# Hitchens' Opponents on Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073 "2013-02-22T13:45:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/21 "2013-02-23T00:06:33Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No, in 2003 given the public domain intelligence of the time it was far from clear that Iraq had nothing to do with it. the debate was still ongoing. Remember that it was so uncertain, USA and UK were able to build a case for war on the back of it that did indeed have widespread credibility. I’m sorry but that is simply and plainly false. Even the Bush administration deliberately avoided stating that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and based their case for war on the alleged possession on WMDs. There was no evidence at all Iraq was involved in 9/11 and no informed person believed they were. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/22 "2013-02-23T01:21:32Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > As for the link to terrorism. Iraq was a sponsor on a regular basis, again this isn’t in doubt. Not the worst offender and not the major western threat (probably Iran) but believing that they could be linked to 9-11? not idiotic at all. Wrong…not idiotic. Iran wasn’t even a serious Western threat before the “Axis of Evil” speech (which they saw as incredibly offensive and irresponsible, and which may partly be why they’re so stubborn about their nuke program now). Al Qaeda was a bunch of Egyptians and Arabians, with Arabian money. If you’re going to blame a state, blame the states that armed the Afghan mujahadeen back in the 1980’s. _Oh, wait, that was us and our allies._ ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/23 "2013-02-23T01:27:53Z")
As for Iraqi WMD’s, they were\* confirmed destroyed \*before the USA went in. We just had really determined propaganda outfits pooh-poohing that. I know, I was taken in. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/24 "2013-02-23T10:08:11Z")
I have never thought that invading Iraq was a good idea, or that the invasion was justified. I opposed the idea vociferously when US public opinion was in favor of it. At that point in time, my opinion was dismissed out of hand. But even when I was being dismissed as an out-of-touch wet blanket, I understood that there were solid arguments to support military intervention in Iraq. Those reasons were never expressed more clearly than in the rhetoric put forth by Chistopher Hitchens. Even when the man was wrong, he wasn’t wrong by much. It pained me to see him dismissed as an apologist for the Neocons, and as a proponent of right-wing imperialism, simply because he made a strong case that the powers-that-were should act to reign in a blatant despot. Saddam was a continuously active threat to his own people, all of his neighbors, and to the larger balance of world peace. He was a festering, malignant, threatening piece of shit. Hitchens did nor care whether Weapons of Mass Destruction were ever present in Iraq, he just thought that the regime should be ended by means of military force. I only disagree with Hitchens in that I thought the regime could have, and should have, been ended by means that did not involve use of military force. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/25 "2013-02-23T12:02:14Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I’m sorry but that is simply and plainly false. Even the Bush administration deliberately avoided stating that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and based their case for war on the alleged possession on WMDs. There was no evidence at all Iraq was involved in 9/11 and no informed person believed they were. You’re about half right. No informed person believed that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda, but the Bush administration did everything it could to encourage uninformed people, including the majority of Americans, to believe that it was. Cheney flogged the bogus Atta meeting in Prague long after it was discredited; they used torture to wring a false confession out of some poor bastard that Iraq had an al Qaeda training camp at Salman Pak; Bush’s speeches always seemed to manage to mention 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence; and the October 2002 so-called authorization for war contained a condition that within 48 hours of invading, Bush had to certify several things to Congress in writing, including that " acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [He did so.](http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html) ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/26 "2013-02-23T12:14:16Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > As for Iraqi WMD’s, they were\* confirmed destroyed \*before the USA went in. No, they weren’t. Blix and his inspectors had been in Iraq for four months, which was not quite long enough to confirm that every last WMD had been destroyed. However, it was long enough to confirm that our intelligence had been wrong — that there were no WMDs at the facilities that the CIA had identified as factories or stockpiles, and that in many cases the sites were so clearly unsuitable or long abandoned, that it was obvious that they could not have had WMDs for several years. And it was long enough for Blix to [report](http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm) that Iraq was now cooperating with the inspectors not just actively, but proactively, that the remaining unanswered questions (mostly about missing documentation for destroyed weapons) could be cleared up in a few more months, and that as long as the inspectors were there, Iraq was not an international threat. In other words, there is no doubt that Bush was lying, and knew he was lying, when he signed the [letter](http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html) to Congress saying nothing short of war could protect the US from Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/27 "2013-02-23T12:52:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I’m sorry but that is simply and plainly false. Even the Bush administration deliberately avoided stating that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and based their case for war on the alleged possession on WMDs. There was no evidence at all Iraq was involved in 9/11 and no informed person believed they were. There was a period of some years in which the words “Saddam” and “9/11” were continually included in the same sentence by Bush. The intention was plain then, as it is now. You just have to listen to the construction of speech after speeches to see the intent - it seriously contributed to, if memory serves - 69% on the US population believing Saddam was involved in 9/11. Plus there was this small matter: > [@](#): > > Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] > **[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations)** > > The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were based on false claims by the United States government alleging that a secretive relationship existed between Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the Sunni pan-Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda between 1992 and 2003. U.S. president George W. Bush used it as a main reason for invading Iraq in 2003. > The conspiracy theory dates after the Gulf War in 1991, when Iraqi Intelligence Service officers met al-Qaeda members in 1992. After the Septem... ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/28 "2013-02-23T12:58:46Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > No, they weren’t. Blix and his inspectors had been in Iraq for four months, which was not quite long enough to confirm that every last WMD had been destroyed. You are missing UNSCOM - in situ and inspecting/searching for SEVEN years: > [@](#): > > Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter later accused some UNSCOM personnel of spying,[30] and also alleged that the purpose of the spying was to target Saddam in the bombing. Butler, on the other hand, denied allegations that foreign intelligence agencies “piggybacked” UNSCOM and questioned the factual accuracy of several of Ritter’s statements.[31] > > On 31 August 1998, Ritter said: “Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.” > > **Almost a year later, in June 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer saying: "When you ask the question, ‘Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?’ the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is ‘no’ across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.** [32] > **[United Nations Special Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission)** > > United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was an inspection regime created by the United Nations to ensure Iraq's compliance with policies concerning Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War. Between 1991 and 1997 its director was Rolf Ekéus; from 1997 to 1999 its director was Richard Butler. > United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was an inspection regime created with the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 in April 1991 to oversee Ir... ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/29 "2013-02-23T14:18:04Z")
> [@BrokenBriton](#): > > You are missing UNSCOM - in situ and inspecting/searching for SEVEN years: But IIRC they were not allowed access to the Presidential compounds during the 90’s, so the search was not exhaustive. That aside, Ritter was entitled to his opinion, but he was not authorized to speak for UNSCOM, so until you find an official statement from them, his statement is no more (and no less) than his expert opinion. In any case, he made the statement in 1999, some six months after the inspectors had left Iraq (and contrary to even the recent MSNBC anti-war documentary, Saddam did not kick them out in December 1998. The UN pulled them out, after Clinton warned the UN that he was about to start bombing.) Even if Ritter was correct in 1999, nearly four years without inspections was more than enough time to render his assessment obsolete by late 2002. But that’s not really the point, because you set the bar too high. There was no need to confirm that all WMDs had been destroyed; there was only the need to prove that the CIA’s estimates had been wrong, and that Chalabi’s paid defectors had been lying, and that Iraq was no threat to the US. And Blix did prove that before Bush invaded. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/30 "2013-02-23T14:42:44Z")
My point was you omitted UNSCOM. In relation to your response, how long do you think it takes to acquire the infrastructure to create WMD - assuming the USA isn’t supplying the raw materials this time? Yiou seem to believe you’ll be up and running in, what 30-40 months? The Winter friggin Olympics takes the better part of a decade … I’d encourage you to discard your own prejudices and read that final para again - the words of a 7-year, on the ground expert on Iraqi capability. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/31 "2013-02-23T16:58:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No, in 2003 given the public domain intelligence of the time it was far from clear that Iraq had nothing to do with it. the debate was still ongoing. Remember that it was so uncertain, USA and UK were able to build a case for war on the back of it that did indeed have widespread credibility. On what planet? There was no evidence of any Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and no ongoing debate about it because there was nothing to debate. Bush and company sure liked to say 9/11 and Iraq a lot in the same sentence, but not even they said Iraq was linked to 9/11. There was no uncertainty. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Iraq certainly did have (and used) biological weapons and did have a nuclear weapons program. None of that is in doubt. Thinking that they might have them and use them again around the time of 9-11 is not idiotic. It may have been wrong, it may have been used as a scare story to take us in to war but it only worked as a scare story because it was credible. Aside from it being chemical rather than biological weapons that Iraq had used in the past, more to the point Iraq had a perfect opportunity to use them against the US and coalition troops back in **1991** while at war with the US and said coalition before their programs and stockpiles were destroyed and chose not to. The idea that Iraq could attack the US soil with chemical weapons in 2003 (or 1991 for that matter) was idiotic to the extreme and had absolutely no credibility to it. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/32 "2013-02-23T18:43:07Z")
> [@BrokenBriton](#): > > My point was you omitted UNSCOM. There was nothing to omit. You have yet to produce an official cite from UNSCOM. Ritter was representing only himself when he made the statement you quoted. I grant his expertise, but not his infallibility. And if by chance you do find an official statement from UNSCOM saying there are no WMDs in Iraq, it will still be based on information that was over four years out of date when Bush invaded. > [@](#): > > In relation to your response, how long do you think it takes to acquire the infrastructure to create WMD - assuming the USA isn’t supplying the raw materials this time? If you already have active chemical factories producing things like bleach or battery acid, as most industrialized countries do, then I would guess it would take only a few months to convert them to something producing chemical weapons. If you mean starting from scratch, I can tell you that in 1943, the site of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in SE Washington was little more than sand and sagebrush, plus a few small farming towns with a combined population of about 1500. By 1945, it had produced the plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. And that was when it had never been done before. > [@](#): > > I’d encourage you to discard your own prejudices and read that final para again - the words of a 7-year, on the ground expert on Iraqi capability. If I am prejudiced on this subject, it’s in the direction of wanting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice to burn in hell for misleading the US into a horrible war, but I’m not so prejudiced that I can ignore obvious facts. I’ve already conceded that Ritter may have been right when he made that statement in 1999, but if you truly think that his assessment has no expiration date, then I suggest that it is you who are being blinded by prejudice. Two weeks before Bush invaded, Hans Blix filed a [report to the UN Security Council](http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm), saying that great progress had been made — more than enough to prove that the CIA worst-case scenarios had been wrong — but that he would need a few more months to fully account for all the previously known WMDs. Blix certainly had access to all the data that UNSCOM had gathered prior to 1999, plus all the data that his UNMOVIC team had accumulated in its four months of intensive inspections from Nov 2002 to March 2003. Are you seriously maintaining that Scott Ritter, speaking in 1999, had more information on Iraq’s 2003 capability than Hans Blix did? Or are you saying that Blix was incompetent, or Bush’s tool? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/33 "2013-02-23T20:31:10Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The idea that Iraq could attack the US soil with chemical weapons in 2003 (or 1991 for that matter) was idiotic to the extreme and had absolutely no credibility to it. I don’t think anybody here has made that claim. Certainly not me. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/34 "2013-02-23T22:56:29Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > As for the link to terrorism. Iraq was a sponsor on a regular basis, again this isn’t in doubt. Not the worst offender and not the major western threat (probably Iran) but believing that they could be linked to 9-11? not idiotic at all. Wrong…not idiotic. Really? By that point, Arab Nationalists / Pan-Arabists / Baathist etc. and the various Islamist groups had been mortal enemies for more that fifty years. Anybody familiar with the assassination of Anwar Sadat should have dismissed the the Iraq-9/11 link out of hand. To do otherwise was, if not idiotic, then so profoundly ignorant as to be indistinguishable from the same. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/35 "2013-02-24T00:26:31Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Which of Hitchens beliefs regarding Iraq and terrorism do you think were idiotic? Probably all of them. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Iraq certainly did have (and used) biological weapons and did have a nuclear weapons program. None of that is in doubt. Thinking that they might have them and use them again around the time of 9-11 is not idiotic. It may have been wrong, it may have been used as a scare story to take us in to war but it only worked as a scare story because it was credible. As noted, Iraq used chemical, (not biological) weapons, first against Iran and later against dissident Iraqis, but UNSCOM had demonstrated that they had dismantled those programs before 2001. (Appeals to presidential palaces are silly. Whatever they might have been able to store in those locations, (not much), there was ample evidence that there was no production going on, there.) The U.S. proved that we knew that there were no chemical factories when our army bypassed every “suspected” site during the invasion, not even bothering to secure them for future examination. We already knew nothing was there. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > As for the link to terrorism. Iraq was a sponsor on a regular basis, again this isn’t in doubt. Not the worst offender and not the major western threat (probably Iran) but believing that they could be linked to 9-11? not idiotic at all. Wrong…not idiotic. Nope. Pretty much idiotic. Claims for “sponsor[ship] on a regular basis” are utterly absurd. From the State Department’s Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism (This was from the actual State Department web site that was still up in 2004, long after we had made hash of our invasion. It was later removed when it proved to be too embarrassing to the Bush administration: [url=[http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm)]) > [@](#): > > Iraq provided bases to several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). In 2001, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) raised its profile in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by carrying out successful terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. In recognition of the PFLP’s growing role, an Iraqi Vice President met with former PFLP Secretary General Habbash in Baghdad in January 2001 and expressed continued Iraqi support for the intifadah. Also, in mid-September, a senior delegation from the PFLP met with an Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister. Baghdad also continued to host other Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Arab Liberation Front, and the 15 May Organization. Now let’s examine this list of “support.” The MEK was/is a group that was directed at destabilizing Iran. They were mostly inactive, but what activity they performed was limited to anti-Iran operations. They were such terrible terrorists, that the U.S. signed them up as allies as soon as we had secured Iraq. The PKK is one of several groups engaged in long-term power struggles over who will fight Iraq and Turkey to establish a new Kurdish state; they are not active in “international terrorism.” (In fact, U.S. agencies have reported that they foreswore violence, resorting to “diplomatic” channels in 2000, although I would not be surprised that they have been caught up in the current violence). It seems unlikely that they were being supported by Hussein, who would be as threatened by the Kurdish independence movement as Turkey is. The support of the PLF is not given a date, but then State go on to insinuate a direct connection by discussing activities of the slightly different PLFP. Meanwhile, the most recent attack directly connected to the PLF seems to have occurred in the 1980s. There is no established connection between the PLPF and the pre-invasion Iraq. The insinuation by State is clearly one intended to mislead by innuendo. Including the Abu Nidal Organization is a bad joke. Prior to 2001, Iraq appears to have allowed Abu Nidal, himself, to retire to Iraq–eleven years after his last terrorist activity, which was, itself, an attack on a PLO officer in a bit of internecine warfare. al Zarqawi had some surgery or other medical attention and left the country without any connection with the Ba’ath regime. Beyond that, we have only the sporadic donation of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. However, Hussein never announced that he would reward the families of all such bombers, (and, in fact, he gave out only a few such donations–much as a few of our Saudi “allies” have done). With his hit-or-miss approach to donations and the fact that he always made the award after the fact, it was clearly a PR move on his part to garner favor with the Arab community that basically hatred and feared him and there is no evidence that his donations actually influenced the decision of any suicide bomber. So the “support” for terrorism amounts to allowing a couple of people to retire from terrorism, completely, or get medical attention, a failure to attack some groups that were operating within his own borders, and some lip service with no material aid in support of a few Palestinian groups for the purposes of bolstering his own image without actually extending any assistance. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > My own view is that Iraq was going to bite us (again) at some point in the future. I’m angry that we were lied to on the justification for war, and despairing at the incompetency of the execution but I’m also glad that I never got to find out what a desperate and dying Saddam Hussain (or his psychopathic sons) had in store for us. It was never going to end prettily and it may be better all round that it at least ended quickly. Doesn’t make the war _right_ but none of us know how the alternate scenarios played out. Hussein was clearly in retrenchment at that time, had disassembled his own chemical program, had never provided serious support for any actual terrorists, had let the army deteriorate to the point where several of his generals were willing to surrender their entire divisions when we invaded, and was basically looking to keep his head down and avoid being attacked. There was never a legitimate reason to invade. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And finally, do you think that a person holding idiotic beliefs on any subject deserves not to be taken seriously on any subject at all? > It is a rhetorical question because anyone who knows anything about Christopher Hitchens must knows that he speaks with wisdom on many issues. If you discount all his output just because he was wrong on one subject then you are missing out and I wish you good luck in finding someone with infallible judgement. I cannot think of any topic on which Hitchens spoke with knowledge or authority, but I suppose if he had recommended a good restaurant I’d have considered it. Even when he came close to making a point, he generally overstated the matter to the point that he usually seemed to be a caricature of himself. Yeah. I would dismiss him. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/36 "2013-02-24T01:00:10Z")
> [@black\_rabbit](#): > > Really? By that point, Arab Nationalists / Pan-Arabists / Baathist etc. and the various Islamist groups had been mortal enemies for more that fifty years. Anybody familiar with the assassination of Anwar Sadat should have dismissed the the Iraq-9/11 link out of hand. To do otherwise was, if not idiotic, then so profoundly ignorant as to be indistinguishable from the same. Ignorance is always distinguishable from idiocy, Worrying you think otherwise. The general public mostly neither knew nor cared about the intricacies of middle-east politics. Again, what isn’t in doubt is that Iraq sponsored and supported terrorism, that is enough for many people to swallow any implied links to western attacks. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to label those people as idiots though. However, I don’t think Hitchens himself (pretty savvy on that front) was ever convinced of a specific 9-11 link though. I stand to be corrected though. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/37 "2013-02-24T01:15:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I cannot think of any topic on which Hitchens spoke with knowledge or authority, but I suppose if he had recommended a good restaurant I’d have considered it. Even when he came close to making a point, he generally overstated the matter to the point that he usually seemed to be a caricature of himself. > > Yeah. I would dismiss him. Nothing at all? not literature? not any historical subject? Even his worst enemies wouldn’t make that claim. Sounds to me like no matter what he says you’d find fault. Hardly makes for reasoned debate. Well I guess then the important thing is that you’ve found a subject matter that allows you to feel superior to him, good for you. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/38 "2013-02-24T01:26:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 1. Some undetermined number of Iraqis died, almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands For the record, statistician and self-described “atrocitologist” Matthew White, author of [The Great Big Book of Horrible Things](http://www.bookofhorriblethings.com/), is mof the stated opinion that the Iraq war casualties probably have been overestimated. He puts the total at around 150,000 (civilians included). Not that that makes it any less horrible. But it’s important to try and be accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/39 "2013-02-24T01:41:01Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Again, what isn’t in doubt is that Iraq sponsored and supported terrorism, that is enough for many people to swallow any implied links to western attacks. Except it was known at the time that he had forbidden support for any attack against Western interests, including executing someone who suggested it. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073/40 "2013-02-24T03:07:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Beyond that, we have only the sporadic donation of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Money they desperately needed to live, thanks to the charming Israeli custom of bulldozing the homes of (already dead) suicide bombers, sometimes throwing three or four generations of a family into instant destitution. I agree with you that it was a PR stunt rather than evidence of his generosity, but Bush and his minions portrayed it as a recruiting aid for suicide bombers, which was ludicrous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hitchens-opponents-on-iraq/651073.md?page=3)