| Don't mention the war part 3.
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 2:08 PM
|
I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it
Thank goodness for Christopher not getting distracted by silly little issues like the war in Lebanon. That is why he is such a pleasure to watch as he always cuts to the vital points we need to ponder to understand today's crazy world. So without further ado here is todays burning topic...is Mel Gibson an Anti-semite?
One could of course think that as Mr Gibson said "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the arresting officer, James Mee, “Are you a Jew?” that this is a pretty open and shut case, however perhaps Christopher was worried that these horrible remarks may be misinterpreted as, I don't know, "heavy handed sarcasm"? |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Dodging and weaving
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 4:24 PM
|
It's not often that you read something by Mr Hitchens and end up being unsure of what he is arguing,
this discussion with Hugh "On to Damascus" Hewitt is one of those times.
The first part is just the usual stuff about Hitchens' latest enemy Joe Wilson, same old same old.
Then it gets interesting.
On Iraq
"There are good people on my side of the argument, notably Peter Galbraith, whose new book, The End Of Iraq, I'd strongly recommend to you and your listeners, who think that as a country, as a state, if not a society, but as a country, it's probably beyond saving. I'm reluctant to concede that, but the case has been made that one should go with what appear to be the country people tendencies, and make the best of them one can, is a strong one...
On the growing carnage in Iraq.
"we intervened to forestall what would undoubtedly have been a much worse meltdown of Iraqi society, which would have gone successively through the states of the Fedayeen Saddam becoming the largest paramilitary force in the state, ruling by divide and rule, operating on that principle. The Uday/Qusay succession, the collapse of Iraq's economy and society and state, would be in a much worse way than it has now."
Out of interest can anyone imagine how Iraq could have been worse?
We have noted before Mr H's uncharacteristic relative silence about the war against Lebanon, perhaps this is due to the fact that he does not know what to say, judge for yourself with this exchange.
CH "Hezbollah has brought this on itself. And there are many signs, also Lebanese opinion is furious with them for what they've done in bringing this, I think, very clumsy and ill-considered Israeli vendetta on them.
HH: Vendetta? Or justified counter-attack, Christopher Hitchens? Nine Israeli soldiers died today, 27 hurt in South Lebanon. But that battle, I think, is the same battle that's going on in Sadr City, and is going on wherever Hezbollah opeatives around the world, and where that regime intends to go. Israel is fighting our war right now.
CH: Well, you can indeed say that it is an aspect of that, but it doesn't mean that Israel is entitled to do anything it likes, or that it has only one option out of a large many from which to choose.
HH: Do you want them to keep killing Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon, Christopher Hitchens?
CH: Well, I think they have no choice but to do that.....But they're also obliged to bear in mind that where the United States, whose weapons they're using, and the diplomatic support they're imploring, has its own interests, in particular, in the recent political emancipation of Lebanon. And that that continues, which has been I think gravely retarded, and also in the very awkward balance of forces within Iraq. The Israelis are acting as if that's none of their business, that all they care about is their northern frontier."
Clear as mud, but luckily Mr Hewitt asks the direct question.
"But do you agree...we've got 45 seconds. Do you agree that their [Israel's] fight is just and good for the war that we are currently engaged in?"
CH "I really don't think it's time enough to say that yet. I think they're invoking principles that are defensible, but I'm not sure that they're employing methods that illustrate, or reinforce those principles."
Followed by a quick change of subject.
So there it is folks, Christopher is not sure about Lebanon, not sure if it's ok to blow away UN peacekeepers and innocent civilians with gay abandon, hence his lack of comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Killing Civilians
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:28 PM
|
Good news, Christopher gives us an angry article on US atrocities against innocent civilians in war.
Bad news, it's the Vietnam War
Still it is a good piece, a bit self-indulgent but well worth a read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Personally, I only buy it for the articles
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:14 PM
|
Via Gawker comes This little Gem
" CHRISTOPHER Hitchens is following up "As American as Apple Pie," his much-discussed ode to oral sex in Vanity Fair, with an essay in Maxim denouncing the "stupid Puritanism" of modern society. "To be young in America now is to be constantly told to buckle up, wear a bike helmet, wear a condom, avoid risk, watch your intake, show your ID at all times and respect the world of political correctness and safe sex that curmudgeons like me have so considerably left to you," Hitchens writes in the upcoming piece, which begins with his outrage about being carded at an airport bar"
Looks like a trip to the newstand is in order! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dont mention the war part 2
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 2:57 PM
|
It's the issue everyone is talking about. The world nervously watches and wonders what the outcome will be of these dark days. However do not despair gentle reader, Mr Hitchens uses his weekly Slate column to give you information and opinions you need to get through this crisis.
So without further ado we gratefully present a link to the latest must read Hitchens piece, Did some Iraqi guy visit Niger in 1999 and perhaps discuss something iffy?
News you can use. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bombs of Freedom
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:45 PM
|
Remind you of anything?
Hitchens' curious silence over events in Lebanon continues (apart from the widely derided WSJ article discussed below)
However, whether by accident or design, this week has produced Christopher'sreview of Among the Dead Cities, The History and Moral Legacy of the World War II Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan by A.C. Grayling
It's a long article, in which, after much temporising, Christopher concludes that the mass murder of German civilians in WW2 was justified (and indeed should have happened earlier)
The area bombing tactics, used especially by the RAF in WW2, have long been a matter of controversy. Even leaving aside the moral dimensions many have argued that the vast resources put into this effort would have been better used elsewhere (in the battle for the Atlantic for example) and certainly it was never the war winning tactic that it's proponents such as "Bomber" Harris (whom even his own crews knew as Butcher) argued.
However it is the conclusion that catches the eye.
"Those who try to resist their own despotisms, and who appeal in vain to lazy democracies who are also among the potential victims, and who welcome the eventual arrival of the bombs and planes--I am thinking of some courageous Serbian and Iraqi democrats--should be called our allies now....His book is a treatise, not on the dubiety of the retributive, but on the urgency and integrity of the "preemptive."
I'm not sure if this was written before Israel's blitz on Lebanon, but it is revealing that, in Christopher's world, the only truly moral people in repressive regimes are those who call for their own cities to be wrecked and their own people to be killed and maimed.
Lebanese take note, get out there and welcome those friendly bombs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hitchamorphosis
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 5:56 PM
|
Dennis Perrin produces a fantastic post on Hitchens'latest on Israel/Lebanon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good, Good, Good, Good invasions.
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 4:36 PM
|
Thanks to our good friend Mike at The Mole we now have Mr H's considered thoughts on the Israel invasion of Lebanon.
It seems that Christopher is a little uncomfortable with his recent Neo-Con apostasy on Hugh "On to Damascus" Hewitt's Radio show last week (indeed he seems to have disapeared from the site and does not appear on this weeks show at all)
So has Christopher decided he has to get back onside with his team? looks like it.
"the difference between this month's events and the calamity of Ariel Sharon's 1982 invasion could not be more marked. The declared intention of "Operation Peace For Galilee" was, by smashing the PLO presence in southern Lebanon, also to repress demands for Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza."
So is Christopher really arguing that this invasion is designed to help Palestinian demands for Statehood? it seems so, as Israel's enemies are
"Forces that claim to be "liberation movements" [who] actually have their headquarters and leadership in the capital cities of two of the region's most reactionary despotisms. They also have connections to those fanatics who hope to sabotage the tenuous federal democracy that is fighting for its life in Iraq. That recent events have been returning Lebanon to the chaos from which it had been escaping is unimportant to them: They are allied with the regime that organized the murder of Lebanon's much-loved Rafik Hariri"
Deserve everything they get then.
Finally
"the nihilists and jihadists and death-squad sponsors appear to be able to call the tune, and in a weird way to determine Israel's actions.
Israelis might like to ask themselves if this is the outcome they really desire"
Nicely done you have to admit, no condemnation of Israel's actions, no plea for the bombing to stop, just advice from a chum that they should perhaps think about things a bit more even though, of course it is the "the nihilists and jihadists and death-squad sponsors" who are the only guilty ones.
I don't think though that this will work, as we know the warosphere demands complete obedience (see this post from The Poor Man on what happens if you step out of line during a war frenzy)
And thats the funny thing, Christopher's Wall St Journal article has been online for three days now, and I cannot find a single Right-Wing blog that is quoting it. It has disapeared down the memory hole.
So a word of advice Christopher, lose the nuance, get back on the bandwaggon soon with a good muslim-bashing, US cheerleading article as soon as possible. The left is never going to forgive you so you better make sure you have your right-wing fans back on board.
After all you don't want to end up with, to coin a phrase, no-one left to lie to.
Update
I forgot to mention this little paragraph, to prove the perfidious nature of Israel's enemies he references Robert Fisk.
"Robert Fisk, the veteran Beirut-based British correspondent, would probably be able to win a lawsuit for libel if anyone referred to him as an Israeli sympathizer. And his knowledge of the sectarian politics of Lebanon is very strong. According to him -- and to a statement from Hassan Nasrullah -- the recent "operations" were planned some months ago"
The fiends.
But weirdly enough this bit of planning does not get a mention. To summarise the plan.
1. Get Rid of Saddam
2. Smash the Palestinians
3. On Lebanon "Israel [should] seize the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
Paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
Striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
The leader of the planning team?
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute.
The date
1996
It seems the plan created by Christopher's neo-con "allies" is right on track, but of course their plan did not take into account that people would fight back.
To coin another phrase, Bring it on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Inevitable
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 4:20 PM
|
From Lateline last month
"To be very fatalistic about it, of course anyone who engages in warfare at any time knows that it will happen that some of their soldiers will behave atrociously. That would be true, would have been just as true if Iraq were stuffed with weapons of mass destruction sites and full of al-Qaeda training camps"
Which it was not as it happens, still not to worry.
"I don't think I've ever met anyone who expects a war to occur without atrocities on all sides."
Any chance that next time you shill for war you could possibly mention that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whatever you do, don't mention the war
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 4:42 PM
|
The Middle East burns, the Neo-Conservative project, for which Christopher has expended so much political capital on, lies in ruins.
So what do we get in this weeks Slate?
Another article about Joe Wilson
Nuff said, why not read this instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Credit where it is due
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 5:27 PM
|
| While usually we are rather cynical of Mr Hitchens, in This interview with Hugh Hewitt he does a grand job of dealing with the Israel Palestine issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Three Conditions
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 2:38 PM
|
What to Do in Iraq:by Christopher Hitchens
At HW we have often asked, what is your plan for Iraq Mr Hitchens?
Well we do not get a plan, instead we get three conditions to be met before America can withdraw from the bloody chaos it has created there.
"We cannot consider departing from Iraq until we have (a) repaired the damage done to its industry by war and sanctions (b) made sure that the trial of Saddam Hussein and his associates for war crimes and crimes against humanity is completed and (c) inflicted a battlefield defeat on the combined forces of the Ba'ath Party and Al-Quaeda"
So there we have it, not endless war forever, all America has to do is clean up the mess it has made, conduct a show trial and win the war it has conspiciously failed to win in three years and it is all over.
Unfortunatly what we do not get is any idea of how any of this is to be achieved, still you can't have everything I suppose.
Christopher opens his piece with this quote
""We have the wolf by the ears," wrote Thomas Jefferson "and can neither hold him nor safely let him go." He was writing about slavery, but one begins to know how he felt"
Thomas Jefferson was US president until 1809, the Emancipation Proclamation freed most, not all, slaves in 1863.
So don't worry Iraqis, if the timescale holds you should be able to wave bye bye to some, if not all, US troops in only 54 years!
Some however Do not appear happy to wait until 2060
What an ungrateful bunch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Standing up for Freedom
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 4:15 PM
|
What conservatives believe, honestly
On the day that unhinged right-wing crazies intend to to demonstrate against the New York Times for;
"supporting an anti-American pro terrorist organization. The Terrorist supporters at the New York Times are helping to kill our military and placing the American People in mortal danger by their traitorous help and support of the terrorist enemy."
One would expect a self-proclaimed believer in press freedom and the 1st ammendment to be right behind the papers right to publish details about Bush's illegal conduct. You would expect it, unfortunately you would be wrong
You see, according to Christopher, this is not as simple a matter as, for example, publishing cartoons to p*ss off Muslims. Then it is open and shut, publish and be dammed. However when a bunch of crazed neo-cons demand that no-one be told the truth about the war, Christopher suddenly goes all wobbly.
"In encounters with various conservatives this past week, I have come to realize that they are entirely serious about regarding the "MSM," in particular the New York Times under the editorship of Bill Keller, as not just objectively treasonable but subjectively so"
It seems that while viewing the NYT as "Objectivly Treasonable" is a reasonable view, Christopher is worried that people might go over the line and imagine that they know what they are doing.
"the conflict is so wrongly counterposed and can lead only to demagoguery on one side and hypocrisy on the other.
You see press freedom vs censorship is not a cut and dried issue, to argue it that way is a "false antitheses"
According to Mr H it was right to reveal that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, (after all that was a government sanctioned leak to discredit an opponent) there is also no problem with Judy Miller reprinting offical fantasies about WMD in Iraq, the real tragedy is not the tens of thousands of dead she helped create, no, what is tragic is "the deranged way in which liberals and anti-warriors have been accusing her of invading Iraq all on her own"
Poor Judy.
Yet despite this outrage about some nasty left-wing accusations, day we get nary a word about the Malkin and her gang of flying monkeys'comments such as
Hope rope, tar, and rails are put to good use.
Or
"SULZBERGER, KELLER,
RISEN AND LICHTBLAU --
ROUND THEM UP FOR TREASON!
SEND THEM ALL TO GITMO
Not deranged enough to mention you see, not like those evil "anti-warriors" and their nasty talk about St Judy of the WMD.
What is important, and this is a subject Christopher is increasingly obsessed about, is a bunch of Saddam era documents in a warehouse that might, perhaps somehow, you never know, just possibly, prove that all of the bluster about WMD in Iraq might have a shred of retrospective justification.
Why isn't the New York Times investigating that rather than messing around holding George Bush to account? that's what Christopher wants to know.
Christopher believes these papers are vital because they could "undermine the lazy consensus that Saddam, WMD, and al-Qaida are never to be mentioned in the same breath"
Personally I was unaware they could not be and, as a public service I'm happy to break that "lazy consensus" with a sentence that includes all of those words and more.
"Despite your desperate efforts to convince us otherwise Mr Hitchens it is clear that Saddam had no working WMDs or serious links to Al-Qaida"
Happy now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It's all over now baby blue
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:06 PM
|
Has even Mr Hitchens given up on Iraq?
It seems so given this book review in the Washington Times.
It turns out that "that Iraq was a bad idea as a state to begin with, and has been falling apart for a very long time. Given this, it is difficult to imagine any American statecraft that could (or even should) have held it together"
Fancy
It also seems that no matter what the errors made in the occupation "This false start, as we now know, was exploited by the Ba'athists and bin-Ladenists to create a ghastly opportunity of their own. I think that this fascistic sabotage would have happened in any case, with or without a Coalition intervention"
Well now we know
As for the Kurds "there is no chance that the Kurds will ever go back to being Iraqis, and the logic of this has catalyzed other demands for greater independence from the hellish capital in Baghdad."
Good news?
Well "A great deal would depend on how this divorce was arbitrated. If agreed between the principal parties, it could in theory occur as simply as the separation between the Czechs and Slovaks. But in other circumstances, partition could involve a hideous confessional war in the many mixed districts, and the intervention of Iran and Saudi Arabia on the side of the most intransigent forces"
Doesn't sound good, indeed "it could easily get worse. And it could raise the charge that the United States was trying to Balkanize and splinter Iraq in order to weaken the Arab world. It would also leave Iraq's many non-sectarians, currently terrified and voiceless, in the lurch"
Oh dear, but no-one is to blame because "This crisis was inherent in the nature of the Iraqi state, not just in the character of the intervention."
Well that's all right then.
Finally
" How one wishes that its author had been listened to in the first place"
That might have been good, unfortunatly the type of people who were listened to were saying things like
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling
It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(C Hitchens 1/28/03) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Simple Life
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 2:42 PM
|
Thanks to Christopher's latest piece of in-depth analysis I now realise that I have been overcomplicating things, Iraq is simple.
1) The USA are the "Good Guys".
2) Therefore their enemy are the bad guys
Could people please stop ruining Christopher's nights out in New York by questioning the above?
It's also interesting to note that the sub-editor at Slate seems to have a better grasp of politics than their star writer. The title he puts on the piece has more analysis of the reasons for the carnage in Iraq than the whole article that follows.
"Cause and Effect" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| They all hate us, we don't care
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 2:54 PM
|
Got a problem with this? well you are just an irrational America hater then.
It's sometimes not easy running this site, mainly becuase I have to read, and comment on, junk like this.
This July Fourth, ignore polls on America’s image
I'm not going to bore everyone by going into to much detail here. Christopher is, against polls that contradict his prejudices (i.e negative views of Bush and the war ) but polls that support his view become "very important" (ie some supposed survey that shows Iranians love the USA or something)
That's about there is to this. According to Mr H America should not care what the world thinks about it, indeed "for a Fourth of July message, I would suggest less masochism, more confidence on the American street, and less nervous reliance on paper majorities discovered by paper organizations"
Two quick points.
Firstly, if you are serious about stopping terrorism (as opposed to merely using the issue to invade oil rich states) you need international cooperation. Without it you have nothing. Secondly Christopher forgets to comment on why people have a negative view current US foreign policy. That perhaps would open up a can of worms he would prefer to keep sealed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributors |
|
|
Previous Posts |
|
Archives |
|
|
Contact Us |
|
Send tips or questions to hitchenswatch@gmail.com
|
Hitchens Said! |
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant
.”
|
|
