Shit. I meant to downvote this pompous blowhard.

>> ^critttter:
Shit. I meant to downvote this pompous blowhard.


But that's all part of his charm. I'm only annoyed when somebody is pompous and can't back it up. Hitchens dominates the whole debate not just by being pompous but by throwing the evidence of his first hand personal experience in Reagan's face. All Reagan manages is to stutter on about how that isn't like what he read in a report.

Evidence? Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, what does that say about Iraq? Rumour is, by the way, that Saddam Husssein killed Abu Nidal: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/22/iraq.israel.

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world.


That is, no matter how you cut it, Hitchens destroying Reagan's entire argument with first hand evidence of Iraqi government support for the most wanted man in the world.

Yes, Hitchens clearly won the debate, that's why exterminators now burn down buildings as soon as someone says they saw a cockroach.

A good article addressing Hitchen's claims around this time. Much of which has been recycled in this 'debate.'

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/05/hitchens/index.html

Hitchen's lost his charm a long time ago.

>> ^SpeveO:
A good article addressing Hitchen's claims around this time. Much of which has been recycled in this 'debate.'
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/05/hitchens/index.html
Hitchen's lost his charm a long time ago.


A 'good' article? Having read through it I didn't see anything that Hitchens' hadn't already addressed. Example:

Hitchens next lists as an achievement of the Iraq war the "capitulation" of Moammar Gadhafi's Libya over its weapons of mass destruction programs. But Hitchens offers no proof whatsoever that Libya's overture had anything at all to do with the Iraq war. Rather, it is quite clear that Libya is a case where the European and U.S. economic sanctions placed on the country to punish it for its terrorist activities actually worked as designed. (European sanctions had already been lifted, in return for a change in Libyan behavior, in 1999. U.S. sanctions had not.)


And this is the character of the entire article. As Hitchens has since pointed out, the Iraq war was not the only influence, but it is rather important to note that Gadhafi did not go to the UN, nor to Europe, but to the British and the Americans. If the Iraq war was not an influence, why are it's biggest supporters the ones that Libya went to and has handed it's weapons to?

More on topic though, in this clip Hitchens and Reagan are talking about terrorist ties in Iraq and Reagan embarasses himself.

And this is the character of the entire article. As Hitchens has since pointed out, the Iraq war was not the only influence, but it is rather important to note that Gadhafi did not go to the UN, nor to Europe, but to the British and the Americans. If the Iraq war was not an influence, why are it's biggest supporters the ones that Libya went to and has handed it's weapons to?


I don't necessarily agree with Cole either, because if I just saw the world's super powers shred and spit on International law, it would compel me to make my peace offerings with them pretty quickly too.

The point still holds, it was an inane justification to even ponder invoking in defense of something as farcical as this 'war' regardless of the minutia.

After Hitchen's little waterboarding stunt I'm intrigued to see what he tackles next . . maybe he'll let himself be invaded and occupied by the U.S Military, using their 'Shocker and Awe' doctrine, and maybe then he will revise his views yet again.

Anyway, I'm going way off topic.

Bcglorf, why don't you admit it: Reagan, I agree, sucks, but Juan Cole rules, at least with regard to all things Arab/Middle-East.

Re Libya, not only Cole realises that European sanctions against Libya had, in great part, already been lifted in 1999 (in return for owning up for Lockerbie), so to whom should Gadhafi have turned, if not to the US (who had stuck to their embargo)? Not to mention the fact that Libya had given up supporting terrorism long before that date.

If you really think Hitchens is that cool, try to find anything that supports his 10 points of "positive accounting" in the article Cole responds to:

overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism and exposure of highly suggestive links [I don’t know about those suggestive links, but the Taliban seem to be alive & kicking], a capitulation offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. [capitulating to Kofi Annan or the EU, that would be a novelty...], agreement by the United Nations that reform is necessary and overdue [war was waged on Iraq to make the UN realise it needed reform?], showing that Chirac and Schröder were cheating [is anybody willing to explain this to the Iraqis?], the ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat [Hans Blix a psychopath?], the encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon [videosifters in any of those countries, please respond], the violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators [I guess, just arresting, or even killing them, wasn’t enough], training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen/women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism [videosifters in the military, what do you think?]. Actually, I can agree (a little bit) with his # 7: the immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=2)

>> ^SpeveO:
Anyway, I'm going way off topic.


I agree, nuff said, I'm going back to having a life...

Pompous blowhard to the rescue! I want that super-hero name.

Moving this video to bcglorf's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

If you really think Hitchens is that cool, try to find anything that supports his 10 points of "positive accounting" in the article Cole responds to:
...
Actually, I can agree (a little bit) with his # 7: the immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.


"a little bit"
Go look at Saddam's Al-Anfal Campaign and see what he did to the Kurds.

Dropping mustar,sarin and VX gas on villages like Halabja wasn't the worst that he did. He just used that to push back the Peshmerga so his troops could round up more Kurds. Every Kurd his army could find was sent to be sorted, males age 15-50 where separated from the rest. The women, children and elderly were sent to concentration camps. There they were regularly beaten and raped, and many died of starvation and neglect, mother's lost virtually every child under age 3 to starvation and disease, while being raped and beaten. Life in the camps also sometimes ended in being executed or gassed. For the men, they only stayed in the camps a few short days before, without a single known exception, they were bussed to pre-dug mass graves to be executed and buried by bulldozer.

If you can only agree "a little bit" with the gains of the Kurdish people as justification for Saddam's removal I'm thinking you've set the bar for intervention too high.

edit:
and thanks for all the down votes, I'll stick to posts that only show the pro-war side in a bad light in the future. If he was owning Palin or McCain instead...

Seems that cold heartless logic brought us the Iraq invasion.

Fucking Vulcans.

What a bunch of shit.

Hitchens is blowing off his fucking gin.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, none of them attacked us on 9/11.

To claim they are a threat because a few CIA moles managed to get some press time in London and New York does not impress me.

The USA is STILL doing business with "Al Qaeda."

The Iraq war is a war of opportunity for the profiteers.

Little more.

He's looking and acting increasingly worse to wear -
alcohol?

Hitchens is blowing off his fucking gin.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, none of them attacked us on 9/11.
...
The USA is STILL doing business with "Al Qaeda."

The Iraq war is a war of opportunity for the profiteers.


Amazing, in the same post you say Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the USA is still doing business with "Al Qaeda". Your burden of proof seems to vary rather wildly to fit your pre-determined point of view.

For the record, Hitchens was probably one of the most prominent opponents of the first Gulf War. After though, he spent time with the Kurds and came back demanding the immediate removal of Saddam ever since. People seem really keen to reject the war declaring how no WMD's where found and that his arsenal was over estimated. They also seem to content to ignore the estimated 1.3 million dead bodies found in mass graves, the extent of Saddam's genocides seem to have been underestimated as well.

As far as I'm concerned, and I've seen Hitchens say pretty much the same, is the hell with American intentions. Argue until your blue in the face about Cheney and Rumsfeld and their agendas, you need to stop and look at the argument that the Kurds have been making for over a decade. Unilateral American action(irregardless of intention) is the only thing that has ever stayed Saddam's hand in the most brutal campaign of extermination one can imagine.

>> ^bcglorf:

Amazing, in the same post you say Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the USA is still doing business with "Al Qaeda". Your burden of proof seems to vary rather wildly to fit your pre-determined point of view.

It's not my "pre-determined" view.

My burden of proof is Sy Herch's article in the New Yorker, pardon me for not seeking the text, I should, but I'm not gonna bother.

America is still doing business with Al Qaeda. They just don't call them Al Qaeda when it suits their needs.

Furthermore it is not contradictory to point out that the Bush Administration is still doing business with "Al Qaeda" and that the countries of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran were not remotely responsible for 9/11.

"The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda, " Baer told me. "These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers--in this case, it's Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we're once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen eighties." Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni Fundamentalists.

The New Yorker, July 7 & 14 2008
Seymour M. Hersh, "Annals of National Security", page 65.

Iraq was invaded because of oil. Even if that oil represents a larger national security issue. The other stuff are just excuses. Afghanistan was invaded because 9/11. End of story. The media have you running around in circles.

A lot of what's been said hardly requires comment. I think it is quite sufficient to note everyone opposing the war has still ignored or swept away the Kurdish people. Not only has the campaign of genocide against them been stopped, the now Peshmerga fight alongside the Americans in Iraq. For anyone not ignorant of the horrors Saddam inflicted on them, that should settle the matter. Anyone wanting to consider themselves a humanitarian can hardly consider ending the Kurdish holocaust less important than all the other anti-war arguments being thrown about.

To think that America went to Iraq, or stays in Iraq, for the benefit of the Kurds is truly naive, I'm very sorry to say.

To say that the USA invaded Iraq for oil is like saying the US Civil War was fought over slavery: true to a point, but it's much more complicated than that.

The Kurds will, in all liklihood, get screwed again. Once America bankrupts itself and can no longer afford to support its Iraqi outposts, Turkey will swoop down and the Shiites will swoop up and the Kurds will be right back where they were before, a people without a country.

To think that America went to Iraq, or stays in Iraq, for the benefit of the Kurds is truly naive, I'm very sorry to say.


And that's exactly why I never said that. I said to claim America's removal of Saddam has not benefited the Kurds is to deny or ignore the holocaust they suffered.

I said who cares why America went in, the fact that the Kurds are no longer being mass murdered and held in concentration camps make the change a good one!

This is old but having re-read it I think this must be said.

SPEVEO said:
maybe he'll let himself be invaded and occupied by the U.S Military, using their 'Shocker and Awe' doctrine, and maybe then he will revise his views yet again.


Actually, Hitchens already did exactly that. You may remember before the first gulf war when Hitchens was as prominent as he is now, only then he was opposing the war. He then backed up what he said by going to live with the Kurdish people in northern Iraq for a time, much like he recently allowed himself to be waterboarded. It was the act of going to Iraq and living with the Kurds that changed his mind and he came back STILL condemning Bush Sr. for the war, but this time for not going far enough and removing Saddam outright.