Christopher Hitchens
Jon Stewart does a pretty good job of calling Christopher Hitchens on his bullshit.
Click on the picture to play the video
Quicktime Video 6.4 MB 9'20
Quicktime Required (free download)
Related: The Liberal Avenger analyzes Hitchens arguments from his appearance on Ron Reagan Reagan's MSNBC show 'Connected Coast to Coast.' When responding to the question of terrorists in Iraq Hitchens used the same arguments that he used with Jon. Jon did a good job on the Abu Nidal reference, but it would have been nice if he'd nailed the Zarqawi reference as noted in the Avenger's post.
Note Hitchen's "answer" to the first question. He tosses in a kitchen-sink-full of examples of Islamic extremism that have little to do with our current predicament. He failed to note that prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi operated out of Northern Iraq, where Saddam had no control. As bad as Abu Nidal was (he died in 2002, before the invasion), He was hardly the reason we invaded Iraq. That occurred because of the "grave threat" posed by Saddam's large collection of chemical and biological weapons and his drive to get nuclear weapons.
Comments
jon stewart sure is one sharp fella. I'm continually impressed with how he conducts these interviews. I loved the "bug bunny trick". I've never I've seen someone snap back like that in that situation. ha.
In his appearance and voice, Christopher Hitchens reminds me of a tutor I had at Oxford. Unfortunately the resemblance ends there, since my tutor made sensible arguments rather than just hoping that his soporific accent would lull everyone into not answering back.
It's just amazing. Imagine we had no Daily Show at this point in time. A terrible thought...
I'm not so sure this was a fairly matched debate. Many people have said that Christopher Hitchens has a bit of an alcohol problem, and he certainly didn't seem to be firing on all six cylinders tonight. It's worthwhile comparing this performance to one he gave last year (I thinks it's in the OGM archives), where he seemed to be far more alert. It was a bit unnerving to see how easily he lost his train of thought, and rambled on when it was lost, over the course of the interview
What bothers me lately is that I don't know where Jon Stewart himself stands on all this. Does he want to pull the troops back early because disaster (i.e. civil war) is inevitable, or does he want to add more troops so it can be won cleanly. Pulling out early would clearly be damaging to the US, both in the short-term and in the longer-term as a new generation of terrorists rise out of the inevitable ashes. Iraq is in danger of becoming a second Israel, a piece of rhetorical ammunition that radical imams can use to demonstrate the "crimes" of the US against their supposed Muslim nation in order recruit people to their cause.
Just to clarify, I don't think disaster, in the form of civil war is inevitable, but I wanted to acknowledge that a number of people share that view. As I mentioned in a previous story, I think that with enough troops, time, and stomach for the casualties and deaths that would result, a stable middle-eastern democracy could be salvaged from this shambolically mis-managed war.
Unfortunately for Jon Stewart, he has crossed the line and become what is commonly referred to as a "tree-hugging, latte-sipping bleeding heart leftie". You can see that he is on the left and i think this really destroys much of his credibility.
I am not sure that Stewart is all that Scott said. My feeling about the piece is that he was being genuine when trying to find common ground. He reached out for Hitchens as another American that has no ready answer to what is going on (that is why I think he is not yet a "tree-hugging"). The sooner the Americans realize they are all in the same boat (and us, the rest of the world are being tugged along), the less harm they will do to themselves and all other people. If, instead, they keep up their flags on the "Right" and on the "Left" they will not focus on what is important. Stwart's gesture, if true, is an important one.
I always get the feeling that what Stewart favours is not so much a particular policy as the idea that the policy should be expressed clearly, honestly and without being patronising or evasive. He's not there to attack his guests, he's there to get them to explain themselves.
When people end up looking stupid, it's not because he's mocking their policies as much as their unwillingness to openly state them. Before the election he mocked John Kerry for overly evasive answers too, after all.
why does someone have to be a mindless telepromper reading zombie to be construed as credible? So he's got opinions and convincing arguments to back them up. It's meant to be entertaining first and foremost. the daily show should be omitted from being a serious "fair and balanced" news program. Yes, I think its better than anything on CNN or FOX, but it's still comedy first and foremost and almost all political news lately is republican/conservative centered anyway. They don't have anything else to work with.
""tree-hugging, latte-sipping bleeding heart leftie"
Shut the hell up with that latte-sipping nonsense already. It's a meaningless bullcrap term and only exposes your own ignorance, schmuck. Do you even know the meaning of the words you speak, idiot?
'Tree-hugging, latte-sipping bleeding heart leftie"
Yet another meaningless phrase indicating an poverty of the imagination on the part of the speaker. Great program. Refreshing to watch Stewart attempt more than the feeble and all too prevelant 'liberal/conservative' shouting match which passes for discourse on the rest of television.
This was a shoddier performance by Jon. He used empty phrasing as his thoughts provided no viable solution. A man would have a harder time stealing a cute kids lollipop on Halloween than lose a debate to this sot. What would Bush "owning up" to speculation do for this situation? Talking about what he is doing and why is not necessarily good for anything, and Jon's logic on this one is not very proactive. He was cheered because he made the other guy seemed dopey, which he is.
The only thing Bush can do is exit gracefully and make way for Hilary in 2008. By the way, there was some truth in Hitchen comments. We did have the right to dismantle Saddams regime but not for the lies Bush cited. He should have avoided the lie and said enough is enough and let a byproduct be Iraq being a gateway for globalization and corporate America in the mideast. Why else would politicians spend $300 billion on a war? We are goint to eventually get a return, or are we?
Despite a very stupid choice of words, Scott does raise a point. If John Stewart were running for office, or if he had a concrete political agenda, then his credebility would be relevant.
But, since this is a comedy show, he can be what he likes and it's up to us to watch him or not. I think he's great and I think he's very strong in these debates.
I found this discussion unsatisfying. Jon went for applause and Hitchens seemed distracted and maybe hungover. They seemed to argue 'across' each others' points. It may have been the 9-minute interview format too. Jon needs an hour-long show with more time for debate.
So what is an example of Hitchens' bullshit? I disagree with him on many points, but to be fair his arguments are well-formed and more often than not based on facts. The guy is obviously extremely bright. Okay, he has a hardline position on Iraq, but that's a valid point of view. Bill O'Reilly is a bullshitter because his blather is a mixture of lies and GOP platitudes.
You don't get any nearer the truth if you dismiss as bullshit every position you disagree with.
Ray's right. This guy wasn't as bad as many right wing nuts we've seen.
"It is wrong to say that the cause of terrorism is our resistance to it." This is a blatant straw man.
The US may not be "trying to redraw the map" or have set out to do so, but there is a distinct possibility that the map of Iraq may end up being redrawn as a consequence of this misadventure if the right of the Kurds to secede is written into the Iraqi constitution. This latter possibility has a much higher likelihood than Bin Laden's being able to redraw any maps in the Middle East. (Imagine if the the right of the South to secede had been written into the US constitution. No Civil War, much less of a net tax revenue redistribution from the blue states to the red states, but also a much longer time to achieve minority suffrage and civil rights in the Confederacy.)
"There wouldn't be all these terrorists in Iraq if we hadn't gone there." How is the mere advancement of this claim "capitulation"? Either the proposition is valid or it isn't. Blithely dismissing it as "capitulation" rather than offering an argument as to why it is invalid speaks to the poverty of Hitchens's position. Unless Hitchens has already capitulated and tacitly conceded the point.
Hitch seems to bring up that Achille Lauro hijacker Abu Abbas in every recent interview. "Iraq harboured him so Iraq supported international terrorism." Sure, killing disabled passenger was terrible but if you compare that to Idi Amin who lived happily until his natural death in Saudi Arabia that is little different.
Norm:
Would you be willing to put up video of the Bush Talking Points dance mix from this episode? I'd really love to see it again.
Thanks!
Jon had drawn some fire for coddling Collin Powell and Rick Santorum so I expect he might be putting a little extra effort into calling people on BS.
Of course, many who commented on the blog criticisms of his handling of Powell and Santorum pointed out that if we are expecting rigor from a comedy news show, it is a sad comment on the state of news reporting in general.
But I expect most folks already knew that.
Ray's right. This guy wasn't as bad as many right wing nuts we've seen.
Right, obvious reason? He's a Brit, and a well schooled one at that. The British are ultimately courteous about 97% of the time. The other 3% live on the East end.
Ray's right. This guy wasn't as bad as many right wing nuts we've seen.
Right, obvious reason? He's a Brit, and a well schooled one at that. The British are ultimately courteous about 97% of the time. The other 3% live on the East end.
The talking points dance. Look for it later this evening or tomorrow.
He does offer an argument. It's that Baghdad was a haven for terrorists when Saddam was in power, which is true. The distinction is that they were 'different' terrorists than are there now, with goals that were ostensibly more political than religious. It depends on whether or not you distinguish between different kinds of terrorists. If you don't, Iraq was indeed a haven for terrorists before the war.
anon, when it comes to right wing pundits and journalists, Stewart doesnt hold back. When it comes to party officials, politicians, etc, he doesnt go after them(well, ocassionally, like Henry Bonilla).
"This is a blatant straw man"
I honestly wish that even half of the people who freely use the term 'straw man' to try to sound smart would look the term up.
First, the statement was not a straw man, it was a refutation of a direct statement made against the US by left-wing extremists: that we somehow 'created terrorists' in Iraq when those terrorists already existed. Instead of attacking the US, which they couldn't reach, they attacked people in their own country. That was Hitchens point. It is documented fact that extremists and terrorists existed in Iraq prior to the US invasion, and that some of them operated with the knowledge and even encouragement of Saddam Hussein.
Not only is Hitchens' statement not a straw man, you didn't even bother to address it. Which rather clearly shows you don't understand the subject.
"The US may not be "trying to redraw the map" or have set out to do so, but there is a distinct possibility that the map of Iraq may end up being redrawn"
And this is an irrelevant point, since the argument was that it was not the intention of the US to 'redraw' any maps. This may happen, but also could happen if a decent-size earthquake or tsunami hits a region.
"How is the mere advancement of this claim "capitulation"?"
By 'capitulation' I believe Hitchens' means that this type of position is self-defeating. It is an extension of the general white guilt policy our society has inflicted upon itself, where every action we take is ruthlessly examined to find any possible negative spin or way to blame ourselves for the actions of others. Terrorists don't exhibit this well-fed, well-cared-for personality quirk. Which is why it is capitulation: it is paving the path for your own defeat.
"The other 3% live on the East end."
Very true. And nobody really tends to ask their opinion on world affairs for some reason.
That idea isn't just for left wing extremists. It's obvious there are many Iraqis committing acts of terror who were not terrorists before the war. Baathist soldier before the war, terrorist now. Also there are many foreign terrorists in Iraq now who were not there before the war. You could argue that Saddam created the situation, not the US, but the fact remains that the invasion for whatever reasons (lack of planning, poor security, not enough troops, etc.) caused a whole lot more terrorists to be in Iraq than before the war.
I must ask -- if the fast-growing China took over your nation and photos leaked of invaders sexually humiliating your fellow citizens, what would you do? Many American patriots would get them out by any means necessary, like we got rid of the English. And we'd shout that the invaders understand nothing but force.
Take the US War College's warning:
So when we say, "Terrorists don't exhibit this well-fed, well-cared-for personality quirk," that's precisely how terrorists justify themselves.
I'm pretty impressed. Jon Stewart really isn't any kind of political expert or Middle East historian or anything and he still manages to stay on his feet against a pretty darn smart guy in Hitchens. But then again he gets to argue from correct side on the Iraq question while Hitchens has one arm tied behind his back because he's on the wrong side.
Hitchens quote that a state cancels its sovereignty by, I think he said, "fooling around with a non-proliferation treaty" almost sounded like a joke. And yet it is true that Saddam had done several things (i.e. genocide in the 1980s) for which a conceivable overthrow could have been justified. Still it seems that it's kind of dirty pool to wink at genocide and then later to use that genocide 15 later to get offending countries to do what you want. At any rate I'll grant Hitchens that questions which argue from the Baathist state's rights of sovereignty have many dubious angles.
The more problematic part of the war for me all along has been a more utilitarian concern. Even if an action is justified this does not entail that it is good. Are the costs (and they are very, very great--about as great as an average decade under Saddam) worth the benefits to all concerned? At the beginning of the war it seemed that for us at least benefits might outweigh costs (while for others who actually live in the area the situation would be bad all around); now everyboy's in the red, so to speak. The only thing I've ever really heard Hitchens say to this is: 'there are really bad people out there to whom we cannot capitulate'. Point taken, but here he seems to be saying that capitulation means the necessity of fighting losing wars.
The talking points dance. Look for it later this evening or tomorrow.
Thanks, Norm. You da man.
"I must ask -- if the fast-growing China took over your nation and photos leaked of invaders sexually humiliating your fellow citizens, what would you do? Many American patriots would get them out by any means necessary, like we got rid of the English. And we'd shout that the invaders understand nothing but force."
Nonsense. This is another typical leftist bullshit argument, which is not even remotely based in fact.
The people of Iraq are not engaging in a 'popular rebellion' against 'oppressors'. There is a small number of people, mostly people who were already engaging in terrorist and/or genocidal activities BEFORE the US arrived and the rest of whom are largely foreigners, using the US presence in the region to try to spark a jihad for their own interests.
I suggest you ask the average Iraqi whose child was blown up or shot by one of these 'freedom fighting' insurgents you so admire how they feel about the insurgency. The fact of the matter is that insurgents have killed many times more innocent Iraqis than any western military action. Most Iraqis want to move ahead, get the US out (which will happen if Iraq shows it can police itself), and try to live in peace.
People like you who romanticize terror make me sick. You operate from a warped viewpoint: that everything the US does or is involved in is wrong, and everyone who opposes the US is right. Even when those opposers are brutal murderers who do not shy away from using children to build gun turrets, knowing US soldiers won't fire on children, to blowing up kids receiving candy from their own police force, to shooting up schools that teach little girls.
And the 'sexual humiliation' thing is a paper tiger. Certainly what happened is reprehensible, and should not be condoned. But to pretend that there is some vast conspiracy in the US to behave this way, or that this type of behavior is even common, is ridiculous and reveals your own self-hating viewpoint. Bad things happen even with the best of intentions. It does not void the good things.
Funny that I don't see your outrage and anger over all those people the terrorist beheaded on TV. Those 'freedom fighters'. So noble.
You're ignoring our own US War College. Download the paper and read it for yourself. I have little respect for people who get all their info from slick politicians like Bush and Kerry, while contemptuously ignoring our own military thinkers.
If anything insults my American values, it's anti-individualism and lining up behind some grinning politician. It's so ridiculous, Bush was head cheerleader at school. CNN reports: "Bush also played baseball, but mostly made his mark as a cheerleader for the teams." Here's pictures of Bush as head cheerleader: one, two.
Not to mention our cheerleader-in-chief pled guilty for DUI and smoked "doobies" like a Clinton.
As for your attempts to tar anyone who disagrees with you a terrorist-lover, even someone as far left as Chomsky argues that violent Iraqi insurgency is doomed to failure.
'leftist bullshit argument'? where do you find time to churn up ingenius phrases like this? perhaphs if you spend more time on analyzing the arguent in lieu of moking it with ad hominum bullshit, you would come to a saner, more moral conclusion then the one your reply suggests.
maybe after the mundane iraqi gets over the painful humiliation induced by his american peers, who concive him as an inferior joke, not subjugated to the very basic human rights,will he be in a position to retalieate to this inhumane invasion. maybe the mundane iraqi is too busy trying to protect his wife and kids against the inevitable gloom that is the state of the civil war iraq. dont count on iraqi passiveness. its only a matter of time before the mudane iraqi get engulfed in this labyrinth of so called terror.
on a counter suggestion you might want to ask the 'average' iraqi how he feels about the american smart bombs which ripped his limbs off, killed his family members, destroyed his house, shambled his business.
dont make lame assumption to propel your uninformed argument. no one is suggesting the US operates, in totality, under the shroud of some evil cloud. there are numerous goods that have come out of US, over the course of its existance. Since this is not a course on US history, lets not elaborate on that. But certainly invading a soverign country, destroying its infrastructure and killing in excess of a 100000 people is evil.
how convinient.
APOLOGIES FOR THE INEFFICIENT FORMATTING OF THE PREVIOUS POST. HERE IS A BETTER FORMAT
"Nonsense. This is another typical leftist bullshit argument, which is not even remotely based in fact."
'leftist bullshit argument'? where do you find time to churn up ingenius phrases like this? perhaphs if you spend more time on analyzing the arguent in lieu of moking it with ad hominum bullshit, you would come to a saner, more moral conclusion then the one your reply suggests.
"The people of Iraq are not engaging in a 'popular rebellion' against 'oppressors'. There is a small number of people, mostly people who were already engaging in terrorist and/or genocidal activities BEFORE the US arrived and the rest of whom are largely foreigners, using the US presence in the region to try to spark a jihad for their own interests."
maybe after the mundane iraqi gets over the painful humiliation induced by his american peers, who concive him as an inferior joke, not subjugated to the very basic human rights,will he be in a position to retalieate to this inhumane invasion. maybe the mundane iraqi is too busy trying to protect his wife and kids against the inevitable gloom that is the state of the civil war iraq. dont count on iraqi passiveness. its only a matter of time before the mudane iraqi get engulfed in this labyrinth of so called terror.
"I suggest you ask the average Iraqi whose child was blown up or shot by one of these 'freedom fighting' insurgents you so admire how they feel about the insurgency. The fact of the matter is that insurgents have killed many times more innocent Iraqis than any western military action. Most Iraqis want to move ahead, get the US out (which will happen if Iraq shows it can police itself), and try to live in peace."
on a counter suggestion you might want to ask the 'average' iraqi how he feels about the american smart bombs which ripped his limbs off, killed his family members, destroyed his house, shambled his business.
"People like you who romanticize terror make me sick. You operate from a warped viewpoint: that everything the US does or is involved in is wrong, and everyone who opposes the US is right. Even when those opposers are brutal murderers who do not shy away from using children to build gun turrets, knowing US soldiers won't fire on children, to blowing up kids receiving candy from their own police force, to shooting up schools that teach little girls."
dont make lame assumption to propel your uninformed argument. no one is suggesting the US operates, in totality, under the shroud of some evil cloud. there are numerous goods that have come out of US, over the course of its existance. Since this is not a course on US history, lets not elaborate on that. But certainly invading a soverign country, destroying its infrastructure and killing in excess of a 100000 people is evil.
"And the 'sexual humiliation' thing is a paper tiger."
how convinient.
"The people of Iraq are not engaging in a 'popular rebellion' against 'oppressors'. There is a small number of people, mostly people who were already engaging in terrorist and/or genocidal activities BEFORE the US arrived and the rest of whom are largely foreigners, using the US presence in the region to try to spark a jihad for their own interests."
This statement has neither any basis in reality nor knowledge of Arab family network. First and foremost, it is estimated that only about 6% of the "insurgents" are from outside of Iraq. Check out: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php. The Iraqis do not need "outsiders" to fight for them. (And who exactly are the Americans calling "outsiders"?) Second, when an Arab (myself) talks about his family, he does not mean four people. He means literally hundreds, everyone of which is very connected. Now, if we can expect about 1000 people to show up at my wedding, how many do you think are going to show up at my funeral? How many family members do you think would be enraged about my innocent brother, sister, wife, child, uncle, father, etc. who was just killed by this "liberating" army? How many family members do you think would want retribution for the midnight kidnapping of my uncle, my father, my brother, myself? Multiply that by every single innocent death and injustice in Iraq and you might understand what I am talking about.
He forgot to mention Israel as one of but the biggest threats with regard to nuclear weapons and proliferation (and the U.S.).
Television sucks. You can't have a real conversation squeezed into 5 minutes. Read books.
Amen to that, Reality.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq Stewart would be complaining that we were running around in Afganistan while Iraq was developing WMDs.
I could imagine that the dialogue would involve just where that anthrax in the letters came from. There would be a lot of talk about how foolish President Bush was to be on an obsessive hunt for bin Laden when the UN couldn't account for the missing WMDs in Iraq.
Anon,
You're wrong; John has stated numerous times he supported invading Afghanistan.. Like most Americans, both left and right, he wanted the person mainly responsible for 9/11.. Bush was the one who had other plans.
I can't recall who John was interviewing, but he stated something like how 'things were going great; we invaded Afghanistan, got rid of the Taliban leadership, had the world behind us, then we took a sharp left turn for Iraq'.. (obviously paraphrased)
Try watching his show; you might learn a bit more on how to criticise him.
Skipping the rest, since you didn't reply - you just aped:
'But certainly invading a soverign country, destroying its infrastructure and killing in excess of a 100000 people is evil.'
Sorry, hippie. You're going to have to document that number. And if you even try to use 'Iraq Body Count' as your source, be aware that their number gathering methods were completely discredited by a Newsweek study.
'how convinient.'
Yet another glib reply to a valid point. How typical.
'This statement has neither any basis in reality nor knowledge of Arab family network.'
Please. I suggest you do some actual fact-checking and see how much of Iraq is actually backing the new government that is being constructed (the majority) and how many are out blowing up innocent children in the name of 'rebellion' (the vast minority, and outright murderers whose activities you for some reason condone and cheerlead).
By Hitchens own arguements, we (the rest of the world) has every right to invade the US. Good to see he is pushing the old warmongers lies. Hitchens was once seen as a great writer, but now is consider pretty much a joke.
I find it interesting that, in the midst of all the Hitchens-bashing, nobody tried to address the very valid point he made regarding the validity of attacking Iraq.
Hitchens stated, correctly, that there are 4 reasons - by UN guidelines - that a state can have its sovereignty taken away:
Iraq broke ALL FOUR of these. Which is why the UN passed a resolution to condemn Iraq, why many resolutions were passed warning Iraq that if they did not comply with weapons inspectors (who, contrary to what they say now, at the time clearly believed Iraq did have WMD and was planning to use them) that the UN would use force to disarm Saddam.
The fact of the matter is that the UN did not act for one major reason: greed. Too many UN member nations were taking slush funds from Iraq, selling them illegal weapons, etc.
These facts are why I cannot get on board with you 'America sucks' leftists. You absolutely refuse to look at the facts of the situation and instead latch on to any propaganda which you can use to discredit or debase the actions of the United States.
The one area which you can attack with validity is the fact that Bush lied to the country regarding the reason for taking us to war with Iraq. Which means you should be kicking up a fuss to get Bush impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, not screaming pointlessly about 'bring home the troops NOW' or that crap. The deed is done. Continuing to scream for such a pointless action is like screaming for someone to bring your dead kid back to life. Punish the man who committed the crime, but don't leave a mess behind for your own selfish, naive world view.
By the way, if you are really so pissed about a country meddling in another country's affairs you should really look into how much you support a concept like the UN. That's its entire purpose.
Interesting, people seemed to have thought my description of Stewart was a genuine criticism, despite the fact that its a nonsensical term and was it quotes. I think that exposes YOUR ignorance, Dave G.
I think, getting back to Christopher Hitchens, i like the guy. Simply because on that Colin Quinn show (i think Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn) he was talking about the Bali bombings and how much of a mistake it was to get the Australians offside. Coming from Australia, i like he respects us.
Just a point that i heard somewhere. Anyone comparing Vietnam to Iraq is missing one vital point. America failed in Vietnam and it didnt have much consequences in the US. If they fail in Iraq, the consequences will be far greater.
This is a total fabrication. Hans Blix clearly stated we should not jump to conclusions regarding the chemcial and biolgoical weapons.
But even more clear was the voice of Eleraidi, who unequivoclly stated that Iraq had no nuclear program.
As far as the UN believing that Iraq had intent of using the WMDs (which humorously it didn't have), I defy you to offer one shred of evidence. This is an absolute fabrication.
Further, the UN said Iraq should disarm. It never gave persmission for the US to invade it. And guess what--by invading, the US was a greater violator of international law than Saddam.
As far as the 4 points that Hitchnes made, they are pretty ludicrous. Will anyone every call him on his BS?
The US has been more of an agressor than Iraq. Think Vietnam, Central America, and Kosovo. By the way, the US helped Saddam in his dirty war against Iran.
Iraq was on guilty of proliferation. It had no WMD program. The US is curretnly violating the non-proliferation treaty.
Harboring gangsters and terrorists. What a crock of bull! There is no proof that Saddam ever harbored any Al Quaida memebers. The proof that he harbored Zarquawi is sketchy at best. As far as the Palestinian terrorist, did you know that Israel had completely forgiven him and he was free to roam in teh occupied territories? So we went to war with a former terrorists (he renounced what happened on that ship) when Israel itself couldn't have cared less about him?
On the other hand, the US does harbor several terrorists who commited violence against Cubain civilians.
The deaths in Central America happened about the same time that Saddam was gassing Kurds.
So in conclusion, if Hitchens thinks that Iraq should lose it sovereinty, then the US should also lose its sovereignity. I haven't heard Hitchnes advocating for the overthrow of the US.
That was a rubbish interview, more glib entertainment than in-depth debate. If you want to know what Hitchens thinks, read his latest article where he makes many good points.
Pandering for applause from a stacked audience is hardly enlightening.
You can find it here :
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp
That was a rubbish interview, more glib entertainment than in-depth debate. If you want to know what Hitchens thinks, read his latest article where he makes many good points.
You can find it here
Pandering for applause from a stacked audience is hardly enlightening.
Aah, passionate debates on the war in Iraq. I love them. I found the interview interesting, albeit very short, because it differed from the usual friendly banter (which I also enjoy of course from a comedy show). I was disappointed that Hitchens did not answer Stewart's question as to why attacking Iraq was such a sudden priority where there were so many other dangerous states. Surely Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea constituted (and still now) far greater threats to the US than Saddam was. Pakistan and North Korea both have WMDs and everybody agrees with that. I still haven't found any rational justification for going to pummel Iraq first.
Terrorists are everywhere and arguably their biggest dens are not to be found in Iraq. They move around the globe and inspire/brainwash young disillusioned Muslims into hating everything which is not bound by true Islamic law and committing suicide attacks against the infidels.
"...Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state? How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?"
You guys do realize that Hitch is at heart a stone leftist, right? His support for the Iraq war has alienated him from his former comrades, but it stems not from any particular love for Bush and the American Right or any knee-jerk conservatism -- anything but -- but from his own experiences in Kurdistan, and his take on Islamic fanaticism as the self-professed mortal enemy of the West in the 21st C. I suspect he considers Bush & Co 'useful idiots' who happen to be fighting the 'right' fight for the wrong reasons.