I recall a CBC Sunday Edition interview with Michael Enright in which Enright opined that in the wake of 9/11, American paranoia had become so deep and irrational that he had relatives in Montana who feared terrorist attacks.
Hitchens countered that he should ask the people of Beslan about that.
Answering the question How Did I Get Iraq Wrong? Christopher Hitchens is a rare bird – a lefty with historical memory;
We were never, if we are honest with ourselves, “lied into war.” We became steadily more aware that the option was continued collusion with Saddam Hussein or a decision to have done with him. The president’s speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, laying out the considered case that it was time to face the Iraqi tyrant, too, with this choice, was easily the best speech of his two-term tenure and by far the most misunderstood.
Read it all.
I’ve never seen so many tangent points regarding the Iraq war in one article. I still think Hitchens is a swarmy arrogant leftist, but I’ll never question his intellect. That was a better read than anything written by Michael Yon, in my opinion.
Great post.
Hitchens, a lefty who supported the initial invasion. Michael Coren, who’s on the right, and someone whom I admire, opposed the initial invasion. That paradox is what makes political debate so interesting and illustrates that this is a complex issue with a lots of nuance.
smarmy arrogant leftist. swarmy implies like bugs ‘n stuff
Great article. Hitch is bang on. He started out strong on Iraq before the start of war, then went as Maggie Thatcher might say a little wobbly in 05 and 06 when things were going badly. Nice to see that the success of the surge has re-energized him.
Somehow I dont see Hich as a leftist. More like a classical liberal, of which there are not too many around these days. They all appear to be flirting with socialist whores.
Why not just hoist the friggin’ Hammer and Sickle Kate?
You do realize that Hitchens is an actual communist? Not former communist, but current unabashed communist, with recent communist books on the
communist best seller lists?
Commie. Outright communist. As if the drunken statist whore Hitchens has anything worthwhile to tell me, a conservative.
Ever watch Hitchens debate? Pathetic. He got sssssssmoked by George Galloway, very very badly, you can watch it on Youtube.
Fifty year olds. Praising a friggin’ communist, in 2008, and they expect people to believe they aren’t commies themselves.
Ah, Hitchens.
Watching him debate Dinesh D’Souza, I wanted to throw a shoe not at the TV but at him. He was smarmy, arrogant, misinformed, a bully, and, I suspect, drunk–or, at the very least, really hung over.
But, on the War in Iraq, he’s clearer than most on the altnerative to U.S. intervention: “What would post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?” Precisely. My own question would be, what threat would Iraq pose with Saddam Hussein still in place?
Christopher Hitchens seems to live in a world-on-the-edge-all-the-time, which may be why he has the courage–or maybe it’s just the clarity that comes from sodden despair–to defy all of the other lefty pundits, who’d rather close their eyes and pretend that you can have peace, peace, where there is no peace.
Don’t get me started on Michael Enright…For someone who can’t stand the United States, he sure looks like an American in his photo on the CBC Web site: striped shirt, BOW TIE: What’s whith THAT?
Hitchens was a communist, a trotskyite to be exact….wouldnt say he is that anymore although he maintains Trotsky’s internationalism and distatste for dictatorships.
He isnt a conservative. He isnt even a neo con. He is quite happily and unabashadly now an American….a liberal is probably the best way to put it and a natural contrarian and gadfly.
His best point is what would Iraq have looked like in a post Saddam world even without the invasion…
He acknowledges, like I think many need to, that the invasion went well and did its job but that the occupation and rebuilding went badly off the rails until the last year or so. Sadly the defence department drank its own bathwater and believed they would be welcomed by candy and flowers…..anyway, they are on the right track now to being able to leave with honour and an Iraq that may finally be much much better than the one they invaded.
Hitchens is a little defensive of the Wars of Choice point…as he likely should be. But then again I am in the school that says American Military Power whould generally only be deployed where it suits American interests and not where there is a need…doing that would put America in way too many places. Same with Canada, which is why I didnt think we needed to be in Iraq…that didnt mean pissing on the enterprise from the sidelines.
Anyway, Hitchens is always worth reading whether you agree or disagree with him.
As for him being arrogant…he is an English intellectual, being arrogant is part of the job.
As for Galloway…..Gorgeous George barely held his own. And never answered the ultimately true charges that he was part of Saddam’s corrupt Oil For Food scam….Hitchens was right, George was wrong. George had the Scottish bluster going, but I really dont think Galloway won that debate, I would have given Hitchens a win on points only.
Fdsa…
Hitchens isn’t a communist. He was a marxist, but no longer. Must be nice to have the ability to label someone so that they can be dismissed.
Stephen: “Same with Canada, which is why I didnt think we needed to be in Iraq…that didnt mean pissing on the enterprise from the sidelines.”
Well, it was inevitable, given Chretien’s “leadership” at the time, that Canada would not go to war in Iraq, alongside our American allies in the WOT.
The Desmarais’ Power Corporation had too many oil/gas interests in Iraq (Total Fina Elf)–and Chretien’s daughter, France, is married to Paul Desmarais Jr. Canada at war in Iraq would have jeopardized the Desmarais/Chretien family fortunes.
So much for Canada not joining the U.S., as Chretien put it, “on principle.” The only principle operating for Chretien was big bucks in his family’s bank accounts.
My impression of Hitchens is that his primary goal in life is to be right. His secondary goal is to annoy as many people as possible.
On the Iraq war thing, He’s 100% right. Not a huge intellectual feat in my opinion. Its obvious like a three day old flounder to the head swung by Mickey Mantle. (Yep, I’m frickin’ old.) I figured Iraq out all by myself without any help from Mr. Hitchens, and I’m just an over educated gear head.
I suppose he could have toed the liberal Party Line along with the rest of them, but he has SO much more scope to be annoying by supporting Bush in Iraq, and its SO obvious, I expect he couldn’t help himself.
However I would no doubt shudder to hear his opinions on property rights or self defense.
AS the old saying goes “Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day! ”
Hitchens is about as broken as they come.
An ex-trotskyist turned neocon isn’t a rare bird, typical would be a better description.