1. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64142 by N. Fidel on August 18, 2007 at 3:08 am

The last line of the article (Blessed are the cheese-makers) is from Life of Brian. Even Hitch must have smirked when he typed that quaint, but witty allusion . . .

2. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64083 by N. Fidel on August 17, 2007 at 3:08 pm

The "offensive" button should be removed altogether. I would qualify that statement, but I'm certain I don't have to here.

Jared

3. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64081 by N. Fidel on August 17, 2007 at 2:54 pm

RE: Comment #64076 by steve99

Point taken, Steve; I'm afraid I resorted to the generality in my attempt for concision. You are correct, however, that many "liberals" - myself included - were in favor of regime change from the start. My point was that the liberals who do oppose the war, typically not only criticize the Bush administration's handling of the engagement, but also deny that the war was just at all. Sorry to have lumped you and others into the barrel with our comrades who will allow their justified comtempt for the Bush administration to becloud their judgement on the broader issue of justice.

Further, I beg the pardon of those tired of this topic muddling an unrelated thread. But it seems that Hitchens cannot escape the issue. It was my very first post on this forum, and I was tired of seeing (and hearing) the question: "Hitch is right about religion, but what's with his supporting the invasion of Iraq?" This comes up during just about every interview and television appearance, so I thought I'd throw in a couple of reddish portraits of Licoln for my ingress into this community of open debate and freethought.

4. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64062 by N. Fidel on August 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Anyone who has read Hitchens' book and essays on the Iraq war will - or should - recognize that Hitchens' opinions are based on his utter hatred of tyrannical dictatorships. Did the corrupt Bush administration create a fiasco that defies the possibility of terse description? Certainly. But, Hitchens never - nor should he be required to - clears his throat about his sharing opinions with neo-conservatives.

The principle of this war and the war itself are anything but conservative: they are boundlessly radical. And Hitchens is and has always been radical. (And so was the Left . . . once). Most people on the left, however, have the nonplussing inability to separate their hatred of Bushies from the ethical principle of liberating a people to whom we have broken so many promises, direct or implied. Today's liberals seem to say, "Well Bush wants to do this, so I'm against it," no matter what the issue is. So, when Hitchens sides with these political nincompoops on Iraq it is because few of his erstwhile comrades are capable of making a temporary alliance with those they might disagree with on other issues.

I can only recommend that if you have read "A Long Short War" once, read it again, and do your very best to rebut Hitchens' findings without resorting to the same old platitudes about how this was a war for oil, or a grand conspiracy to gain control of the middle east and its resources. You'll find it challenging, to say the least.

The point is, even if the war were all of these things, even if the war has been bungled beyond belief and despair, the PRINCIPLE of regime change and liberation in Iraq was just and necessary in Hitchens' view. Try getting a liberal to admit even that much.

Best,
Jared