Quoting DoctorMoney: It never ceases to amaze me that I do, in fact, agree (by and large) with Alterman but find myself rooting for Hitchens.

Am I shallow? Is it the accent? Drawn to a fellow atheist and libertine?

Great vlog. Thanks to both.

Same problem here. There aren't many people capable of dominating Alterman in a conversation, but obviously the analogous list for Hitchens would be even shorter. Even when I strongly disagree with Hitchens, I love to listen to him make his arguments. (Sorry Eric, in any other context I would make the complementary claim.)

It was just a matter of time until Hitchens got on here. I have been waiting. Awesome.

BHTV is hooking up the big guns before their inevitable demise. (I'm being a jerk but what exactly is the business model?--I hope it thrives since it is my favorite website, but I don't see any Google ads.) Edit: OH SNAP!! I saw Google Ads

Read it and Weep. Hitchens Supports Greek Racism Against Its Ethnic Macedonian Minority And so does Obama! Today - "Clashes between Greek Army and Macedonians in Greece" Chris, can you email your article in the European in "Not Just Paranoid about Macedonia" April 1-7,1993. It is a monument to stupidity and I want a copy for my files!

What a great match-up! Thanks to both. Pugnacity rules! I'd love to see them do this often, especially if they'd get past the old arguments and on to current events. Debating is great, but conversing would be even better. You betcha.

Superb debate. I'm actually a big fan of both of these men. Hitchens makes the best argument for the war in Iraq that can be made. I still agree with Alterman that on balance it was not worth it. Hitchen's hypothetical scenario is, well, hypothetical. Although I started out sympathetic to the idea of liberating Iraq from the tyrant Saddam, by 2005 and 2006 it was looking like Vietnam. I mostly lost my appetite for interventionism, and concluded that the Swiss had the right idea about foreign policy. I think it's pretty clear that Vietnam, at least, was a terrible war. And when we left, surprise, life eventually went back to normal, and the Vietnamese actually intervened in Cambodia to stop Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Also, the communists started fighting each other (China vs. Vietnam). There was no "domino effect." The point being that sometimes these things take care of themselves eventually without our intervention. 50,000 men, mostly conscripts, died in a pointless war for a terrible regime.

Quoting AemJeff: Even when I strongly disagree with Hitchens, I love to listen to him make his arguments.

Although he may be well spoken enough to make up for some long-windedness, the problem I have occurs when I listen to what he says. A few examples: When Mr. Alterman said that he began supporting a Clinton administration he had previously been critical of at the time of impeachment because he saw it as preferrable to political enemies who would be worse, Mr. Hitchens exclaimed that was (almost) always the wrong thing to do. Just earlier, when questioned about his support for Bush's 2004 re-election in the face of knowledge of this administration's manifold shortcomings, Mr. Hitchens simply said he didn't like Kerry/Edwards. Apparantly the exception to chosing who to support based on their political opposition comes when Hitchens does it. In the re-hash of the Iraq war argument, Mr. Hitchens posits a long list of hypothetical horrors that would have occurred had we not invaded. Without belaboring each in turn, he certainly presented a very speculative worst case set of scenarios. When Mr. Alterman then listed a number of observable direct results of the war, saying they would not have

I've made my Christmas vacation plans! http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/151...6:00&out=36:23

Quoting cragger: Although he may be well spoken enough to make up for some long-windedness, the problem I have occurs when I listen to what he says. A few examples:

When Mr. Alterman said that he began supporting a Clinton administration he had previously been critical of at the time of impeachment because he saw it as preferrable to political enemies who would be worse, Mr. Hitchens exclaimed that was (almost) always the wrong thing to do. Just earlier, when questioned about his support for Bush's 2004 re-election in the face of knowledge of this administration's manifold shortcomings, Mr. Hitchens simply said he didn't like Kerry/Edwards. Apparantly the exception to chosing who to support based on their political opposition comes when Hitchens does it.

In the re-hash of the Iraq war argument, Mr. Hitchens posits a long list of hypothetical horrors that would have occurred had we not invaded. Without belaboring each in turn, he certainly presented a very speculative worst case set of scenarios. When Mr. Alterman then listed a number of observable direct results of the war, saying they would not have occurred absent the invasion and must be considered in a utilitarian cost-benefit

... and except the fact that Vietnam still has an authoritarian regime in place. Yep, all is well in Vietnam.

Impressive debate. I think the difference between Hitchens and Alterman boils down to the difference between the "ethics of conviction" (Hitchens) and the "ethics of responsibility" (Alterman), i.e. the eternal debate between moralists and realists in foreign policy. Hitchens believes, with the fervor of a recent convert to American messianism, that the Iraq war was justified by a higher moral purpose--the removal of an evil dictator--and sanctified by the (so far) incalculable benefits that will eventually be seen to have resulted from the war. In this view the untold suffering of Iraqis, the enormous expense to the United States etc. do not matter because in the end history will judge the war to have been a success: Die Weltgeschichte ist die Weltgericht.... Alterman, more in the traditions of American pragmatism, thinks that the possible but always unpredictable benefits of war need to weighed in the scales of the possible and always probable harm that it may do to both sides. Gentlemen, the jury is still out.

Christopher Hitchens is still right about the Iraq War, while everybody else is still wrong about it. The world is a better, much more progressive place without Saddam Hussein and his two sons in it. Thank you United States Armed Forces and thank you George W. Bush.

HITCHENS WOOHOO It's about time bob got him on here. I have enjoyed his books and columns ever since I discovered him about 2 years ago.

I love Hitchens-- superior intellect, superior morality, and superior logic-- thank you, thank you, thank you, Bloggingshead for having him come on here. Hitchens crushed him --Alterman arguments are vacuous. Liberals like Alterman are why I changed my registration from Democrat to Independent-- the armchair quarterback wing, the just close your eyes and evil will disappear wing-- the world is rational wing that never believes evil totalitarian movements exist because they don't fit into a "rational" view of the world.

"Neo-Conservatives [are not] ... what Edmund Burke, or anyone else, would have called conservative." - Christopher Hitchens Eric Alterman's main thesis that liberalism has been tempered by its prior excesses (and thus has become a more conservative and pragmatic) seems more credible when he is contrasted with the plain and naked anti-conservatism of a man who takes "revolutionary" as a complement and wouldn't have the intellectual humility to question his beliefs if only two people in the world held them; but when Alterman discusses his own views, rather than simply refuting someone else's, they seem rather more progressive than would be implied by the way he likes to sell his political philosophy.

Hitchens tells Liberals to Cheer up, international consensus has arrived!
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/151...2:48&out=32:56

I'd like to buy Chris a drink! He makes a pointed, well-executed argument for the invasion and stabilization of Iraq, in an era where we see with our own eyes the enormous political, economic and human costs such a decision has wrought. The war was and is poorly fought, and most thoughtful folk agree that we should get the heck out of Iraq. Despite this, Eric (whom I adore) stumbles in response, as Chris hits hard with the humanitarian argument that a bumbling invasion beats standing on the sidelines wishing you did the right thing. Bravo for a delightful debate. "It is a debate, isn't it?" Love, Nina

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Liberals like Alterman are why I changed my registration from Democrat to Independent-- the armchair quarterback wing, the just close your eyes and evil will disappear wing-- the world is rational wing that never believes evil totalitarian movements exist because they don't fit into a "rational" view of the world.

what is this but demogaugery? where does alterman suggest such a thing in this diavlog - or in his corpus of work? you are describing a fringe element of the extreme left and the extreme right; a fringe that alterman takes pains to distance himself from. now, i am a self-described liberal myself, but i am an Iraq war supporter. (on human rights issues alone; I'm in the Samantha Power/Paul Berman humanitarian interventionist school.) so, i generally agreed with hitchens' case throughout the diavlog. your characteriziation of alterman's argument, however, is about as specious as sarah palin's claim that barack obama "pals around with terrorists."

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant man and i sincerely hope we see him again on BHtv. Thanks Bob How about getting Sam Harris on ? now that truly would be wonderful.

Two things stood out in Alterman's machine gun regurgitation of progressive talking point/memes.
"Bush does not support stem cell research."
Why do progressives always forget the word embryonic?
"Bush lack of respect for the Constitution."
Funny coming from a guy who believes the Second Amendment is a group right and people exercising the First Amendment should be subject to a ""blogging council".

An improved Iraq, perhaps even a democratic Iraq, goes to the grounds for war. There is a consenus view (not necessarily therefore right) that in fact the decision to go to war will be measured by the how the war turns out. That view does not tend to think radically about what it rests on. Those roots are the notion of preemption as prevention as well as a response to imminence. Those two notions are not binary opposites because danger has to inform prevention to make it cognizable in any instance. But prevention is part of what was revolutionary about the Bush Doctrine--not letting dangers gather. 9/11 and asymettricism--say a dirty bomb taking out a city-- yielded prevention, a problematic, troubling but necessary notion. Prevention itself can rest on at least two grounds: the pure assertion of power as nations act in what they consider their own interests; the assertion of a morally justified power as nations have a morally defensible way of life that objectively is worth preserving. If you know that your neighbor is intent on harming your children, but you cannot get the police to

I think Alterman's point, that Hitchens has argued against a parody of liberalism, is well proven by this diavlog. Hitchens entire argument against liberals over the Iraq invasion rests on the fallacy that liberals preferred the status quo, and did so out of a naive hope that Saddam would not turn out to be a grave threat. This was not the case. The arguments over whether we should attack Iraq were much more complex than being a simple question of morality. Confusing these issues was the fact that the much of this debate happened only a year after 9/11, when the country was still reeling from those attacks. George Bush conflated Iraq and 9/11, thus making inseparable the decision to invade from the context of the Al Quaeda attacks. The debate at the time had less to do with the morality of the war than over the nature of the struggle we are in and the correct strategy to pursue. On the one side were many liberals and also conservatives of the more realist school, who took the 9/11 attacks seriously, who saw an existential threat

Quoting basman: A

The question is: was prevention justifiable in the case of Iraq. That is a debatable proposition. Reasonable people of good faith can disagree. But that it is debatable measures the inadequacy of mindless criticism of the decision to go to war by so many on the left. Christopher Hitchins, as is here evident, is a powerful counter example to that mindlessness.

The problem, of course, is that the case for going to war was even more mindlessly made in 2003 by the right. Christopher Hitchens isn't a counter example to the left, he's an individual writer who had nothing much to do with the Bush administration and had influence over a small number of people. He's a counterargument to the US right in that way -- a vision of what they might sound like if they had been willing to make the case for war honestly.

Hitchens never answered the only question that mattered: why did he think the Bush administration capable of liberating Iraq? It was obvious in December of 2000 that a) the U.S. would invade Iraq; b) the Bush administration would fuck it up royally. What's missed by not addressing this issue is that the whole point of invading Iraq was to fuck up royally--because the damage is all on the Iraqi side. American losses in Iraq are insignificant. I'm talking about blood and money here. 5,000 guys? $700 billion? Not significant. Nor do any of the troubles of Iraq have significance. Genocide? Democracy? Weapons of mass destruction? Only mugs debate these points. The U.S. invaded Iraq to secure a position of military dominance in the Middle East. That's it. Let me put it another way. How does the rest of the world perceive the Iraq war? What lesson has been learned from it? This lesson: do not fuck with the United States. Look at the cost to the U.S. compared with the cost to Iraq of this war. And this lesson is precisely what the Bush administration wanted the world to learn. Americans are crazy. They take what they want by force. Do not get in

I thought the DV title was quite the chuckle, given the implausibility of any such admission. Unless I missed something somewhere in his ongoing parade of pronouncements, I believe Hitchens is temperamentally incapable of ever admitting he was wrong and in this, coincidentally, he's just like George Bush. Anyway, as usual, Hitchens, ice twirling in the glass, was at least entertaining, jousting goofily at a mere caricature of liberals bearing no resemblance to any but the most fringie dope-addled Lefties. Nice comedy. Thanks to both Alterman and Hitchens for contributing their valuable time to some much-needed BHTV change-of-pace amusement. I thought it pleasantly spunky of Eric to note what BHTV viewers should appreciate and not take for granted: these guys aren't doing it for the money. (Must be for our adoring comment-section posts?) I'd love to see more of both of them here, either together or paired with others. EW

Quoting schumacher: Thanks Bob

How about getting Sam Harris on ? now that truly would be wonderful.

Great idea. I concur. EW

The Bush regime itself is guilty under three of the four criteria Hitchens mentioned. By Hitchens' theory, we should be invaded and be subject to regime change by a Coalition of willing countries under the banner of Operation American Freedom (OAF). Hitchens Criteria and how Bush fulfills it: 1) Genocide - No
2) Violations of Nuclear Proliferation: (noncompliance with disarmament provisions, shift to first-strike Bush doctrine, pursuit of "usable" nukes, etc.)
3) Invading other countries illegally (Iraq)
4) Aiding and abetting terrorism around the world (funding of terror organizations, torture, black sites, regime change efforts, CIA destabilization efforts, arms sales to terror groups) And then we have Israel, who is guilty on all four counts: 1) Genocide (See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)
2) Violations of Nuclear Proliferation: Rogue nuclear state; secret uninspected nuclear regime; non-signatory to Treaty
3) Invading and occupying neighbors illegally (Syria and the Palestinian Territories)
4) Aiding and abetting terrorism around the world (destabilization and "regime change" efforts, arms sales to terrorist groups, etc.)

Gosh, Eric was so snarky in the beginning about being forced to discuss a topic, particularly since it is free. At any rate, neither position was convincing. Somehow, I believe the civilized world could have had its´ cake and eaten it too with regard to Saddam. And probably Jacques Chirac, a good student of Cardinal Richelieu, would have shown G W Bush the way, had Bush been accustomed to be internationally well-connected. So now we have to place our faith in another leader, Senator Obama, who lacks as well the necessary deviousness and connections. Too bad Hillary didn´t get the nod.

Quoting Wonderment: The Bush regime itself is guilty under three of the four criteria Hitchens mentioned.
...
Hitchens Criteria and how Bush fulfills it:

1) Genocide - No

Surprised you did say that Bush regime is guilty of all four and cite Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina for the Genocide criteria.
Eric Alterman would have.

Ray makes a good point. Haven't any of you people ever been lied to? Naomi Klien, Greg Palast and others make a mockery of the publicly stated 'reasons' for the war in Iraq. Just remember this, handsome (mostly white) guys in suits lie.

If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.

Paul Berman is a genius. Alterman's argument for non-intervention in Iraq are specious-- any real understanding of the conflict (i.e. Berman's "Terror and Liberalism" and Hitchens' own arguments in this diavlog) would make it quite clear that we were fighting Islamic Totalitarianism in Iraq. And, guess what?- we won! Arab and Muslim Iraqi's rejected Al-Queda and the like. Alterman is nothing but an armchair quarterback at best, besides- he was wrong- we've suceeded in Iraq. I won't get into the myriad of the irrational logic that goes with the "we created more terrorists in Iraq argument he throws out"-- if you truly follow Berman you'd acknowledge how grossly inadequate and foolish this train of thinking is. I'm sorry, Alterman can pretend all he likes, he still comes from a strain of liberalism that is unwilling to defend itself and do the hard thing.

Christopher Hitchens: Being Wrong Never Sounded So Good! It's fun to listen to Hitch spin his wheels trying to re-write history (not only the one that can be observed by what actually happened, but also the bizarro world histories as they surely would have happened!!) Anyone who quotes Michael Moore as representative of Democrats, can not be taken seriously, no matter how eloquent his speech might be.

Quoting bookofdisquiet:
Alterman is nothing but an armchair quarterback at best, besides- he was wrong- we've suceeded in Iraq. I won't get into the myriad of the irrational logic that goes with the "we created more terrorists in Iraq argument he throws out"-- if you truly follow Berman you'd acknowledge how grossly inadequate and foolish this train of thinking is.

I'm sorry, Alterman can pretend all he likes, he still comes from a strain of liberalism that is unwilling to defend itself and do the hard thing.

I agree with you about Paul Berman; and, I agree that it's silly to condemn the Iraq war because it has angered some very bad people. (I once wrote a column about how I opposed executing Saddam - until I saw that Al Qaida had come out and opposed it, too! Granted, the piece was slightly tongue-in-cheek.) However, your accusing Alterman of "pretending" to be something he isn't is grossly unfair. It's, well, Coulteresque. (Ann often claims that Democrats are "pretending" to be against terrorism.) In sum: tautological BS.

Anyone who quotes Michael Moore as representative of Democrats, can not be taken seriously, no matter how eloquent his speech might be.

Not just Michael Moore. At the end, Hitchens throws in 9/11 conspiracy theorists and wingnuts who think Israel engineered the Iraq War.

But isn't the overall consensus of the intell community that Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before we invaded? The victory dance of us chasing AQ out of Iraq seems a little silly given the fact that we invited them in. Given the fact that even St. Petraeus doesn't think we have achieved "victory" in Iraq, I don't understand why people like Hitchens insist on thinking it to be the case. Alterman's argument about cost/benefit stands on its own at the end of the day. Our stated goals have not been met. Our anticipated results have never transpired. Alot of people were very wrong about what would happen. No amount of spinning history will change that. Hitchens could easily say that things have not turned out anything like he thought, but that he still thinks it was a net positive. He could admit that all the evidence that we have seen over the years directly opposes many of the justifications for the war, but that it was still worth it. I wouldn't agree, but at least it would be a more honest position for him to argue from. Unfortunately, most people will

I third it, just so long as he's debating someone like Michael Rea or Alvin Plantinga and not someone like Richard Land.

i've always enjoyed watching christopher ruffle people's feathers but I never really care what he actually says. he always has really long winded, overly detailed explanations of stuff we already intuitively know is wrong so we don't need to hear about it. was the Iraq war worth it?!? what a joke. um.....gee let me think, uh......NO. it was a freeking total disaster, etc. it's like that for every argument - he just "details" his way through arguments. most importantly, what moron would ever think that it's okay to go from being, essentially, communist, to being right wing and think that he's still in any way credible? wow, went from one ridiculous dogma to another, what a waste of time. "Oh yeah, all that Trotsky stuff I mentioned earlier? Yeah, just ignore that, nothing to see there." absurd. nice job eric for calling him out many times. hitchens has already demonstrated he has bad judgment because he used to be communist. how is he considered a person to listen to let alone an "authority" on anything?

I love listening to Hitchens, but I wish for more discussion and fewer debating points. Bob Wright would be a better diavlog partner, of course. Bob has a way of short-circuiting the back-and-forth of the debating points, and getting into discussions of fundamental questions. I agree with kidneystones and ogieogie that it would be great to have Hitchens return to talk about current and future events.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: But isn't the overall consensus of the intell community that Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before we invaded? The victory dance of us chasing AQ out of Iraq seems a little silly given the fact that we invited them in. Given the fact that even St. Petraeus doesn't think we have achieved "victory" in Iraq, I don't understand why people like Hitchens insist on thinking it to be the case.

Alterman's argument about cost/benefit stands on its own at the end of the day. Our stated goals have not been met. Our anticipated results have never transpired. Alot of people were very wrong about what would happen. No amount of spinning history will change that. Hitchens could easily say that things have not turned out anything like he thought, but that he still thinks it was a net positive. He could admit that all the evidence that we have seen over the years directly opposes many of the justifications for the war, but that it was still worth it. I wouldn't agree, but at least it would be a more honest position for him to argue from. Unfortunately, most people will

A very clarifying post. I think this explains why debates about Iraq never seem to resolve. However, winners and losers will eventually emerge. That's called history, right? Unfortunately for Hitch, he seems engaged in a long defeat. Hitch says he doesn't give a fig about world or public opinion, but he only says this because he is counting on posterity to justify his stance. I don't suppose you've seen any statues of Howard K. Smith erected for his unwavering support of the Vietnam war. Hitch probably should not start posing for any, either.

Quoting Wonderment: Not just Michael Moore. At the end, Hitchens throws in 9/11 conspiracy theorists and wingnuts who think Israel engineered the Iraq War.

There was a Rasmussen poll showing 1/3 of Democrats believed 9/11 was an inside job and another 1/4 said they thought it was possible (or maybe the other way 'round). Of course opinion polling is mostly crap, but what's good for the elephant is good for the donkey, and in that spirit I'd like a nickel for every citation of some "statistic" showing how most Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11 as evidence of The Great Bush Lie. I found Eric (uncharacteristically) tedious and couldn't listen all the way through, but if he trotted this one out, he can donate my nickel to the bhtv coffee fund.

Whatever reasons Alterman gives for being against the invasion of Iraq, it still places him in the position of supporting that insane dictatorship. And his sickly claims that the loss of American support abroad as a reasoning for not doing it seems, well unseemly. It's simple -- and I think you'd agree that Berman is better example of what liberalism means. Is Alterman a military strategist? Saddam was going to have to be taken out. Should we have let him rearm because our so called "allies" didn't approve as to when we should attack? How many more Americans would have died had Saddam used "oil for food" money to rearm his cronies with better weapons. It's not like our so-called allies would ever put their troops in harms way to end an evil, so why should their support matter to us? I mean were the theocratic governments of the middle east ever going to support our intervention? China voted against it in the security council but were the first to sign an oil deal with the new Iraq government. Sorry for the rambling, but any defense of that disgusting

The left makes some very good points against the war on Iraq: Saddam was our creation in the first place, our administration is incompetent, etc...So even though idealistically it would be desirable to remove Saddam, in practice it would have been much better to sit this one out. What I don't understand is why the left doesn't buy the same exact argument when it is made regarding interventions in the economy. The current crisis was clearly a creation of our past administrations (the current one included), the current political class is incompetent, etc...so even though idealistically it would be desirable to fix the current mess, in practice it would be much better to sit this one out. Somehow this last argument has no traction whatsoever among liberals.

Quoting Unit: The left makes some very good points against the war on Iraq: Saddam was our creation in the first place, our administration is incompetent, etc...So even though idealistically it would be desirable to remove Saddam, in practice it would have been much better to sit this one out.

What I don't understand is why the left doesn't buy the same exact argument when it is made regarding interventions in the economy. The current crisis was clearly a creation of our past administrations (the current one included), the current political class is incompetent, etc...so even though idealistically it would be desirable to fix the current mess, in practice it would be much better to sit this one out. Somehow this last argument has no traction whatsoever among liberals.

Please, by all means, tell us what you're talking about. What exactly is it that you propose has no traction among liberals and how does it relate to the current crisis?

By "current crisis" I mean the current mortgage bailout.

I haven't seen that poll, but http://mediamatters.org/items/200705160001 indicates that that the number was 22% who "thought Bush knew" although even Jonah Goldberg admits "the poll question was ambiguous. As Goldberg said, 'Many Democrats are probably merely saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots' .." On the other hand, what percentage of Republicans still think Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD, or was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? For that matter, what percentage of Americans think UFOs are kidnapping drunken fishermen in Arkansas? This infamous clip indicates that some survey shows that "1/5 (20%) of Americans can't locate the US on a map": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww Pitching the issue as being stupid or gullible Democrats seriously misstates the real problem of human ignorance, irrationality and partisan tribalism. Wonder just what party that lass in the Youtube clip supports? Does it matter?

Quoting Lyle: ... and except the fact that Vietnam still has an authoritarian regime in place. Yep, all is well in Vietnam.

So was the government of South Vietnam. Did you think it was a democracy? The point is that our involvement in Vietnam, whatever the motives, did more harm than good.

Quoting Unit: By "current crisis" I mean the current mortgage bailout.

That's really not the ambiguity I need resolved.

Ok let me try to rephrase. When listening to Alterman I was loving the eloquence with which he was describing the incompetence of our politicians in foreign affairs, how their actions create the very problems we are trying to "fix", etc... These are the same kind of arguments I always make myself with regard to the economy, and yet my friends on the left have a really hard time moderating their idealism when it comes to the economy (my arguments don't budge them). If I haven't been clear I can try again.

Quoting Unit: Ok let me try to rephrase. When listening to Alterman I was loving the eloquence with which he was describing the incompetence of our politicians in foreign affairs, how their actions create the very problems we are trying to "fix", etc... These are the same kind of arguments I always make myself with regard to the economy, and yet my friends on the left have a really hard time moderating their idealism when it comes to the economy (my arguments don't budge them). If I haven't been clear I can try again.

Ok, I'm not trying to torture you here, or even show you up. But you haven't made an argument, only referred to one. If you want to imply something about liberals, fine - but you need to do more than hint darkly that we somehow disagree with you.

Doctor Money: if you want to say that Hitchins is a counterpoint to those on the right who supported the war without arguing for it, you will get no argument from me. But the difference is, I’d suggest, that support was non contrarian, often simply, perhaps uncritically, standing up for one’s country—not altogether a bad thing; the argument against the war was by definition contrarian, against the official line, and therefore by definition an attempt (usually a poor one) at an argument, which often descended into an unthinking, anti-administration reflex by such stalwarts as The Nation-reading folks, and the Daily Kos-ters. There you have a terrible, offensive mix of smugness and know nothingness, that Hitchins is a bracing, politically incorrect, antidote to. BTW, what about the merits of the prevention argument? Itzik Basman

Of course I don't think the South Vietnamese government was a democracy... cause it wasn't. Doesn't change the fact that Vietnam is an authoritarian, Communist Party state. More than likely, much like Taiwan and South Korea, who also were authoritarian states, South Vietnam would have evolved into a democratic and economically successful state. Thanks to the Communist leadership of Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam is largely poor... although it has adopted the modern Chinese political/economic model and is beginning to open up. They're still committing human rights abuses out the wazoo though. Tough place to live if you're a dissenter.

Whatever reasons Alterman gives for being against the invasion of Iraq, it still places him in the position of supporting that insane dictatorship.

I don't think this is an accurate statement. Not wanting to invade a country is not the equivalent of "supporting" that country. This is a false connection that the GOP loves to use against their opponents to try and reinforce the for-us-or-against-us fantasy that they love to frame the debate in, but it's bullshit. Hitchens even tries to use a variation of this when he mentions that Clinton & Gore felt that Iraq was a situation that needed to be dealt with AT SOME POINT. As if that is proof that they believed we had to do it in 2003. I don't think anybody denies that the Iraq situation and Saddam were issues that would need to be addressed, but the big question was why Republicans insisted that it had to be RIGHT NOW (in 2003) despite concerns about the intell and the issue of resources (troops already in Afghanistan.) etc. Thinking that we shouldn't have rushed into war in 2003, was an entirely reasonable and sober position to

Quoting Wonderment: And then we have Israel, who is guilty on all four counts:

1) Genocide (See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)
2) Violations of Nuclear Proliferation: Rogue nuclear state; secret uninspected nuclear regime; non-signatory to Treaty
3) Invading and occupying neighbors illegally (Syria and the Palestinian Territories)
4) Aiding and abetting terrorism around the world (destabilization and "regime change" efforts, arms sales to terrorist groups, etc.)

Although there are problems with some of your other points, (1) is particularly wacky. Genocide? An intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group? Perhaps you also think a holocaust is being perpetrated against the Palestinian people by Israel (like many nutcases do)? Stay sane Wonderment.

Sorry, I thought that it was clear what I was referring to: the left's tendency to favor intervention in the economy. I'm not trying to put the Left down. In fact, the Right only pays lip service to non-interventionism. I just wish Liberals would apply the same skepticism towards politicians and the same subtle analysis of unintended consequences, when they support central decision-making with regard to economic phenomena, that's all.

Quoting Unit: Sorry, I thought that it was clear what I was referring to: the left's tendency to favor intervention in the economy. I'm not trying to put the Left down. In fact, the Right only pays lip service to non-interventionism. I just wish Liberals would apply the same skepticism towards politicians and the same subtle analysis of unintended consequences, when they support central decision-making with regard to economic phenomena, that's all.

Ok, fair enough. The "bailout" got support from both sides, though in principle it seems more consistent with left-wing views. I don't think anyone on either side wants to be pinned down philosophically on this thing. They're peeking out from behind their fingers hoping that it doesn't get much worse before they have to run again.

Yes but they're scaring us in the process, especially the view that "they have to do something". This view is so generally accepted (in the face of repeated failures to fix anything) that it's not even funny anymore. I think a big problem going forward will be: how do we moderate our idealistic impulses in view of the fact that the political process screws up royally every single time. I don't know.

Genocide (per international law): "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. " Israel certainly qualifies under B (collective punishment, home demolitions, etc.) and E (Nakbah). If you say that genocide can only be something like Rwanda or Auschwitz, then no, Israel does not meet that standard. But the standard I've used is the legal one. If it's any comfort to you I might add Syria to the list of rogue nations, including the US and Israel, which meet Hitchens' criteria. A good case can be made against Pakistan as well. Russia? China? So much evil. So many axes. Let's just have a massive world war based on Hitchens crackpot hypotheticals.

Hell has frozen-over. Hitchens and Alterman diavlogging. Dog bless Bloggingheads.

Quoting Wonderment: Genocide (per international law):

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. "

Israel certainly qualifies under B (collective punishment, home demolitions, etc.) and E (Nakbah).

If you say that genocide can only be something like Rwanda or Auschwitz, then no, Israel does not meet that standard. But the standard I've used is the legal one.

Satisfying (a) - (e) only constitute genocide according to the legal definition if they have been committed with the intent to destroy (in whole or part) a people. (Otherwise, whenever soldiers killed enemy soldiers in battle, e.g., that would be genocide, by (a), which it isn't.) You've provided no evidence to show that Israel has ever intended to wipe out the Palestinian people, nor could you. (But Hamas' firing of thousands of Qassams into Sderot and the surrounding areas -- collective punishment

His voting patterns are inscrutable, his facts are invented for maximum convenience, and his counterfactuals are non-hypothetical (whereas his opponents' are just wish lists). Oh, to have the rhetorical advantages of existing in the Hitchens mind.

Alterman just fires shallow (discredited) talking points and Hitchens answers with depth and nuance. Thank you Mr. Hitchens for your time.

Quoting nyc123: Alterman just fires shallow (discredited) talking points and Hitchens answers with depth and nuance. Thank you Mr. Hitchens for your time.

Nice analysis. I especially like the evidence-free technique you've found to support your assertions, and how you tie them together, leading organically, inevitably, to your subtle conclusion. Bravo!

why do it in 2003? here's an analogy. A hunter is in the woods with a man-eating bear. Does the hunter run from the bear or confront it? The bear is not going away. If the hunter has a rifle, he confronts the bear and easily kills it. If the hunter has a knife, then he has to consider what chance to take. The U.S. had a rifle with the bear in Iraq and we used it. We were successful. Sorry, the war sure as sh*t looks prudent and well advised considering the cost benefits to me. You and Alterman can be Monday morning quarterbacks all you like-- and I won't bother making anymore arguments why Iraq was the right war at the right time b/c Hitchens did that very well in this diavlog. With you and Alterman's logic we should have waited for Saddam to get serious weapons so he could have killed more of our troops before choosing to confront him. You choose to fight your enemies when they are weak, not when they are strong. Warfare 101. We have killed so many more jihadists because we took the war

I admire the heated but civil manner in which they debated each other. It was fun seeing Alterman back on his heels trying to maintain his rhetorical equilibrium in the face of Hitchens' voluble tenacity. Hitchens was better than I've ever seen him. This format is good for him. Better than real TV. Despite his lack of rhetorical flourish though, Alterman has the better arguments. Almost everything in international affairs boils down to a cost benefit analysis and in these terms the Iraq war has definitely not been worth it. Hitchens fear of Iraq being torn asunder by Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey doesn't strike me as something to fear. It would be much preferable to the situation we have today. Having Saudi Arabia and Iran fighting each other is even better than having Iraq and Iran fight each other. Let our enemies kill each other rather than have us doing the job. To those who say that those against the Iraq war essentially support having Saddam remain in power by default, the answer is YES. Just as those who are against invading Zimbabwe essentially support having

Quoting Michael: Gosh, Eric was so snarky in the beginning about being forced to discuss a topic, particularly since it is free. At any rate, neither position was convincing. Somehow, I believe the civilized world could have had its´ cake and eaten it too with regard to Saddam. And probably Jacques Chirac, a good student of Cardinal Richelieu, would have shown G W Bush the way, has Bush been accustomed to be internationally well-connected. So now we have to place our faith in another leader, Senator Obama, who lacks as well the necessary deviousness and connections. Too bad Hillary didn´t get the nod.

Are you sure of Obama's lack of connections? See the recent New Yorker article by Nicholas Lemann, "Worlds Apart, Behind the Candidates' Foreign Policies" (Oct.13). I would say, after reading this article, that Obama has too MANY connections and may end up being the Hamlet of foreign policy. But as for deviousness and realpolitik à la Richelieu, I think Republicans and others who see nothing but naiveté in Obama are pretty naive themselves. The question is: will he be able to tune out so many discordant voices?

Quoting bramble: A very clarifying post. I think this explains why debates about Iraq never seem to resolve.

However, winners and losers will eventually emerge. That's called history, right? Unfortunately for Hitch, he seems engaged in a long defeat. Hitch says he doesn't give a fig about world or public opinion, but he only says this because he is counting on posterity to justify his stance. I don't suppose you've seen any statues of Howard K. Smith erected for his unwavering support of the Vietnam war. Hitch probably should not start posing for any, either.

Thanks for noticing my clarification. Hitchen's "not giving a fig about world opinion" is of a piece with his ethics of conviction. He is similar in this respect to the imperviousness of Bush and the neo-cons to world opinion: I have yet to hear any of them admit that they might have been wrong about anything (except of course in the "execution" of policy---as if there were no connection between absurd aims and failed execution). Where Hitchens surpasses his curious bedfellows, however, is in his truly amazing ability to imagine ever changing scenarios in which---o divine surprise---he is proved right again and again.

throughout the 90s, saddam was caught lying and cheating about his WMDs on many numerous occassions. that's why the UN inspectors had to stay there till 1998, and the sanctions were not lifted during saddam's time. the inspections in the 90s ultimately did not work because the clinton admin and the UN did little to nothing when saddam called their bluff and finally kicked the inspectors out of iraq.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: With you and Alterman's logic we should have waited for Saddam to get serious weapons so he could have killed more of our troops before choosing to confront him. You choose to fight your enemies when they are weak, not when they are strong.

This assumes that we were faced with a choice of invading Iraq now (2003) or later, when the truth is that there were more options on the table than that. Most of Bush's justifications for the war were unbelievable, given that there are any number of bad-guy regimes with the near-to-medium term potential to develop wmd. The difference here was oil, which is arguably sufficient reason to choose Iraq, but Bush should have come clean about the fact that Iraq was chosen for more cynical reasons than he stated.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: You're stuck in some backward view that we fight countries -- this is 4th generation warfare -- we fight stateless enemies -- do you want to fight them in nuke armed countries and risk destabilizing those governments and their nukes or a weak Iraq?

The greater danger is that these stateless enemies

yada yada yada yada yada. The U.S. military is killing as many totalitarian jihadists as possible so that our children won't have to do it in the future. This is a 50 to 100 year conflict that will incorporate multiple generations. There is no rational argument that will make someone stop who believes he is killing you by the will of Allah. Just like their was no rational argument to stop Germans killing to realize their insane eugenic master race vision. The only solution is to destroy (not necessarily in the physical sense) those societies that propagate that xenophobic nonsense and rebuild them with true liberal instititions much like we rebuilt Japan and Germany. I'm sick of people like you that run at the mouth about military strategy without even reading or understanding Sayyid Qutb and his connection to Osama bin Laden and Al-Queada. My general disgust is a direct result of reading Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism"--he is the managing editor of Dissent magazine and I think appropriately diagnoses the anti-war wing of the liberal movement. I'm sorry you don't like my

Always great to see Mr. Alterman here, really wish I saw him here regularly. I enjoyed this one. As anti-Iraq War guy from the start I found Hitchens somewhat convincing in his defense. I'd like to see these two again with more of a focus on now and the future.

Quoting Surcam: Always great to see Mr. Alterman here, really wish I saw him here regularly.

Yeah, same here. He always complains about not being paid, but there's a reward in contributing to a rational national discourse. He should consider it a kind of pro bono work for patriots.

Quoting Surcam: I'd like to see these two again with more of a focus on now and the future.

Agreed. After years and years of going over this same ground, it's honestly a bit tedious. That's not to say it's not still important; it is. And the debate should continue. But I personally don't find it very compelling, anymore.

In your anger you're making a ton of false assumptions. For starters, I am not anti-war. I'm an Air Force Academy graduate and veteran and seriously disagreed with this war, based on what I believe to be rational arguments, which you have failed to address. You have also failed to address the other rational arguments many other people have put forward. Now that we're there, I support winning. I agree with you that we're fighting an enemy which is essentially evil. That, and the fact that they have the potential to really hurt us if they acquire WMD, is why I'm so concerned that we get this right. I am not an apologist for Saddam, just think the Iraq war has been a diversion and has hurt us in the broader fight we're in, although I recognize its more recent successes. I believe that American values are universal and should be promoted, but that using military force is complicated, is limited in what it can accomplish, and can have unintended consequences. Robert Gates agrees with this, unlike his incompetent ideological predecessor. I also agree with you that there is a problem on the left of failing to understand that sometimes

Eric Alterman refers to something he calls "Normative Science." I was previously unaware of the existence of such a thing, and rather doubt that such a thing exists.
I feel that it is impossible to get from the "is"--the scientific--to the "ought"--the normative, and I'm pretty sure that many others who have reflected on this feel that way too.
So what is he talking about?

Thank you Jim. Your patience is admirable and your post is well-put.

Quoting basman: Doctor Money: if you want to say that Hitchins is a counterpoint to those on the right who supported the war without arguing for it, you will get no argument from me.

But the difference is, I’d suggest, that support was non contrarian, often simply, perhaps uncritically, standing up for one’s country—not altogether a bad thing; the argument against the war was by definition contrarian, against the official line, and therefore by definition an attempt (usually a poor one) at an argument, which often descended into an unthinking, anti-administration reflex by such stalwarts as The Nation-reading folks, and the Daily Kos-ters. There you have a terrible, offensive mix of smugness and know nothingness, that Hitchins is a bracing, politically incorrect, antidote to.

If you ask me whether I'm game for some elective, experimental surgery when my life isn't in danger, I hope you wouldn't call my opposition to it knee-jerk and contrary, no matter how established the surgeon claims to be or what magazines you think are biasing my view. Put people like Hitchens in charge of the GOP and I'll get on board with calling the Daily Kos smug and know-nothing in comparison. Until that day comes? Well, we

Quoting JimN: In your anger you're making a ton of false assumptions. For starters, I am not anti-war. I'm an Air Force Academy graduate and veteran and seriously disagreed with this war, based on what I believe to be rational arguments, which you have failed to address. You have also failed to address the other rational arguments many other people have put forward. Now that we're there, I support winning. I agree with you that we're fighting an enemy which is essentially evil. That, and the fact that they have the potential to really hurt us if they acquire WMD, is why I'm so concerned that we get this right. I am not an apologist for Saddam, just think the Iraq war has been a diversion and has hurt us in the broader fight we're in, although I recognize its more recent successes. I believe that American values are universal and should be promoted, but that using military force is complicated, is limited in what it can accomplish, and can have unintended consequences. Robert Gates agrees with this, unlike his incompetent ideological predecessor.

I also agree with you that there is a problem on the left of failing to understand that sometimes

Alterman is amazing!!
or rather... Alterman has an amazing ability to continue to look smug even when he is getting his ass handed to him. I suggest both lefties, liberals and those that overlap watch this about a dozen times. Also amazing is the fact that Alterman attempted to set this whole thing up in an attempt to expound and expose the wrongness of Hitchens' while in the end he himself was pretty much schooled. Nice job CH.

Perhaps Eric doesn't have much of an opinion about Christopher's disappointing last book? "God is Not Great." I would have liked to have heard an exploration of that, as well. http://enalnitram.blogspot.com/search?q=hitchens

Quoting handle: I am genuinely curious to learn what you feel a winning scenario might look like in Iraq.

Well, I'm no expert, I just have a firm belief in obvious things like knowing why you're fighting, who the enemy is, and how best to defeat them. I don't have a strong opinion on how to win at this point, but I think it's worth trying because of the potentially disastrous consequences of Iraq devolving into a failed state. Things seem to be settling down. Maybe we can hope for a stable country that doesn't abuse its people or consider us the enemy. Finding mutual interests to work with Iran on would also be helpful if we could make it happen. Right now it seems we should have an Iran strategy, not so much an Iraq strategy. Also, and this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that there is no longer much difference between what Obama would do and what McCain would do, practically speaking. Obama has started to say that we'll withdraw from Iraq as soon as we responsibly can, with emphasis on the responsible part. That's a lot of wiggle

Quoting JimN: Also, and this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that there is no longer much difference between what Obama would do and what McCain would do, practically speaking. Obama has started to say that we'll withdraw from Iraq as soon as we responsibly can, with emphasis on the responsible part. That's a lot of wiggle room, and he won't put himself in the position of ordering a withdrawal in failure. McCain won't have the ability to stay any longer than the Iraqi's want us, and it looks like that time will come sooner rather than later. Either way, we'll probably have some kind of long-term presence there, maybe less with Obama. So most of the rhetoric strikes me as noise.

Well, I'm no expert either, but I think you're making a good point. There is no clear solution or magical formula to get out of Iraq without some risk or loss. It will be a about what can be reasonably negotiated and accomplished that will provide a minimum necessary stability and safety. Who the President is, will may make a difference in terms of negotiating, compromising and concensus building

By the way Jim, thanks for your service. We liberals DO appreciate the sacrifices the military makes, regardless of what FoxNews tells you.

Quoting JimN: Well, I'm no expert, I just have a firm belief in obvious things like knowing why you're fighting, who the enemy is, and how best to defeat them. I don't have a strong opinion on how to win at this point, but I think it's worth trying because of the potentially disastrous consequences of Iraq devolving into a failed state. Things seem to be settling down. Maybe we can hope for a stable country that doesn't abuse its people or consider us the enemy. Finding mutual interests to work with Iran on would also be helpful if we could make it happen. Right now it seems we should have an Iran strategy, not so much an Iraq strategy.

Also, and this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that there is no longer much difference between what Obama would do and what McCain would do, practically speaking. Obama has started to say that we'll withdraw from Iraq as soon as we responsibly can, with emphasis on the responsible part. That's a lot of wiggle room, and he won't put himself in the position of ordering a withdrawal in failure. McCain won't

Thanks, Uncle, it's not really a big deal. I wouldn't have brought it up except to defend myself, and I didn't have to make many sacrifices in the service, thank goodness. Oh, and by the way, screw Fox News

Well next time a conservative says that liberals never praise the troops, point them here. Keep up the great posts.

Regarding the 4 ways that a state can waive its sovereignty . . . Is there a statue of limitations for these violations, Mr. Hitchens?

Quoting JimN: I I am not an apologist for Saddam, just think the Iraq war has been a diversion and has hurt us in the broader fight we're in, although I recognize its more recent successes.

Osama Bin Laden's stated goal was to occupy and turn Iraq into a petrorich version of what he and the Taliban had in Afghanistan. After we routed the Taliban in Iraq, Al-Queada fled to two places--Pakistan (where we can't fight them) and Iraq. Highly trained operatives like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi moved into Iraq with concrete objectives and support. Our military has denied them the benefit of that State sponsorship and oil wealth. That's not a diversion. Bin Laden said it himself that the main front against the infidels was Iraq. You think that Al-Queada is dangerous with narcowealth? Can you imagine them controlling or disrupting the worlds oil supply? Iraq was an essential military action-- that you consider it a diversion reveals your naivety, if not your outright ignorance. How has Iraq hurt our broader fight? We've have Muslims in one of the most ancient and holy places in Islam rejecting Al-Queada ideology and fighting for

Quoting bookofdisquiet: 'm sorry to be so critical of you, but your reasoning in opposition to the Iraq war has the effect of empowering a person like Saddam. And every day someone like that exists in this world is a day of lamentation for liberalism. I've attempted to shame and degrade your opinion here, because ultimately it is selfish. You judge intervention in Iraq from a perspective of how it affects our country and you, instead of considering the poor Kurdish mother whose husband was murdered and whose 12-year-old daughter was raped by a Bathist thug. If you were her, you'd beg for American intervention.

You are not a liberal, you are Orwell's Winston shouting "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me. Julia. Not me."

Now this is the most absurd appeal to sentimental myopic understanding of the world that I have heard in a long time! Bookofdisquiet, if you, by any chance, believe what you wrote, I will suggest that before getting carried away with this kind of tragic story, you think about how many places in

Just because the United States doesn't choose to help every single country in the world that could use help, doesn't mean we can't help the Iraqi people out. By your logic Ocean the U.S. should have no interventionist policy at all, including in regards to Rwanda and Dafur, because they aren't the only problems in the world. The U.S. simply can't fight every battle that's going in the world, but we certainly can fight some.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Osama Bin Laden's stated goal was to occupy and turn Iraq into a petrorich version of what he and the Taliban had in Afghanistan. After we routed the Taliban in Iraq, Al-Queada fled to two places--Pakistan (where we can't fight them) and Iraq. Highly trained operatives like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi moved into Iraq with concrete objectives and support. Our military has denied them the benefit of that State sponsorship and oil wealth. That's not a diversion.

Well, thanks for finally giving a straight argument instead of just character attacks. I gave the Bush administration every benefit of the doubt I could at the time. I wanted to support this war, and I scoured their statements and commentary looking for a sane rationale behind it. Nowhere did I find anything approaching the explanation you've given. The closest thing I could discern was that Iraq was supposed to be a shock to the Middle East--by establishing a democratic state in the heart of that region, we would be setting an example of progressivism that would get the Middle East out of its backwardness and nihilistic obsessions. This seemed to me to be a

Quoting Lyle: Just because the United States doesn't choose to help every single country in the world that could use help, doesn't mean we can't help the Iraqi people out.

By your logic Ocean the U.S. should have no interventionist policy at all, including in regards to Rwanda and Dafur, because they aren't the only problems in the world. The U.S. simply can't fight every battle that's going in the world, but we certainly can fight some.

I understand that, and it's a reasonable argument. The question remains: how does the U.S. decide what battle to fight? There are many people in terrible conditions in the world, where a war isn't even needed. The U.S. could help many more people by providing aid where's needed. So, when the decision to go after Iraq was made, it wasn't about helping people. I'm not even discussing whether those other reasons are legitimate or not (I don't think they were), but rather that we should talk about those other reasons instead of writing anecdotal experiences that, even when they are certainly tragic, they distract by appealing to an emotional response, from the rational discussion of the problem. The drama tactic and the guilt

it's not a myopic view of the world -- it's the cold hard truth about the cowardice and utter disgrace of your political views. If there was any fitting justice in this universe you'd be reincarnated as a Jew in Hitler's Germany or a minority in Stalin's Russia, or maybe a Christian in Bin Laden's Afghanistan. Then maybe you'd understand powerlessness in the face of oppression, then maybe you'd wonder why other human beings who had the means and the ability to end your suffering chose not to do so.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: it's not a myopic view of the world -- it's the cold hard truth about the cowardice and utter disgrace of your political views. If there was any fitting justice in this universe you'd be reincarnated as a Jew in Hitler's Germany or a minority in Stalin's Russia, or maybe a Christian in Bin Laden's Afghanistan. Then maybe you'd understand powerlessness in the face of oppression, then maybe you'd wonder why other human beings who had the means and the ability to end your suffering chose not to do so.

Boy! You are filled with hatred! What about reincarnating as a witch during the Inquisition? So let's see the crime: 'cowardly and utterly disgraceful political views'. And the punishment (and learning experience, although I would have to carry the lesson to my next life, and perhaps this is that next life!) : well, why repeat the above? The most terrible sufferings in the hands of merciless mass murderers. Ordered by whom? Bookofdisquiet! Well, I object, your Honor! I can think of about ten different ways of reasoning through the huge flaws of your debating skills to show you how irrational your statements are. But, frankly, re-reading your post, I choose not

Quoting Ocean: Boy! You are filled with hatred! What about reincarnating as a witch during the Inquisition?

So let's see the crime: 'cowardly and utterly disgraceful political views'.

And the punishment (and learning experience, although I would have to carry the lesson to my next life, and perhaps this is that next life!) : well, why repeat the above? The most terrible sufferings in the hands of merciless mass murderers. Ordered by whom? Bookofdisquiet!

Well, I object, your Honor!

I can think of about ten different ways of reasoning through the huge flaws of your debating skills to show you how irrational your statements are. But, frankly, re-reading your post, I choose not to. I think that the absurdity of your argument as above, is self-evident. You are filled with hatred and can't think rationally. Don't take this as a professional opinion, but you're sick!

Better take care of your anger. It isn't healthy.

You're a silly fool who doesn't deserve the freedom you enjoy. No one is asking you to pick up a gun and fight for Iraqis -- braver more decent men and women are doing that for you and me this very moment. The least you could do is shut up and let them.

i find alterman's contention that the clinton admin would have done more on iraq if it was not too distracted by the impeachment trial not credible. the surprise decision to bomb iraq on the eve of impeachment vote looks like an unserious political stunt to me.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: You're a silly fool who doesn't deserve the freedom you enjoy. No one is asking you to pick up a gun and fight for Iraqis -- braver more decent men and women are doing that for you and me this very moment. The least you could do is shut up and let them.

This is the last effort wasted in you. Let them what? Let people like you send decent men and women to their death? Is that what you take pride in? You don't know what you're talking about. You are so blind that you can't even see the blood in your own hands! I'll leave the rest for your conscience, some day when you open your eyes. Goodbye!

whatever you Code Pink wannabee. The last time I checked we had an all volunteer army whose chosen profession was combat in defense of freedom-- so don't give me that blood on my hands nonsense-- . You have the blood of a Kurdish Genocide on your hands-- it's cowardly as*holes like you that kept our government from taking out Saddam in the first gulf war.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: whatever you Code Pink wannabee. The last time I checked we had an all volunteer army whose chosen profession was combat in defense of freedom-- so don't give me that blood on my hands nonsense-- . You have the blood of a Kurdish Genocide on your hands-- it's cowardly as*holes like you that kept our government from taking out Saddam in the first gulf war.

Yeah, I was waiting for your noble come back. Man, you're drowning in your own poison. I'm not going down that road. But I may throw a rope to help you out if needed. I prefer to spare lives. It's an oath. And I'm not a code pink, I'm a physician.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Paul Berman is a genius. Alterman's argument for non-intervention in Iraq are specious-- any real understanding of the conflict (i.e. Berman's "Terror and Liberalism" and Hitchens' own arguments in this diavlog) would make it quite clear that we were fighting Islamic Totalitarianism in Iraq. And, guess what?- we won! Arab and Muslim Iraqi's rejected Al-Queda and the like.

Alterman is nothing but an armchair quarterback at best, besides- he was wrong- we've suceeded in Iraq. I won't get into the myriad of the irrational logic that goes with the "we created more terrorists in Iraq argument he throws out"-- if you truly follow Berman you'd acknowledge how grossly inadequate and foolish this train of thinking is.

I'm sorry, Alterman can pretend all he likes, he still comes from a strain of liberalism that is unwilling to defend itself and do the hard thing.

Iraqi Muslims did not reject Al-Qaida because they never accepted it in the first place---if you exclude a small minority of anti-occupation hotheads, who were eventually bought out (=bribed)--not defeated--by the US military. By the way, how would you react if your country were invaded? Berman's highly misleading construct of "Islamic totalitarianism" belongs to

Quoting JimN: But the hugely stupid mistake about attacking Iraq was that IT WAS THE WRONG TARGET. Step one in any war ought to be defining who the enemy is.

.....

So no, liberals weren't just sitting around thinking things would be peachy if we did nothing about Iraq. The choice was not a false one between invasion and passivity, as Hitchens describes it. To a liberal, the debate was about the appropriate response to the Al Quaeda attacks, and the issue of Iraq was a different problem, a real problem, with a solution quite different than the one mistakenly chosen by Bush.

Thank you JimN for your well-reasoned, thoughtful posts. I can't understand why they have met with such bilious rejoinders from certain ill-informed people on this board... I have always had a suspicion that in the higher ranks of the US military at least there is far more intelligence and knowledge of the world than in the politicians who conduct US foreign policy. And you are spot on with your observation that the first step in any war is defining your enemy. How much pain Americans could have spared themselves if they had not jumped to

The Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and all the militant Islamists in al Qaeda isn't a clear enemy? Hell, they even say they're at War with the United States and Western world.

Quoting Francoamerican: Iraqi Muslims did not reject Al-Qaida because they never accepted it in the first place---if you exclude a small minority of anti-occupation hotheads, who were eventually bought out (=bribed)--not defeated--by the US military. By the way, how would you react if your country were invaded?

Are you telling us that the military discovered that they could augment their success, reduce the violence, perpetuate positive political progress and reduce American deaths by throwing some money at it? Thats Horrible!! Or are you just trying to color it dirty and the American military as a military failures? You are not unique in attempts to paint everything a quagmire, fueled by American greed and imperialism, tainted by decadence, debauchery, and led by incompetence and corruption. Matter of fact, Eric spent most his time in this vlog attempting the same tired thing. Funny though, I would think someone who chose a name aligning himself first with his country of origin would just save us alot of grief by returning to it so as not to subject himself to the hypocrisy of the America Satan. And OMG, Ocean, another one bites the dust. Just close the blinds...you will feel better.

Quoting Whatfur: Are you telling us that the military discovered that they could augment their success, reduce the violence, perpetuate positive political progress and reduce American deaths by throwing some money at it? Thats Horrible!! Or are you just trying to color it dirty and the American military as a military failures?

You are not unique in attempts to paint everything a quagmire, fueled by American greed and imperialism, tainted by decadence, debauchery, and led by incompetence and corruption. Matter of fact, Eric spent most his time in this vlog attempting the same tired thing. Funny though, I would think someone who chose a name aligning himself first with his country of origin would just save us alot of grief by returning to it so as not to subject himself to the hypocrisy of the America Satan.

And OMG, Ocean, another one bites the dust. Just close the blinds...you will feel better.

The bribing of Iraqi Al-Qaida members has been widely reported in the press. I am not trying to paint the US military as "dirty." Au contraire, I would commend them for their intelligence in using money to buy off a few hotheads instead of risking

I am a pacifist and believe that war is always the wrong response, but I do appreciate those who a) believe in a vigorous defense strategy but b) saw through the immense folly of the Iraq War from the git-go. Obama will be the next president of the United States because he is a product of A + B. I always like to reiterate my thanks as an American to those brave Senators and Congress members who stood up to the Bush regime on Iraq and voted no on the Resolution. There were 133 no votes in the House and the following 23 Senators: * 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
* 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
* The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

Quoting Francoamerican: Iraqi Muslims did not reject Al-Qaida because they never accepted it in the first place---if you exclude a small minority of anti-occupation hotheads, who were eventually bought out (=bribed)--not defeated--by the US military. By the way, how would you react if your country were invaded?

Its pretty clear your so-called "small minority" almost successfully sent 25 million people into an all out civil war. And, it's clear that the anti-occupation crowd in Al Anbar partnered up with Al-Qaeda until the extremists interpretation and enforcement of that religious society made the locals rebel. That's when they made the accommodation with the Americans-- Iraqis didn't want to live like the Taliban. If I lived under a brutal dictatorship, I would have reacted how most rational Iraqis reacted by tearing down Saddam's statues and smacking them with my shoe (a grave insult in Muslim culture).

Quoting Francoamerican: Berman's highly misleading construct of "Islamic totalitarianism" belongs to the rubbish heap of punditry produced in the wake of September 11. It was concocted to make Americans feel good about a war that, unlike WWII, did not have a clear enemy.

Are you a fool? No clear enemy? Maybe to an

You can wave Munich and all the other false historical analogies as much as you like; they are simply irrelevant here. No Middle Eastern country poses an existential threat to the West or even to Israel, as long as Israel has a monopoly of nuclear weapons. The ideology of Al-Quaida is that of a tiny minority in the Muslim world, and Islamism, totalitarian or not, did not justify the war in Iraq, although it did serve the useful purpose of keeping people like you and Christopher Hitchens in a permanent state of moral overdrive. And yes Islamism WAS cobbled together by scribblers and madmen, even if it is based in some respects on the Koran. If every insane religious ideology justified war, the rest of the world should declare war on the United States, with its bible-thumping lunatics and dimwits like Sarah Palin declaring that the war in Iraq was willed by God. Eric Alterman and others on this board have stated their reasons why they think the war was ill-advised. I agree with them. I see no reason to repeat their arguments. Clearly no one is going to persuade

Quoting Francoamerican: The bribing of Iraqi Al-Qaida members has been widely reported in the press. I am not trying to paint the US military as "dirty." Au contraire, I would commend them for their intelligence in using money to buy off a few hotheads instead of risking their lives to kill them off. All's fair in love and war.

First, show me ONE article that states that Al-Qaida members were bribed. This is exactly the kind of crooked and/or ill-informed BS I see you spew here. It was those fighting Al-Qaida or those we wished to be who were given the inducment. As you asked...Let this be the latest example of you painting the USA as hypocritical. Its nice to see you backpeddling above though because I don't think anyone could have read your initial post without thinking it demeaning to the US military.

Quoting Francoamerican: I think the war was undertaken for eminently moral reasons,

We have agreement.

Quoting Francoamerican: The Bush administration has changed policy and war aims so many times that by now it is impossible to know what success or failure in Iraq might mean.

Of course there was policy change during the war...not surprising in

Do the research yourself. Sunni gangs supporting Al-Quaida, or supposedly supporting Al-Quaida, were bought off by the US military. I should have made the point more clearly. This has been reported several times in the New York Review of Books and the Guardian. I am glad we can agree that the war was undertaken for moral reasons. Unfortunately, as I said, moral reasons are not always good reasons. If you are too dull to understand that point, perhaps you should go back to school and study a bit. If Bush set the wars aims so high (which is, frankly, a laughable claim), it is hardly surprising that the war has been such an abysmal failure: Qui fait l'ange, fait la bête. Please look up the meaning of "pristine." As formulated your question makes no sense.

I used to think Paul Berman was moderately intelligent, until I saw his appearance on bloggingheads, for which you can search. After seeing that appearance, I realized that he is incoherent and extremely weird.

Quoting Francoamerican: You can wave Munich and all the other false historical analogies as much as you like; they are simply irrelevant here. No Middle Eastern country poses an existential threat to the West or even to Israel, as long as Israel has a monopoly of nuclear weapons.

Munich is hardly a false historical analogy-- it's rather illustrative. An enemy's writings clearly state their insane objectives and you would have us appease these totalitarians instead of confront them. Even more revealing, the evidence is clear that these groups are seeking to develop nuclear weapons in order to use them in an American city. Osama bin Laden has issued what amounts to a religious ruling that America can suffer up to 4 million deaths under his Jihad. He has personally met with members of the A. Q. Khan network to try to acquire a nuclear weapon. Pakistan, Iran, and Libya either had or were developing nuclear weapons with Libya abandoning its program. You assume these groups will be rational fearing Israel's arsenal and the doctrine of MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction)-- this is gross ethnocentrism and failure to see the supernatural religious motivations

Quoting bookofdisquiet: You assume these groups will be rational fearing Israel's arsenal and the doctrine of MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction)-- this is gross ethnocentrism and failure to see the supernatural religious motivations involved in their aims. I'm not an alarmist, I'm just willing to consider that they don't share the same type "western" logic or reason.

Yes, what you say certainly needs to be taken seriously (though I'd put it in terms of different values rather than different logic or reason) -- particularly given statements like the following from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Supreme Leader until 1989:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah... I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant...
[source]

coupled with statements such as the following from Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, perhaps Iran's second most powerful leader, in 2001:

The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything ... It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. [Source]

and statements like the following from Ahmadinejad's 2005 "wipe Israel off the map" speech:

Our dear Imam [referring to Ayatollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the

You should look up Ahmadinijad's note he dropped in the "green well" at Qom. Even scarier. Thank you for those quotes though-- half the problem in the "western world" is the arrogance in assuming every other culture in the world shares our notion of what's rational. Our ethnocentrism is our blindness.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: You should look up Ahmadinijad's note he dropped in the "green well" at Qom. Even scarier.

I did some searching, and didn't find anything about a particular note, but I did find this article, which explains about the well at Qom, how according to Shia Muslims the Mahdi or 12th Imam will one day emerge from the well, how worshipers drop letters or notes in the well for the Mahdi, and how Ahmadinejad is a big believer in all this. A few disturbing passages:

Ron Cantrell has written a book about the Mahdi. He explained, "The Mahdi is a personage that is expected to come on the scene, by Islam, as a messiah figure. He is slotted to come in the end of time, according to their writings, very much like how we think of the return of Jesus." [...]

Cantrell told us, "The 12th Imam disappeared, around the age of 9, with a promise that he would return and he would bring Islam to its total fruition as the world's last standing religion."

Enter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Since becoming the president of Iran in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has emerged as the Mahdi's most influential follower.

Cantrell said, "He [Ahmadinejad] has stated that

Yeah, that's it. I remember reading somewhere that Ahmadinijad dropped a note in the well that documented to the "hidden Imam" Iran's progress in developing nuclear technology-- I can't find anything about it on the internet now though.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Yeah, that's it. I remember reading somewhere that Ahmadinijad dropped a note in the well that documented to the "hidden Imam" Iran's progress in developing nuclear technology-- I can't find anything about it on the internet now though.

Thanks very much. I'd heard about this stuff, but never investigated it. Here's a recent, more scholarly article on the topic I found (but haven't read yet) from The Middle East Quarterlywhich looks very informative: "Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi."

Love seeing Hitchens here, I have no doubt his endorsement of Obama played no small part in his being invited, but I don't care. No way I'm going to mimic the liberals here who disown anyone from their side commiting the unforgiveable sin of disagreement. Anyways, I'm sure his endorsement had more to do with his horror over Palin's religion than anything positive about the empty rhetoric of Obama and Biden. Bob - If you can get Hitchens, you can get Douglas Murray, please get them both and keep them coming back. It's so refreshing to see Alterman get his head handed to him not only because (1) he's arguing against someone who has his facts straight but also (2) the fact that there is no Sunday morning host running interference for him. Best moment: Hitchens shows Alterman to not only have no clue what he's talking about but to actually be mixing and matching unrelated facts to fabricate (dare I use Alterman's term 'smear'?) Hitchens at 41:00. He completely dismantles him.....and EA's response: "OK, fine" - - Absolutely hilarious. Bravo Hitch.

Quoting Francoamerican: Do the research yourself. Sunni gangs supporting Al-Quaida, or supposedly supporting Al-Quaida, were bought off by the US military. I should have made the point more clearly. This has been reported several times in the New York Review of Books and the Guardian.

Lets see Franco...
First it was you claiming our military was bribing Al_Quaida. I then tell you that you are full of shit. You return to tell ME to do my own research and then in the same breath your story switches to bribing Sunni gangs supporting Al-Quaida and then on the exhale it switches to Sunni gangs "supposedly" supporting Al-Quaida. So which is it Franco??? Its hard to debate a moving target. I guess YOU did the research and discovered I was correct and you were not man enough to admit you were full of shit. Oh wait, I recently mistook Ocean for a man and discovered that chest-beating and a prepoderance of body hair can be misleading. Damn, did I do it again?

Quoting Francoamerican: I am glad we can agree that the war was undertaken for moral reasons. Unfortunately, as I said, moral reasons are not always good reasons. If you are too dull to understand that point, perhaps you

Hitchens used to make his case for invading Iraq on exclusively moral grounds and out of a misguided attraction to the cause of Iraqi Kurds. Now, since the war is almost certainly an abject and terribly expensive failure, he tries to make a case for it on prudential grounds ("It was not a war of choice"). My own view is that Hitchens took his contrarian position on the war in order to make money and advance his career, and the strategy worked! He claims that he has been able to retain his most intimate friends, Rushdie and Martin Amis, while losing some of his former, but newer and presumably American ones. I've never met the man, but I used to look forward to reading him. The problem is that he has never outgrown a certain Oxford debating society immaturity. He's not interested in truth and justice, but in scoring points, making money, and advancing his career. No wonder he drinks so much. Here is what I don't like about the entire pro-war crowd. They can say that they would have supported a much larger commitment of troops and money for the

I still think invading Iraq was the wrong course of action, but I'm still unsure on what we should have done instead. Hypotheticals are useful to generate debate but they do little to light the way towards the best course of action. Action is the key, talk simply conceals our impotence.
The Middle East and many other regions besides are so mired by their inability to break from bad history that it seems pure folly to, what seems now, have arbitrarily invaded, granted, probably the worst of the bunch, for reasons no one can now clearly articulate, with no long term plan, and on the cheap, and in the hope that it would all work out. Well it hasn't: thousands are dead, millions are displaced, and the country is in ruins. We can debate the whys and therefores, but they are the facts.
Nation building is a fiendishly difficult task, more so when you don't have the stomach for it. Worse when those you claim to be liberating seem less than impressed with your efforts. To wit, is it a good idea, with the job not even close to done that we should now leave the

Quoting lvvvop: Instead, I would rather have seen, as entertaining as the diavlog was, an extended discussion, not on the past, or what each participant considers now to be the past, but rather on how the problems of the present and near future should be addressed.

This is, in my opinion, one of the most important aspects that people seem to miss when we discuss current problems of any nature. We need to understand the past, how we ended up where we are, and the present, as the current state of affairs. But, then we have to move on to the careful consideration of action for the future. It is the lack of public discourse about planning the future that places us at the tail end of political life. Then it all becomes reduced to expressing our reactions to someone else's decisions. Although we may not have direct access to decision making, there are many advantages to this kind of exercise. It forces you to move from a passive critic to an active planner. You would move from living in what reality should have been like to what reality may or will be. I fully support

I just listened to a great speech from Col Peter Mansoor to the Commonwealth Club of California. He's written a new book, Baghdad at Sunrise. He was a combat brigade commander in Iraq, Gen Petraeus' Executive Officer, and one of the Council of Colonels that planned the "Surge." He's now teaching history at Ohio State University. Here's the link: http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/au...30_mansoor.mp3 He unequivocally says that he thinks the Iraq War was a mistake. He also says he thinks we need to stay and stabilize the country. He respects both Obama and McCain, but thinks McCain has a better understanding of the military necessities in Iraq. He also says we have strengthened Iran's position in the region. Interesting stuff. People might conclude that opposing the Iraq invasion does not make one a leftist amoral dirtbag.

Sorry for being dense, but who is WHB?

Quoting JimN: I just listened to a great speech from Col Peter Mansoor to the Commonwealth Club of California. He's written a new book, Baghdad at Sunrise. He was a combat brigade commander in Iraq, Gen Petraeus' Executive Officer, and one of the Council of Colonels that planned the "Surge." He's now teaching history at Ohio State University. Here's the link:

http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/au...30_mansoor.mp3

He unequivocally says that he thinks the Iraq War was a mistake. He also says he thinks we need to stay and stabilize the country. He respects both Obama and McCain, but thinks McCain has a better understanding of the military necessities in Iraq.

He also says we have strengthened Iran's position in the region. Interesting stuff. People might conclude that opposing the Iraq invasion does not make one a leftist amoral dirtbag.

Hear hear, you've made a believer out of me. The insistence by the wingnuts here that it was a well advised operation from the outset has done nothing but ruin their credibility in my eyes. To say nothing of their condescension and belligerence (that I see you witnessed first hand).
There is even talk of a withdrawal timeline ending in

Quoting harkin: Love seeing Hitchens here, I have no doubt his endorsement of Obama played no small part in his being invited

Seriously? No doubt? Really?

That's just false. Hitchens never made a case on exclusively moral grounds. He said many times in the past that Saddam was in violation of various UN resolutions and that we had to depose him so as to shore up the UN; he has said that Saddam's regime was sure to crumble, and that that would have caused far worse destablilization (a point on which he seems to have changed his mind, since he thinks that if we hadn't gone to war Saddam would have remained in power). Those were just two off the top of my head.

I think you will find, if you go back to what Hitchens was saying before the invasion, that much the greater emphasis was placed upon what a bad fellow Saddam was. Hitchens rarely, if ever, said anything about the military strategy of the invasion, how many troops would be required, about the likely costs of the war, about the prudential questions of occupying the country. Perhaps I overreached when I said "exclusively," but not much, not as much as when you say that I am "just wrong." Hitchens took the position, if it can be called a position, that we had to do whatever was necessary to make the occupation work, and that it was not his problem if it turned out that the US was not prepared to do whatever was necessary, as it was obvious that we were not, to anyone with half a brain. He was deeply irresponsible on this point, just as his neocon pals were.

OK, well now this is harder to analyze. First, we would need to distinguish between prudence and morality. It can be quite hard. But I take it by "prudence" you mean, "we're embarking on this policy because it is in our nation's interest" and by morality you mean "we're embarking on this policy because, regardless of whether it's in our nation's interest, it's ...
(a) in another nation's interest
(b) necessary because Saddam is a threat to long-term stability in the region
(c) necessary because Saddam committed a genocide, and his regime needs to be toppled because of it Now, of those, I'm guessing you're going to say (c) counts as a moral reason, whereas (b) counts as a prudential reason, even if it's not in the US's interest? I'm curious as to whether you would say (a) is a moral reason. To me, just for the record, they're all reasons motivated by moral concerns, though I use "moral" pretty broadly.

Whatever the case... Hitch 4 Prez!

Speaking generally, the Hitchens conception of political morality is to maximize the political liberty of individuals in a way that is consistent with their peaceful coexistence in a world that is divided politically into nation-states. Taking this conception as our moral benchmark, when I speak of political prudence I mean that a prudential US foreign policy is one that is concerned to preserve and protect the liberty of US citizens, while the liberty of anyone else is either of no concern at all or of secondary concern. It could happen, of course, that the liberty of US citizens can only be preserved and protected by fostering or protecting the liberty of others. But few would say that this was the case with Iraq, although Hitchens might well have said this, so concerned was he with fostering political liberty for Iraqis. By “prudential,” I also mean a political-military calculus of costs and benefits, in which the moral goodness of the end, where the end is a successful conclusion to the invasion of Iraq by US lights, is either explicitly said not to be in question or is held in abeyance. Put as simply as

Quoting ledocs: It is in the nature of a genuinely moral claim that it should tend to override the concern for one’s own continued existence. That is, a nation could be moved to risk its own continued existence in order to prevent genocide, so great is the moral prohibition against genocide. In fact, nations rarely risk their own continued existence in order to prevent genocide in other nations. This is an indication that prudence tends to override morality in foreign policy, as a matter of historical fact.

Are you talking about prudence vs morality or prudence vs altruism? I do understand that altruism is a moral principle and as such, you may include it within the general idea of morality. But, if you're talking about defending some high moral value, like preventing genocide in a different nation, by an action that implies self-sacrifice, wouldn't that be altruism?

I don't get the point of your question, what you're getting at. But my general response is that doing what the moral law demands is not altruism, it is obedience to the law, or to what morality demands. Altruism would consist in a sacrifice that moral law does not command, for example, giving to another more of one's owns goods than the moral law commands. If the moral law demands that we prevent starvation, altruism would consist in going beyond merely preventing starvation, if this were consistent with not starving ourselves. But I have never before tried to define altruism, so I am speaking in an ad hoc way. In any event, Alterman pointed out that the US does not attempt to prevent every genocide. The US does not even attempt to prevent every genocide that it could probably prevent without risking its own continued existence, or without risking, say, even as few as 1000 American deaths and 2000 American casualties. We pick and choose, depending upon the perceived intensity of the moral claim and upon the risk/reward calculus of achieving the end of preventing the genocide. What we do, though, and what we ought to do in light of

There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a hypothetical argument, so allow me to clear it up. A hypothetical arguement is one based on an assumption that something will happen, implying a degree of uncertainty. Hitchens makes his arguement on well defined fact with no degree of uncertainty. Without the United States intervention in mesopotamia, Iraq would without a doubt be under the rule of an irrattional dictator who 1) unjustifiably invaded his neighbors 2) sponsored terrorism 3) proliferated and sought WMD's and 4) committed genocide. The United States (as well as the rest of the world) has a responsibility to act against perpetrators of these 4 conditions and, as was agreed by the international community prior to the 2001 invasion, intervention was inevitable (as Hitchens points out). Perhaps most devastatingly to those who take the position of Mr. Alderman, Iraq "sits on a choke point of the world economy". Instability in the region and the situation of a "Congo" on the gulf would disrupt oil production with global effects beyond the measure of calculability. Indeed, this is most certainly the actual reason for the invasion of Iraq, beyond the political and

Quoting ledocs: I don't get the point of your question, what you're getting at. But my general response is that doing what the moral law demands is not altruism, it is obedience to the law, or to what morality demands. Altruism would consist in a sacrifice that moral law does not command, for example, giving to another more of one's owns goods than the moral law commands. If the moral law demands that we prevent starvation, altruism would consist in going beyond merely preventing starvation, if this were consistent with not starving ourselves. But I have never before tried to define altruism, so I am speaking in an ad hoc way.

In any event, Alterman pointed out that the US does not attempt to prevent every genocide. The US does not even attempt to prevent every genocide that it could probably prevent without risking its own continued existence, or without risking, say, even as few as 1000 American deaths and 2000 American casualties. We pick and choose, depending upon the perceived intensity of the moral claim and upon the risk/reward calculus of achieving the end of preventing the genocide. What we do, though, and what we ought to do in light of

Quoting koffing: There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a hypothetical argument, so allow me to clear it up.

Is this sentence hypothetical or just plain arrogant? You really think you know for an absolute certainty what would have transpired in the last five years if GW had the patience to get the rest of the world on board instead of rushing in with guns blazing, in an unprecedented (for the US) act of military aggression, fearing (rightfully so) that his "political capitol" would wain, if he went through the usual channels? The question isn't even if the move needed to be made, even given the weapons inspectors were proven exactly right in defining the threat (nill), the real screw up was wanting all the credit for what turned into a demonstration of the most brilliant and powerful military in human history, led by the most incompetent executive branch in the history of the US.
Your insistence that there were no other approaches to this kind of foreign interventionist scenario, is nothing but black and white thinking, especially when expressed in the hypothetical.

The option of diplomacy had been exhausted by Hussein's refusal to comply. The United Nations, and any other body one would care to mention, was powerless to reform Saddam's regime. In fact, Saddam himself was probably unable to change his own regime had he willed it, owing to his monsterous megalomania and insanity. Iraqi society had been so villainously assaulted by Saddam, and had begun to deteriorate further, that any question of what would have happened had no intervention taken place is quite ignorant. So when sanctions are circumvented, resolutions ignored, and threats to neighbors/ civlized society increased, what other options are on the table? The violence witnessed in the country after the invasion is a testament that we could not stand aside and leave Iraq, a country of great importance to human society, at the mercy of such people.

More from the speech by Col Mansoor, combat brigade commander, Executive Officer to Gen Petraeus, and member of the Council of Colonels which was instrumental in the strategies behind the surge: "I do believe it was a significant strategic error to go into Iraq in the first place. We had a strategy of containing Saddam Hussein that was working and by the way we were also containing Iran at the same time."

Quoting JimN: Mansoor:

I do believe it was a significant strategic error to go into Iraq in the first place. We had a strategy of containing Saddam Hussein that was working and by the way we were also containing Iran at the same time.

That's been my argument all along. (not that I'm comparing my judgment to his.) We not only pay the direct and obvious costs of this war, we had a strategy that was working - and we needed to keep our powder dry. Iran was always going to the bigger problem (vis Iraq) eventually. We've weakened ourselves regionally, and strengthened Iran's position - and done so at enormous cost.

Quoting ledocs: Speaking generally, the Hitchens conception of political morality is to maximize the political liberty of individuals in a way that is consistent with their peaceful coexistence in a world that is divided politically into nation-states.

So in your view he's a Millian (to clarify for anyone else who may not get the reference, he follows John Stuart Mill's harm principle--you should be given liberty until your having it harms others--as a determining his ideal political arrangement). Does he ever articulate this anywhere? Perhaps you think he's a Kantian, in that he, like Kant in The Metaphysics of Morals, thinks that coercion ("hindrance of liberty") by the state is permitted only in cases where that coercion stops other coercion. I suppose Kant and Mill are actually rather close, though Kant has a different way from Mill of determining which actions are consistent with the moral law.

Taking this conception as our moral benchmark, when I speak of political prudence I mean that a prudential US foreign policy is one that is concerned to preserve and protect the liberty of US citizens, while the liberty of anyone else is either of

(1) As regards the definition of prudence I offered, I was trying to construct Hitchens's position as regards political morality, and my impression is that political liberty is of paramount importance to Hitchens's definition of morality. The definition of prudence follows from that, since prudential behavior is in the service of higher ends, in this case, the preservation of liberty. (2) My general point was that Hitchens, in the runup to war, was not very concerned with what the war would cost in blood or treasure. Prudential considerations, on the other hand, attend to such matters. So the two things are opposed. One sort of person says that we must win the war, whatever it costs, because the stakes are so high, and I am arguing that the stakes for Hitchens were couched primarily in moral terms. Another sort of person denies that the stakes were quite so high and is concerned about how the various expenditures will affect other US interests, although not excluding the preservation of US liberty. This seems like a pretty straightforward opposition to me. (3) I spoke of a "genuine" moral claim. You replied with an example of a moral claim that you admit is trivial, that I should

Quoting AemJeff: That's been my argument all along. (not that I'm comparing my judgment to his.) We not only pay the direct and obvious costs of this war, we had a strategy that was working - and we needed to keep our powder dry. Iran was always going to the bigger problem (vis Iraq) eventually. We've weakened ourselves regionally, and strengthened Iran's position - and done so at enormous cost.

I agree. I remember wondering, why Iraq and not Iran or North Korea? If WMD was really the problem, those two were bigger threats. That's why I never bought the argument that WMD were the primary reason for going into Iraq. It was simply the stated reason. Here's what Mansoor has to say about this: "Regrettably I think we have enabled Iran to actually expand its power and influence in the Middle East with our destruction of their major competitor, which was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Now I have no love for Saddam Hussein. He was a first class thug, he murdered hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, and it’s good that he’s gone. Having said that, in terms of raw power we did not think through what the destabilization of Iraq would do to

It could be that Hitchens wasn't concerned with the cost in blood and treasure not just because he thought so strongly that the cause was just, but also because he didn't think it would, in fact, end up being very costly. I think the idea was: (1) Iraqis want to get rid of Saddam, so it won't be hard to get rid of him; (2) because Iraqis want to get rid of Saddam so strongly, they will welcome us as liberators when we depose him (and Hitchens will be sure to mention that some, in fact, did); (3) Iraq is the most secular state in the Middle East, so it won't be too hard to reform into a western-style democratic state; and (4) Iraq has lots of oil to defray the costs of the war. Obviously, (2) and (3) turned out to be incorrect, and regardless of whether (4) is true, we're not paying for the war with oil revenues. At any rate, after the fact, Hitchens says things like, "we had to go in there because if we hadn't Saddam's regime would have collapsed and there would have been disorder" or "Saddam would have remained in power for a

Quoting koffing: The option of diplomacy had been exhausted by Hussein's refusal to comply.

Once again, you get off to a running start down a righteous path to erroneousness with the first sentence. The very presence of weapons inspectors, and their full reports indicating no WMD evidence whatsoever, and their testimonies as to the accuracy of those reports, can hardly be described as non-compliance. A last minute acceptance of any and all terms was ignored pre-invasion, further evidence of compliance.
Post-invasion scouring of the entire region revealed the claims of WMD existence were purely fictional, no surprise to the experts who had already been there.
But the option for diplomacy I speak of was not about negotiating with Iraq, but pushing for an internationally supported action against them. The fear based case was made before the UN using misinterpreted satellite photos, and props, misrepresented as real biological weapons. None of the hindsight justifications that have been bandied about five years into the conflict were presented to the domestic or international communities, as if the administration did not trust anyone to understand their grand ideology and preemptive methodologies (assuming they existed), so they fabricated justifications out of whole bullshit.

Quoting JimN: I remember wondering, why Iraq and not Iran or North Korea? If WMD was really the problem, those two were bigger threats. That's why I never bought the argument that WMD were the primary reason for going into Iraq. It was simply the stated reason.

That is one of the biggest ironies of the whole craven tale. With three "axis" members to choose from, their judgment led to only one without a significant nuke program. Not only did they not quell a significant threat, they actually made it more difficult to do something about the real threats.

This is a fabulous discussion with polite,thoughtful and intelligent disagreement. Amanda sounds like a 6-year old Limbaugh parrot having a temper tantrum.

Surely the response is that North Korea already had nuclear weapons, which made it impossible to do anything about them. Which is precisely why we had to attack Iraq before they got nuclear weapons (after which it would be impossible to regime-change them, just like it is to regime-change N. Korea).

Oops, sorry, I'm the dense one! GWB, not WHB: I'm a little dyslexic, plus H is next to W..., on second thoughts, I'm just dense.

Quoting Bobby G: Surely the response is that North Korea already had nuclear weapons, which made it impossible to do anything about them. Which is precisely why we had to attack Iraq before they got nuclear weapons (after which it would be impossible to regime-change them, just like it is to regime-change N. Korea).

Regardless of whether the Norks had nukes in 2003, they hold Seoul hostage with an enormous amount of artillery hidden in the mountain above it. I'm really not making the argument that it would have been better to attack the Norks (or the Iranians, for that matter.) But, having picked three names out if a hat, and actually choosing the only one of those three about which their premise (has nukes, or will have nukes soon) was flatly false as the object of actions (invasion!) with far-reaching consequences - I think that speaks volumes.

I think I was so confused by the statement you quoted that it threw me off! He does that to me.

Quoting kidneystones: to vote for McCain.

Is it unreasonable for people to vote based on more than one issue?

excuse me, 2003 invasion

Let me just say that you are certainly in a very small minority of people who wish to characterize Saddam’s regime as “in compliance” with UN resolutions. Even France and Russia were in agreement that Iraq had not satisfactorily fulfilled its obligations of disarmament prior to the March invasion. Check it here. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron The issue was not that inspectors were not allowed in, which they were, or that no WMD’s were found, which none were, but that Iraq was unable and refused to account for its past WMD programs. The reason it could not account for them, and the reason inspectors found no evidence forthem, was because Saddam had been dealing them around. Syria, as Hitchens noted, had a huge stockpile of Iraqi WMD’s which it gave up after the U.S. set a precedent in the region. On the point of internationally supported action against Iraq: the global community recognized that Saddam Hussein’s regime was destroying Iraqi society, compromising stability of the region by repeated aggression against his neighbors, and threatening the global oil supply. Additionally, the global community was in agreement that Saddam could not continue as leader of Iraq, not in the

Let me reiterate the argument: (1) We should attack dangerous countries and change their regimes before they get nuclear weapons, because if they get nuclear weapons it will be too late to attack them.
(2) North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are dangerous countries.
(3) North Korea has nukes.
(4) Iran and Iraq don't have nukes.
(5) Therefore, we should attack Iran and Iraq but not North Korea. And yet you say that the fact that the US didn't attack North Korea "speaks volumes." What are the volumes that it speaks? (Note as well that there could be other reasons not to attack Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. It's just that the Bush administration, as well as countless pundits, thought that while there were certainly convincing reasons not to attack North Korea, the reasons against attacking Iraq weren't powerful enough.)

Quoting Bobby G: Let me reiterate the argument:

(1) We should attack dangerous countries and change their regimes before they get nuclear weapons, because if they get nuclear weapons it will be too late to attack them.
(2) North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are dangerous countries.
(3) North Korea has nukes.
(4) Iran and Iraq don't have nukes.
(5) Therefore, we should attack Iran and Iraq but not North Korea.

And yet you say that the fact that the US didn't attack North Korea "speaks volumes." What are the volumes that it speaks?

(Note as well that there could be other reasons not to attack Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. It's just that the Bush administration, as well as countless pundits, thought that while there were certainly convincing reasons not to attack North Korea, the reasons against attacking Iraq weren't powerful enough.)

I don't agree with how you've restated my argument. NK has nukes.
Iran has an active program.
Iraq had squat. There was no good evidence that Iraq didn't have squat. Former administrations may have believed there was a good chance that Saddam was hiding something, and it's definitely true that he had things to hide. The consequences of attacking him were well known - stated, in a

Quoting koffing: Let me just say that you are certainly in a very small minority of people who wish to characterize Saddam’s regime as “in compliance” with UN resolutions.

Did I say "in compliance"? No. I see this exchange as futile as you are hopelessly married to the idea that unilateral aggression in Iraq by the US / UK was a good idea. I can only hope you are a US or UK citizen, as we are the ones who get to foot the entire bill for your "humanitarian effort" (right..). If other countries agreed with Bush / Blair, then why not get their support, especially when you are engaging in a militarily unprovoked attack.
My main point in this thread has been that hindsight is golden and you or Hitchens or anyone else thinks they have the only valid world view, as supported by hypothetical argument is treading on shaky ground indeed.
You failed to sell me on this idea, but I'm sure there are plenty of buyers out there, so good luck.

I don't think you're a hateful racist. These times aren't easy, and it's getting more and more difficult not to characterize our opponents by the most fringe members of their respective political camps. On the other hand, you have to wonder what the fringies say about a movement as a whole. Maybe someone wiser than me can offer a solution to this problem. Clearly you're not one of these fringe members, and I think I understand your perspective. Also, there is something to concerns about racism and hatred: I admit to having the crap scared out of me by the hatemongering taking place at Palin rallies a couple of weeks ago. Some of us who support Obama uncomfortably push to the backs of our minds worries about assassination, occasionally bringing these concerns out in open conversation, but better not to dwell on that nightmare. My wife and her best friend are having a harder time of it the closer the election comes; I'm seeing more tears and anxiety as the tension builds. Your concerns about Obama's connections aren't necessarily racist or unreasonable, in my opinion. However, in the context of how McCain/Palin are

You argued that inspectors in Iraq proved that Saddam was not in "non-compliance" and that "last minute acceptance of any and all terms" was "further evidence of compliance". Of course, the notion that Saddam agreed to any and all terms at any time is delusional. You are guilty of the same offense of which you charge me in ignoring the facts in order to convince yourself that you support the anti-war position. I will continue to stand up for and support the confrontation, isolation, and destruction of the enemies of civilzation while you wait for the international community to agree on exactly how one of the most dangerous enemies shall be disposed.

Quoting AemJeff: I don't agree with how you've restated my argument.

I was stating my argument, not yours.

There was no good evidence that Iraq didn't have squat. Former administrations may have believed there was a good chance that Saddam was hiding something, and it's definitely true that he had things to hide. The consequences of attacking him were well known - stated, in a prior life apparently, by Cheney himself - and, while not as grave as in the case of the Norks, were seen as, and have proved to be, pretty awful.

Obviously, events turned out to show that there was no good evidence. But from what I remember, lots of international agencies thought there was good evidence, presumably of the circumstantial kind. But this is not what I was originally arguing about. I was arguing that the claim, repeatedly made, that if the US was really concerned about WMD, then they would have been more interested in attacking North Korea, is a silly claim. And I haven't heard any reason to change my mind about that.

Quoting Bobby G: But from what I remember, lots of international agencies thought there was good evidence, presumably of the circumstantial kind.

You may be right about this, but what I remember was the IAEA not wanting to take a definitive stand on this. I also remember very specifically that when we sent a representative to NATO (maybe it was Rumsfeld, I'm not sure) and the NATO representatives came out of the meeting very skeptical. At the time this seemed significant because you wouldn't expect NATO reps to come out of a classified meeting, where we were showing them supposedly convincing evidence, and publicly state that they were less than convinced. Normally they'd be more reticent to make these pronouncements. I thought at the time it was a strong indication we didn't have good evidence.

Quoting Bobby G: I was arguing that the claim, repeatedly made, that if the US was really concerned about WMD, then they would have been more interested in attacking North Korea, is a silly claim.

Attacking North Korea was unrealistic; still, the Bush administration could have made a lot of noise about them, more than they did. Also, what about Iran? No one argued that they were already nuclear. I can't think of a good reason why

Quoting koffing: You argued that inspectors in Iraq proved that Saddam was not in "non-compliance" and that "last minute acceptance of any and all terms" was "further evidence of compliance". Of course, the notion that Saddam agreed to any and all terms at any time is delusional. You are guilty of the same offense of which you charge me in ignoring the facts in order to convince yourself that you support the anti-war position. I will continue to stand up for and support the confrontation, isolation, and destruction of the enemies of civilzation while you wait for the international community to agree on exactly how one of the most dangerous enemies shall be disposed.

Nice try: "At face value, the Case of Saddam's Desperate Last-Minute Offer paints a damning picture of the Bush administration as so eager to go to war that it failed to pursue an admittedly strange but promising back channel. That's how Thomas Powers, author of "Intelligence Wars: American Secret History From Hitler to Al Qaeda," sees it." See how I did that? I pretended to be backing off, and you, being the predictable hawk, went in for the kill, with your good

Quoting Bobby G: I was arguing that the claim, repeatedly made, that if the US was really concerned about WMD, then they would have been more interested in attacking North Korea, is a silly claim. And I haven't heard any reason to change my mind about that.

That not the claim I've tried to make. And I wouldn't try to change your mind about it.

Quoting JimN: You may be right about this, but what I remember was the IAEA not wanting to take a definitive stand on this. I also remember very specifically that when we sent a representative to NATO (maybe it was Rumsfeld, I'm not sure) and the NATO representatives came out of the meeting very skeptical. At the time this seemed significant because you wouldn't expect NATO reps to come out of a classified meeting, where we were showing them supposedly convincing evidence, and publicly state that they were less than convinced. Normally they'd be more reticent to make these pronouncements. I thought at the time it was a strong indication we didn't have good evidence.

That's interesting stuff. I'd never heard that about NATO. What I'd heard is that the intelligence agencies of Israel, the UK, France, and Germany all thought it was quite likely that Saddam had chemical and biological WMD and was pursuing nuclear WMD.

Attacking North Korea was unrealistic; still, the Bush administration could have made a lot of noise about them, more than they did.

Well, given that they have nuclear weapons, the approach the Bush administration is right now taking--talks with North Korea along with China to

Oh, OK. Well...uh...good!

Quoting Bobby G: The reason Iran was not as high on the list is (1) they had a much more pro-American populace than any other middle eastern country, but (2) they were not as secular as Iraq. Consequently, owing to their religiosity, they weren't ready for regime-change, whereas Iraq, owing to its secular nature, was. Then, after Iraq had a regime-change, the dominoes would start falling. (Obviously, this turned out to be wrong, at least for a while. Whether Iraq will have a stable regime is yet to be seen.) Moreover, Iraq had flouted UN resolutions, and the sanctions regime against them was crumbling, and Saddam was more aggressive than Iran, so it made more sense to nip him in the bud.

These are good points about Iran, but only in the context of understanding the war as an attempt to transform the Middle East, when it was sold as being about Iraq's WMD. That's the root of the problem--not that the Bush administration wasn't concerned with WMD, but that it was a cover for their real reasons. Your points notwithstanding, if WMD (or nuclear terrorism) had been the real justification, as it was supposed to have been, Iran presented a compelling target--a stated desire to

As Jonah Goldberg would say, lot of points there.

Quoting JimN: These are good points about Iran, but only in the context of understanding the war as an attempt to transform the Middle East, when it was sold as being about Iraq's WMD. That's the root of the problem--not that the Bush administration wasn't concerned with WMD, but that it was a cover for their real reasons. Your points notwithstanding, if WMD (or nuclear terrorism) had been the real justification, as it was supposed to have been, Iran presented a compelling target--a stated desire to acquire nukes, and stated support of terrorists, particularly Hezbollah.

I think you're right that the main goal was/is the transformation of the middle east, but I think they were quite serious about WMD (at least, nuclear WMD0. The whole reason they want to transform the middle east is so that nuclear weapons don't get in the wrong hands and blow the shit out of NYC. 9/11 showed them it could be done, so they felt they had to do more than play defense. Of course, transforming the whole middle east, if no domino theory works, is a loony-tunes enterprise, especially for a conservative. However, there were early indications

Quoting kidneystones: Two weeks ago Slate had an image of Palin with a bible between her legs in a piece that included a link to women 'into fisting'.

This is revolting and depressing. It's hard to convert people to one's side of the argument with this kind of thing going on. It reminds me of the "Gen Betray-Us" ad, which I complained to MoveOn about. It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on a number of these points, but that we also agree in principle in a number of areas. I'm more sanguine than you about Obama. His associations don't trouble me as much as they do you--the guilt by association argument is ok as far as it goes but isn't definitive for me. I'm one of those strange people who are more policy- and issue-oriented than most, so I look at what he says. Even so, in the character department Obama strikes me as temperamentally centrist and pragmatic. I do believe he's a bridge-builder. Some have even called him Burkean. Here's an interesting editorial from an Obamacon. One thought experiment might be to consider how a "transformational" leader might look prior

Great Op-Ed in today's Boston Globe. Another Colonel coming out against the strategic disaster of the Iraq invasion. "Bush always confused strategy with ideology." And, from Col Peter Mansoor, combat brigade commander in Iraq, Executive Officer to Gen Petraeus, targeted by terrorists, member of the Council of Colonels that laid the groundwork for the Surge: "This administration made serious mistakes, and strategic errors are the hardest ones to overcome. Much easier to overcome bad tactics, bad organizational concepts, but when you make an error in strategy sometimes you’re not able to overcome it at all, or other times maybe the best you can do is get out with some sort of stalemated situation. This kind of the situation we’re in Iraq today."

kidneystones: I've enjoyed the exchange as well, and I hope I don't have to eat too much crow in the future!

Quoting ogieogie: I'd love to see them do this often, especially if they'd get past the old arguments and on to current events. Debating is great, but conversing would be even better. You betcha.

Second that, for sure.

Quoting cragger: [...]

That was extremely well-said, cragger.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]

Welcome back Brendan.

Quoting kidneystones: Eric Alterman would likely be appalled to learn I've been an unwavering admirer for years. If anything, Eric was far too kind about the attacks Chris and others made on the patriotism of anyone who felt George Bush couldn't be relied upon to run a lumber yard.

Every single attack on the Chosen candidate is met by accusations of racism, in much the same way that Bush, Chris, and company accused any and all critics of Bush policy of hating America. Bush and the Chosen One are virtually identical. Both will say or do anything to anyone at any time to win power, money and fame. Both understand that there's nothing liberals fear more than being accused of racism; or of being insufficiently patriotic. That goes double for liberals in the media. Great way to terrorize opponents and silence the feeble.

I'd rather have heard more about the future/present than the hypothetical past. No mention of Russia's security arrangements with Syria; or of Russia's work with Iran's nuclear program. Selling nuclear technology to India doesn't get a squeak.

Good to see Eric fight his corner so effectively. Hope Chris

Check the debate at UCLA that pitted Hitchens and Michael Ignatieff against Robert Scheer and Mark Danner. That became very acrimonious. In fact, Hitchens leaves the stage in a huff because of something Scheer says. I have a different impression of Hitchens in debate. To my mind, he is very given to gratuitous insult and character assassination, anything that will display his rapier wit and discomfit the opponent. Whether he actually has called people traitors or unpatriotic, I don't know, but I certainly do not think that to do so would be at all inconsistent with his overall approach to debate. When I see Hitchens against a worthy opponent, it takes me back to some of the meetings between William Buckley and Gore Vidal, which became very acrimonious indeed. One thing that I have seen Hitchens do more than once is refer sneeringly to a predominatly anti-war crowd as "Comrades." Hitchens thrives on creating a highly charged atmosphere. It was telling to me that Hitchens, in his own introduction of himself in this diavlog, calls himself a "polemicist." At least he has some self-knowledge.

Quoting ledocs: Check the debate at UCLA that pitted Hitchens and Michael Ignatieff against Robert Scheer and Mark Danner. That became very acrimonious. In fact, Hitchens leaves the stage in a huff because of something Scheer says.

I have a different impression of Hitchens in debate. To my mind, he is very given to gratuitous insult and character assassination, anything that will display his rapier wit and discomfit the opponent. Whether he actually has called people traitors or unpatriotic, I don't know, but I certainly do not think that to do so would be at all inconsistent with his overall approach to debate. When I see Hitchens against a worthy opponent, it takes me back to some of the meetings between William Buckley and Gore Vidal, which became very acrimonious indeed. One thing that I have seen Hitchens do more than once is refer sneeringly to a predominatly anti-war crowd as "Comrades." Hitchens thrives on creating a highly charged atmosphere. It was telling to me that Hitchens, in his own introduction of himself in this diavlog, calls himself a "polemicist." At least he has some self-knowledge.

This is a pretty fair way to characterize Hitchens, I think.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: whatever you Code Pink wannabee. The last time I checked we had an all volunteer army whose chosen profession was combat in defense of freedom-- so don't give me that blood on my hands nonsense-- . You have the blood of a Kurdish Genocide on your hands-- it's cowardly as*holes like you that kept our government from taking out Saddam in the first gulf war.

No, it was assholes like this guy. Pretty sure Ocean had an infinitesimal role in the decision.

Quoting handle: Pretty sure Ocean had an infinitesimal role in the decision.

For all practical purposes I will claim "zero" role. GHW never asked me. Now, had he asked me, and after giving it a lot of thought, frankly, I have no clue about what I would have said. I was having babies at the time...

Cheney was and is a total a**hole. The notion of realpolitik that went into the decision not to totally invade Iraq and topple Saddam in the first gulf war was a gross failure of the U.N.

Quoting mvantony: Welcome back Brendan.

Thanks, Michael. Nice to be back.

Once again: nothing you say about insane religious ideologies or the dangers they may pose to the the United States and its allies can justify retroactively the war in Iraq. Your crackpot meditations on Islam are nothing but personal opinions. They were not invoked to justify the war. Nor could they have been under international law. The casus belli was the supposed possession of WMD by Saddam Hussein and the supposed imminent threat they posed to the United States and its allies....two suppositions that turned out to be false. In fact, it was clear to every competent observer at the time that the Bush administration was groping for a justification for the war that would allow it to carry out its utopian "freedom agenda," without having to say as much in a public forum such as the UN. If you think that agenda has been successfully executed, you are indeed a crackpot of the first order.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Cheney was and is a total a**hole. The notion of realpolitik that went into the decision not to totally invade Iraq and topple Saddam in the first gulf war was a gross failure of the U.N.

I see, so your point must be that Ocean is from the UN.

Quoting handle: I see, so your point must be that Ocean is from the UN.

handle, I will suggest that you drop this. If you prefer to continue, feel free, but don't carry my name with you in an endless chain of comments that don't seem to accomplish much. We all get carried away and continue beyond the end of constructive discussion, but it's always important to remind ourselves of the futility of this kind of interaction. And I do appreciate your support.

Ocean is more likely a pacifist and her "blood on my hands" accusations are grotesque-- if she's the U.N., then what am I? the Bush administration? a 60% majority of the U.S. Congress? Pacifism is not a moral ideology in the sense that it denies the existence of evil (just look up Ghandi's comments on the Jews and Hitler) and her accusations of my culpability are ludicrous. Imagine if Saddam were toppled after the first Gulf War-- 600,000 U.S. troops instead of 150,000--who knows, it might have been done with limited casualties-- maybe even far less than the 4,000+ we've suffered now. We will never know b/c we chose to pass the buck onto another generation. If we leave Iraq now, without a stable government, Ocean will likely see those children she was having drafted into a worldwide conflagration over resources and holy sites in Palestine. Benjamin Franklin, on the eve of the American Revolution, suggested we should all hang together, or we most assuredly we will hang separately. This applies to democratic countries with liberal values as well. I would suggest a review of the history of democracy and it's fragile ascendancy at the beginning of

Quoting Ocean: handle, I will suggest that you drop this. If you prefer to continue, feel free, but don't carry my name with you in an endless chain of comments that don't seem to accomplish much. We all get carried away and continue beyond the end of constructive discussion, but it's always important to remind ourselves of the futility of this kind of interaction. And I do appreciate your support.

You are right, as usual. And I let that moronic, rude, and asinine comment lay there for days, and could not resist anymore. A weakness I admit, and although I do not completely align myself with the left, I find the tendency toward tolerance much more pleasant than the lack of same normally voiced by many on the right. And it really pisses me off when they mistake it for weakness, and though I try to resist the temptation, it is sooo easy to retaliate, especially against the reactionary spew... oops... there I go again... Cheers!

Quoting handle: You are right, as usual. And I let that moronic, rude, and asinine comment lay there for days, and could not resist anymore. A weakness I admit, and although I do not completely align myself with the left, I find the tendency toward tolerance much more pleasant than the lack of same normally voiced by many on the right. And it really pisses me off when they mistake it for weakness, and though I try to resist the temptation, it is sooo easy to retaliate, especially against the reactionary spew... oops... there I go again...

Cheers!

If you really want to bug the trolls, just let their comments sit there, inert and without effect.

It's called logic: Premise A:

Quoting bookofdisquiet: it's cowardly as*holes like you that kept our government from taking out Saddam in the first gulf war.

Plus premise B:

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Cheney was and is a total a**hole. The notion of realpolitik that went into the decision not to totally invade Iraq and topple Saddam in the first gulf war was a gross failure of the U.N.

Equals conclusion C:

Quoting handle: I see, so your point must be that Ocean is from the UN.

Simple as that! Your turn to rave on about your occupation.

Quoting AemJeff: If you really want to bug the trolls, just let their comments sit there, inert and without effect.

A true pacifist?

Quoting handle: A true pacifist?

Nah, not me. If we ignore them, one of three things happens. 1. They keep upping the ante until they've discredited themselves without any extra effort spent by the rest of us. 2. They keep repeating themselves into the answering silence. (With the same effect ultimately as 1.) 3. They start trying to post reasonably, just so they can rejoin the conversation. Otherwise, we end up debating their talking points and providing them with all the attention they crave. (I make no claim to have consistently taken my own advice.)

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Ocean is more likely a pacifist and her "blood on my hands" accusations are grotesque-- if she's the U.N., then what am I? the Bush administration? a 60% majority of the U.S. Congress? Pacifism is not a moral ideology in the sense that it denies the existence of evil (just look up Ghandi's comments on the Jews and Hitler) and her accusations of my culpability are ludicrous.

Imagine if Saddam were toppled after the first Gulf War-- 600,000 U.S. troops instead of 150,000--who knows, it might have been done with limited casualties-- maybe even far less than the 4,000+ we've suffered now. We will never know b/c we chose to pass the buck onto another generation. If we leave Iraq now, without a stable government, Ocean will likely see those children she was having drafted into a worldwide conflagration over resources and holy sites in Palestine.

Benjamin Franklin, on the eve of the American Revolution, suggested we should all hang together, or we most assuredly we will hang separately. This applies to democratic countries with liberal values as well. I would suggest a review of the history of democracy and it's fragile ascendancy at the beginning of

Quoting Ocean: You say that pacifism denies 'evil'. Why do you say that? I should probably say first that 'evil' sounds too religious for my taste, but if you want to call a group of human shortcomings and negative immoral behavior 'evil', that's fine with me. I don't tend to think about conflict in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. Conflict involves complex interactions between the parties.

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Quoting JimN: "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipeligo

Thank you for the quote. The human mind creates all kinds of interesting stories, doesn't it?

Quoting Ocean: Thank you for the quote. The human mind creates all kinds of interesting stories, doesn't it?

JohnM finds out you gave the nod of approval to some Ruskie's quote, you're gonna get it.

Quoting bjkeefe: JohnM finds out you gave the nod of approval to some Ruskie's quote, you're gonna get it.

"Get it"? Don't mess with me... Besides, it's the message and not the messenger, don't you think?

Quoting Ocean: "Get it"? Don't mess with me...

Besides, it's the message and not the messenger, don't you think?

I would not like to speak for the Senator on that one, but if I had to guess, I think the messenger would be important to him. Perhaps the quote's author was Georgian? That'd help.

Quoting bjkeefe: I would not like to speak for the Senator on that one, but if I had to guess, I think the messenger would be important to him. Perhaps the quote's author was Georgian? That'd help.

No, he was Russian. I still think it's the message and not the messenger. At least in this case.

Just a thought. We have killed far less Iraqi's then Saddam Hussein.

Craggar: Hitchens has always been inconsistent, dishonest and wrong. Even when I agree with him, I find him hard to take because he is a condescending bully-type when he debates. But he does sound good!

Good God, I'll be glad when Eric's ice coffee is finally through. How rude to drink on camera! I hate when people do that.

Alterman is banging his head up against a rock-solid wall, trying to budge Hitchens off his support for the Iraq attack catstrophe. Hitchens was a Trotskyite for a generation or more, from the late sixties through the late eighties. Think how thick your skin would have to be in order to maintain that position, nearly fifty years after the failure of the Soviet experiment was evident to all. I supported the war in 2002-03, in some measure because I accepted Hitchens democracy-promoting arguments. (Although I never accepted the WMD or terrorist threat rationales.) It took about two days of the war to convince me that democracy-promotion in a divided state was a fools errand. Admitted I was wrong on American Conservative. Cant trust a guy who is incapable of admitting error.