Is there any proof that Hitchens is a drunk, or is that just a knee-jerk smear?
When the welfare of the poor and oppressed clash with his neo-conservative goals, which way do you think he’s going to be leaning publicly? He doesn’t seem overly concerned with the civilian casualties in Iraq.
By the way, while I make the claim that he’s no longer a leftist, I’m not convinced he ever was one, nor that he’s a true neo-con today. I think he either just likes being a dissident in general, or he’ll follow the money, wherever it can be found, or both. If neo-cons became all the rage tomorrow, and there was money to be had in going against them, I’m pretty sure Hitchens would have another change of heart.
I’m going to back up John on this one, although he could quite fairly be called a “ball washer” for Wolfowitz. He admitted to leaning mildly towards Bush at one point, but he reserves most of his admiration for Wolfowitz and company, whom he seems to absolutely adore.
I don’t know, but CH was one of the first to come out and absolutely destroy Michael Moore’s F911. I enjoyed it immensely, as well as other articles he’s written for Slate. I’d find it hard to depict him as a lefty.
I believe that Hitchens himself has made reference to his drinking on numerous occasions, and that his alcoholism is well-known among both his friends and enemies.
Personally, i don’t care whether or not he’s an alcoholic. That is, to my mind, completely separate from his politics. He’s certainly no man of the left, and has, in fact, explicitly denied being a leftist on numerous occasions over the past few years. I agree with him on some issues (Pinochet; religion; Kissinger) and not on others (most specifically, the war in Iraq). Over the past few years, i think, he has become increasingly small-minded and vituperative, often to the point of appearing completely illogical or incoherent. A shame from someone who is obviously so intelligent.
Bwahahahaha. You’re kidding, right?
That was one of the most dishonest and tendentious movie reviews that i’ve seen in a long time. While he made a few valid points, most of that interview contained more spurious reasoning and illogical argument than any grab-bag of Michael Moore films.
That should, of course, read “review.”
True, as a general rule. Rush Limbaugh’s message is still just as true and just as false as it was before he got hooked on painkillers.
Do you mean this one? http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ If so, I would agree.
Here’s a live blog account of the debate. And here’s a rundown of other sites and their takes on the match.
Was Jesus a leftist?
At my most cynical, I’d say the main objective is to sell books. They’re both peddling books at the moment.
Just a heads up - if you want to see the debate, it is airing on C-Span2 this weekend: Saturday at 9pm, Sunday at 12noon, Monday at 5:30am (check local listings).
Hitchens mopped the floor??? Perceptions are funny. I haven’t listened to it myself, but I read the live blog at anti-war.com by Justin Raimondo , and his comments didn’t imply Hitchens coming off well at all (and Raimondo is no leftist).
I’ll reserve judgement until I see the C-Span tape.
Did we read the same article? From the wiki:
He admits in the same article:
He is a Stalinist. This is a man who shrieks in rage at the liberation of Iraq, but when Saddam was gassing Kurds, destroying the Marsh Arab culture, and purging thousands of Shiites, he was ready with offhand excuses.
So what else is wrong with him?
Well, for one thing he’s a thug. His normal mode of debate is the ad-hominem attack.
Second, he’s not anti-war - he’s pro-war, ON THE OTHER SIDE. He admitted it in the debate. He recently gave a speech in Syria praising the ‘145 glorious operations’ that the insurgents have committed recently. He actively incites war, just on the side of murderers and fascists. One of those operations he praised killed Casey Sheehan. Then he had the nerve to play on the emotions of Casey’s mother to round up support for the U.S. withdrawing and letting Sheehan’s killers win. Disgusting.
Third, he has been a totalitarian all his adult life. Try to get your head around the motives of a man who opposed the U.S. attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, while supporting the Soviet invasion of that same country. He was a friend of Saddam’s, he’s a friend of Syria’s thugocracy, he supported Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and supported Syrian occupation of Lebanon. He opposed Clinton’s actions in the Balkans.
There is no consistent anti-war position here. The only consistent thread you can find in this man’s positions is that he habitually opposes democratic movements and freedom, and supports fascists, communists, or merely kleptocratic dictators.
He is an evil man.
The whole paragraph was: “Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem.” It was clearly meant as high compliment. Along with other fawning, sycophantic statements like this: “Your Excellency, … I thought the president would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam.”
And he backed his praise with his actions - he supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, opposed the war to oust him, opposed the sanctions against Iraq, supported (or at least excused) the gassing of the Kurds and the slaughter of the Shiites, and opposed the second Gulf war. And he actively supports those who would destroy Israel. How can you possibly put a man like that on your side if you’re a true believer in peace and justice? I always thought the left was all about supporting the weak, the defenseless, the powerless, against the strong and powerful. Galloway has never done that. He’s sided with dictators and thugs and shrugged off genocide when it suited him.
Sometimes knowing how to choose your friends is just as important as knowing who your enemies are. Galloway is a great discredit to the anti-war side, simply because they embrace him so strongly.
As for the accusations against him in the Oil-For-Food scandal - I have very little doubt that the man is guilty. Too much evidence has come to light to ignore. Yes, he won his libel suit against the Telegraph, but he won on a technicality. The Iraq Survey group also found documents implicating Galloway, as has the Iraqi government. But he would be an evil man even if he never touched a dollar of oil for food money.
I would hesitate to describe a drunken neo-conservative versus a press-happy, old-school commie as anything resembling a “Great Debate.”
Next up: Archie Bunker and Meathead debate the Iraq War. I bet it will be great!
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle . . .”
Get it through your head once and for all: “welfare of the poor and oppressed” doesn’t clash with “neo-conservative goals” and never will. Neo-cons are progressive (and agressive) internationalist liberals who found the chance to advance their goals working in Bush administration. Those goals remain internationalist and liberal. I understand you might reject their methods as overly agressive, but you can’t accuse them of dishonesty and profiteering.
Majority of Iraqi people were suffering terribly under Saddam. All honest people wished Iraqis to be free. CH was one of the most vocal.
Blaming Hitchens and Bush for present terror in Iraq is like blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow and KKK.
Who the hell is George Galloway and why are his opinions worth my time?
Hitchens at least has said some interesting things in the past. George Who?
George Galloway is a British Member of Parliament, and one of the founders of the Stop The War coalition, which is one of the more powerful groups in the ‘peace movement’. He’s no minor figure - he made headlines just a few weeks ago for appearing before a Congressional investigation into oil for food corruption. Rather than answer any questions of the Congress, he turned around and lashed out at them and called them names, to the great merriment of the anti-war crowd, including many on this board.
Put a half liter of vodka in me and I’d say some interesting things too.
And thus, everyone who thinks Bush’s Folly was a stupid idea, or who thinks that the execution of Bush’s Folly has been bungled in the extreme, is a corrupt, name-calling commie.
At which point, Sam Stone points out that he has never suggested such equivalence.
At which point, I point out that he apparently thinks Drunken Neo-Con vs. Press-Happy Commie is, by itself, worthy of Great Debates.
I think Meat Loaf would be better.
Sam wasn’t talking about everyone who opposes the war. He was talking about one particular person. And if what he’s saying is true, that person is indeed pretty despicable.
And this seems like a reasonable forum to post this in. The mods haven’t objected.