrat Joe Lieberman was made an outcast from his own party--a pariah? Long standing pals not talking to him anymore? Just because he makes statements like those yesterday where he pointed out the goals of the terrorists and al-quiada and the sectarian horror? Like when he pointed out the humane thing to do is to stop all this and stay the course?? Is that the kind of unity the Democrats are pitching for--like the kind of cold shoulder among long time friends they are giving to him? Divisiveness? Like Harry Reid's comments now being broadcast over Al Jazeera and parroted by Iran's Noble Leader? Or being parroted by various terror news outlets? Hmmm. I was going to post more on this, like Bluto has so far, but I was so mad I couldn't compose myself until I cool down. This is OBNOXIOUS.
The Dems may have done all the holding of hands and the predictable "kum-ba-ya" stuff just after 911, and indeed in the early hours of 911 many of these liberal pundits and columnists alike praised Bush for his leadership and stern calm in the face of such a horrific event. Wow. What a change of pace. So your question about his "leadership skills" apparently depend on timing and other goals the Dems have at the moment. But they know as well as anyone that you can't prosecute a war without full support in Congress. Any war. They politicized this whole conflict merely a few days after 911. The finger pointing and blame-gaming was ugly, and stretched from the keyboards of Mother Jones to the New York Times in the various bandwidths of liberalism. The quotes are REALLY nasty, all over the map of sanity and credulity and make connections to Bush and Kyoto being the cause of terror to buying oil and cars, and I might just post them someday to a blog. It is EXACTLY attitudes like yours that seem to be common statements to the effect that, as Bluto said, it absolutely would NOT matter if Bush won this outright by next Tuesday, he still "failed" since we had to go to war at all and "UN sanctions" didn't get to do their wonderful, historical magic. The UN has no teeth except those nations that can provide a set of choppers anyhow. That would be us.
There's your divisiveness. Also, Bluto reminded everyone in the forum here that no amount of power and practicality and know-how that America has is good enough if there is no will to get the job done and see things to completion. We don't need to leave exactly because we are being watched closely to see if the Great Satan can fail yet one more time. That's called "embolding" the terrorists and their supporters.
There's you damned MASSIVE COME-ONE, COME-ALL, "Recruiting Poster".
The Dems have created artificial arguments, artificial funding barriers and pork, artificial demarcation via the war on terror and Iraq, and now artificial surrender timetables the terrorists no doubt think is hilarious for letting the cat out of the bag. The Sons of Allah don't use timetables, roug. Additionally, you can't say that you support the "war on terror" on the one hand and not support the war on a madman with possible WMD (at the time so it was believed by UN and US investigators) seeking yet more WMD, is A-OK as long as he slaughters his own, just not US. Never minding the fact that Zarquawi and other operatives that took his place hid out in Iraq and train there today and murder there today, even IF Hussein had no such connection before, the ONLY consistent thing you MIGHT be able to claim is that Hussein was merely a threat to the regional nations in general, just not Americans in particular. But the main problem here is that historically those who torment their own eventually reach out to take their anxieties and lurid fantasies on other groups and nations. How strong is your stomach? I've seen Husseinian carnage. It is not something to behold until after you've eaten lunch.
Even ignoring all this, the divisiveness is unwarranted. After all, a mere "regional" danger from Hussein could trigger problems for regional allies like Israel, and he still had this thorny problem of paying off or funding various terror groups in missions in the entire MidEast.
But the war was about more than that, and in fact was less about WMD per se than his recalcitrance and refusal to abide by the UN rules that merely started to get enforced with more action. The was was really just an extension of the previous one here at THAT time the UN Mandate was followed to a T and it cost us our reputation and emboldened him even more. I love it when people claim that "letting him be" but just enforcing the inspections would have been the better path. How so? It has been pointed out that it TOOK the presence of American force and threats to simply have him open the borders for the first crop of inspectors. Later in the Duelfer report and from David Kay we learned that Hussein had plans to acquire more WMD later even IF he didn't currently have any.
As to Islam--I think it is plain that Islam sees the entire world as its oyster, and while what we "do" is important (like keeping Israel from going extinct and trying to prevent Palestinian teens from yet again blowing a bus up or beheading a Jewish child), the main issue is their worldview. It is imcompatible with modernity.
AS to your earlier remarks on Cleland--obviously military service of SOME type ended his arms and leg usage--but the point was that the Left has played the trump card to try and pitch a "war hero" to argue for surrender. They are getting good at that. Just listen to THE GOVERNMENT and "Tides Foundation" (RE: Soros) radio like NPR for more on this.
I give credit where due.
I'll shut the hell up now, as this is my blogpal Bluto's show, not mine.
(lol)
An Excellent post, Wakefield.There is, of course, a liberal reasoning for this war.Like all liberal wars, this could be made to be moral:was there genocide going on under Saddam?{2}was the Genocide likely to stop with Saddam or his sons in power?{3}is Democracy a better form of Government than what was in Iraq prior?{4}has the number of dying Iraqis under Saddam greater or less than now?{5}Have we given more the AVERAGE Iraqi citizen more access to his government{7}have we moved to protect previously at risk minorities?..
I'm more a Libertarian than conservative, so these would be my arguments about entering the war,
regardless of Hitchens brilliant commentary
RITA, that would be correct. And thanks.
Yes, in brief we all have a "vested" interest, regardless of personal faith (or lack of, as with Hitchens and some others whom I still read), liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and all the rest, in a society that even ALLOWS dissent, allows freedom of speech and other basic liberties, religion, or lack of, and has enough secular reasoning to protect all types. That would places like America and to a lesser degree (and changing over to PCness), Western Europe. I think Hitchens' angst is that he is disturbed by putatively "secular" types who adamantly REFUSE to believe REAL fundamentalists (and not Baptists) are threatening the West. He is understandable puzzled by all this.
As am I. Those standards you mentioned, the possibilities of things getting a hell of a lot worse, the chance for better, the chance for religious or sectarian violence to come to an end due to true peace and civil society rather than Husseinic FORCE, is only the asperations of TRUE peace. Unlike the "peace" freaks, whose definitions is simply leaving brutatlity to remain brutal so long as shots are not fired, this definition is POSITIVE.
Robert J. Ringer is one of my favorites, BTW--as is Ayn Rand (and no snickering from the peanut gallery from those looking on here...).
Both of them mentioned that the real difference in societies among the common Lefty complaint of "haves vs. have-nots" is that the problem is that economics cannot get off the ground with socialist "planning" or any central "planning", but notice that economics correlates to freedom.
The HAVES--have freedom as the base from which to prosper.
The HAVE NOT---well.....they have not--any iota of freedom.
And yet many economists don't get this to this day.....
Commenting by HaloScan
