Tempus Fugit

6 Responses to “Hitchens Trounces Ron Reagan”

1. The Political Teen says:

   Jul 11th, 2005 at 4:47 pm

   Teen has the video. Transcript follows (I cleaned up a transcript I found here). [...] Pingback by Hitchens Trounces Ron Reagan [ Tempus Fugit | TxFx... -- July 11, 2005 @ 3:35 am [...] shpolitics.us/?p=700″³ rel=”bookmark” title=”Ron Reagan Gets Railed” border:0px; > Via The
2. HispaLibertas: Sapere Aude - Cómo ser idiota y morir en el intento says:

   Jul 30th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

   [...] en efecto surge la ocasión, me remita a la zona de comentarios (gracias por desbrozar el terreno, Dodgson). Pero vayamos por partes. ¿Quién abrió la caja de los truenos? Pensemos en Irak, un paísde las armas letales que aniquilaron a los kurdos, supongo que de oído. Hágale usted caso a Dodgson: no se olvide de los alemanes ni de los ciudadanos-particulares. Mire, mire lo que dicen suscompañeros del Partido Social Demócrata de Irán: En el escenario internacional Alemania se presenta como un protector de los derechos humanos y la paz. Su principal prioridad es sin embargo, el fomento de intereses económicos. Mientras que sus políticos critican la incursión de EEUU en Irak, sus grandes empresas se han enriquecido tanto en la época del régimen de Saddam Hussein, durante la guerra contra Irán, y ahora en la época de reconstrucción después de los ataques de EEUU y aliados en el 2003. Aunque, Regás, donde se sale usted es en lo del veto de Estados Unidos a una condena de resolución del genocidio kurdo. Después dicen que si antiamericanismo… Memeces. Vivían en su país los iraquís, igual que los españoles vivíamos bajo el régimen franquista: una dictadura protegida, amparada y reconocida por el gobierno de Estados Unidos y Occidente. Uh, disculpe que la interrumpa: igual que los españoles no, muchísimo peor en todos los órdenes. Luego las cosas cambiaron y, de pronto, Sadam, el amigo fiel, se convirtió en el enemigo al que había que neutralizar porque tenía armas de destrucción masiva. Y Estados Unidos, con los británicos, los polacos, los italianos, los australianos y los españoles bombardearon el país nadie sabe exactamente por qué, pero todo el mundo supone que para apuntarse a los beneficios de la reconstrucción, para controlar las reservas de petróleo y para crear un Gobierno títere que fuera una avanzadilla en Oriente, como en Oriente Próximo lo es Israel, que, por cierto, sí tiene armas de destrucción masiva. Oiga, usted tiene un futuro brillante en el circo; deje la BN y las novelas: Charlie Rivel y Pinito del Oro necesitan sucesión. ¡¿Pero cómo se le ocurre ignorar la invasión de Kuwait y los términos del armisticio?! ¡Cágonla, esto supera todo lo imaginable, y esta señora dirige la Biblioteca Nacional! ¡Y los españoles bombardeando —seguramente con CETMES o así—, toma castaña! ¡Aznar, asesino! Joer, qué tropa… Pero resultó que Sadam no las tenía y entonces los americanos echaron mano de la lucha en favor de la democracia y la libertad y como represalia a Al Qaeda, responsable de los atentados del 11 de septiembre en Nueva York y antiguo aliado de Estados Unidos en la lucha contra los rusos en Afganistán. Pero resultó que Regás no se enteró de que hubo un armisticio según el cual Irak debía demostrar haber destruido las ADM que en 1991 reconocía tener, cosa que no hizo y que durante años se negó a hacer, incluidas expulsiones de los inspectores de Naciones Unidas. ¿Cómo iba a saber de ningún armisticio, si ni siquiera hubo invasión de Kuwait? Bueh, a estas alturas ya no me extraña nada de lo que diga esta solemne ignorante que solo a un ignorante mayor se le ocurriría poner al frente de la BN. En todo caso, Regas, por si los ojos le hacen a usted chiribitas, lea (no me atrevo a decir relea; fijo que no lo conoce) el espléndido discurso (en español) de George W. Bush tras el 11-S. Le evitaré subrayar este parrafito: Esta guerra no será como la guerra contra Irak hace una década, con una liberación decisiva del territorio y una conclusión rápida. No será igual a la guerra aérea sobre Kosovo hace dos años, donde no se utilizaron tropas terrestres y donde no se perdió un solo estadounidense en combate. Nuestra reacción involucra mucho más que la retaliación instantánea y los ataques aislados. Los estadounidenses no deben esperar una batalla, sino una campaña larga, distinta a cualquier otra que hemos visto. Posiblemente incluya ataques dramáticos, que se puedan ver en la televisión, y operaciones encubiertas, que permanecerán secretas aún tras el éxito. Privaremos a los terroristas de financiamiento, pondremos a los unos contra los otros, los haremos ir de un lugar a otro, hasta que no haya refugio o descanso. Y perseguiremos a las naciones que ayuden o den refugio al terrorismo. Toda nación, en toda región del mundo, ahora tiene que tomar una decisión. Están de nuestro lado, o están del lado de los terroristas. A partir de hoy, cualquier nación que continúe albergando o apoyando al terrorismo será considerada un régimen hostil por los Estados Unidos. Sigamos. E INVADIERON, bombardearon, destrozaron el país, maltrataron a los ciudadanos, torturaron y humillaron a los prisioneros, no respetaron los derechos humanos, se hicieron con el control del petróleo y deshicieron las infraestructuras de una nación que hasta entonces, como tantos otros países aliados del imperio, habían vivido sin democracia, con prisioneros, sin libertad, pero sin terrorismo, porque Al Qaeda era enemigo acérrimo del dictador Sadam Husein. Es verdad, Regás: con Saddam vivíamos mejor, igual que contra Franco. Disculpa usted los horrores iraquíes, las fosas comunes, los 3 millones de muertos en 20 años, el terrorismo palestino financiado por Saddam, el terrorismo islámico cobijado por Saddam… lo perdona todo porque es intolerable que la guerra por su liberación haya causado involuntariamente unos pocos miles de muertos. Merecería usted haber nacido en Argelia, Regas; los 90 le hubieran parecido acérrimos. Y desde que estalló aquella brutal guerra, que siguió a otra no menos brutal en Afganistán y que como ella tampoco tenía justificación legal ninguna, … Disculpe esta segunda interrupción. Entiendo que es usted una experta cum laude en la filfa esa del derecho internacional, pero no se olvide de esto. Ah, y otra cosa: ¿querría creer usted que, pese a las dos brutales guerras, murió más gente en Irak y Afganistán en los 5 años inmediatamente anteriores a ambas? ¿Cómo que por qué? Por las saludables y democráticas condiciones de vida, mujer. …comenzaron a surgir en Kabul, en Bagdad y en otras ciudades de Irak y Afganistán, y también en el extranjero, es decir, en nuestros países, grupos de resistencia y otros grupos terroristas que matan y destrozan y bombardean y hacen víctimas entre la población civil, sean niños, viejos, mujeres, soldados, trabajadores, policías, miembros del Gobierno o embajadores, y más indiscriminadamente en las estaciones de tren, metro o autobús de los países que intervinieron en la invasión, como ha ocurrido siempre desde que el mundo es mundo, incluidos los americanos con los ingleses, los indios con los americanos, los argelinos con los franceses, los indios con los británicos, Agustina de Aragón con las tropas de Napoleón, los vietnamitas contra franceses, americanos, camboyanos y chinos, los chechenos contra los rusos, los negros surafricanos contra los afrikaners, los indios y mestizos contra los españoles, y tantos miles de comunidades que han luchado con brutalidad y crueldad para alcanzar en unos casos su independencia o guiados por su odio en otros. ¡Vif la resistans!, o sea, y perdónese el acento zapateriano. Regás, lo que esta resistencia de ahora quiere no es una democracia, ni respetar los derechos humanos, ni nada lejanamente similar. Quiere imponer la sharia, le quiere poner a usted una cárcel de ropa, cortarle el clítoris, humillarla legal y socialmente. Compórtese, que cualquiera diría que desea su victoria. Sean fundamentalistas, comunistas, liberales, todos han luchado por lo mismo y muchos de ellos lo han obtenido, con lo que hoy en día nadie habla ya de cuando eran terroristas, sino que se rinde homenaje a los que consiguieron la independencia. Es cierto que nos anonadan los brutales atentados de que hemos sido víctimas, pero ¿quién ha atizado la hoguera? Lloramos por nuestros muertos de Nueva York, de Madrid, de Londres, pero ¿quién llora por las decenas de miles de muertos de Afganistán y de Irak? ¿Qué pasa con ellos? ¿Son muertos de segunda? Los ciudadanos de Bagdad, Faluya o Basora destrozados por las bombas americanas e inglesas o por los atentados que nacieron y se multiplicaron a causa de ellas, ¿son culpables de algo? ¿Qué hicieron estas gentes para merecer tanto dolor? Se diría que se lo ganaron simplemente por el hecho de no ser occidentales, les venga la muerte de donde les venga, porque, además, pertenecen a la comunidad terrorista. No son en absoluto muertos de segunda, y solo a usted se le ocurriría una majadería semejante, porque solo usted y a los de su mismo pensamiento atrofiado se les ocurre distinguir entre muertos buenos y malos. Fíjese que en este mismo artículo usted ya ha decidido que los muertos que mata occidente son gente estupenda que vivía tan a gusto en su dictadurita de toda la vida, una torturita aquí, un exiliadito allá, una fosita común acullá, nada serio, todo muy respetable, y que, en cambio, los asesinatos cometidos por el terrorismo islámico son culpa nuestra. No viaje tan lejos: ¿qué han hecho los vascos para sufrir a ETA durante cuarenta años? Asustarse y callar, callar y mirar hacia otro lado. ¿Qué hemos hecho los españoles? Vivir como si sus monstruosas teorías de usted, señora Regas, fueran ciertas. ¿Querrá usted decir ahora que el terrorismo etarra es también culpa nuestra? ¿Volveremos al terrible “algo habrá hecho” después de cada asesinato o mutilación? Hablar de “atizar la hoguera” en un contexto en el que Ben Laden sueña con reclamar Al Andalus es una broma pesada, y atribuirse uno mismo culpas por los crímenes que cometen otros es del género idiota. Pero así es toda su teoría, Regás: cómo ser idiota y morir en el intento. La sinrazón de la seguridad, de Rosa Regás. Autor: Manel Gozalbo Al Kaafr el 13 Jul 2005 a las 17:41 | Perfil | Imprimir [...]
3. Writers: Christopher Hitchens | Just a Gwai Lo says:

   Aug 28th, 2005 at 4:00 am

   [...] July 14, 2005 17:30 Alicio i Underlandet - Irakiska kommunistpartiet: Den europeiskavänstern förstÃ¥r inte Irak Weblog: Alicio i Underlandet Source: Irakiska kommunistpartiet: Den europeiskavänstern förstÃ¥r inte Irak Link: http://alunder.blogspot.com/2005/07/irakiska-kommunistpartiet-den.html Stockholm Spectators Paul ‘Mahony beskriver hur den engelskspråkiga vänstern har reagerat på London-attackerna: London and the Left . Men inte i brittiska tidningar, utan med exempel på det som den svenska pressen har valt att översätta och föra in från folk som Robert Fisk och John Pilger. Deras utgångspunkt kan sammanfattas i “skyll på Blair, skyll på Bush, skyll på alla andra än den hatfulla fiende som placerade sig mitt i rusningstrafiken”, skriver Spectator. O’Mahony ger förslag till Sveriges ledarredaktioner på bättre läsning från den verklighetsbaserade vänstern, inkl. Christopher Hitchens , Norman Geras och Oliver Kamm , som kan bli garanterna för en förnyad vänster, med relevans också efter det Kalla krigets slut. Han berättar också om den modige svenske skribenten Salam Karam , med rötter i Irak, som fick i uppdrag av vänsterpublikationen Folket i Bild (Fibban) att åka till Irak och intervjua det irakiska kommunistpartiet. Så här reagerade redaktören för partiets tidning på Salam Karams fråga om varför kommunistpartiet samarbetade med amerikanerna och satt med i det styrande rådet: Han ler, skakar på huvudet och säger att vänstern i Europa inte riktigt har förstått vad som händer i Irak. [...] Genom det styrande rådet har vi drivit kravet på en tidtabell för när makten skall överlämnas till irakiska folket och det har vi fått. Den 30 juni 2004 [då Irak fick tillbaka sin suveränitet och sedermera gick till val / Alicios anm.] kommer ockupationen att upphöra. Genom det styrande rådet har vi också bildat fackföreningsrörelser, kvinnorörelser och människorättsorganisationer. Vi har bildat en ny armé, polis, och nya statliga institutioner som tar itu med folkets vardagsproblem. Vänstern i Europa borde hjälpa oss och stå på vår sida. Categories: Writers 17:19 Hitch on Democracy in Iraq Weblog: http://featuringdave.com/logicalmeme Source: Hitch on Democracy in Iraq Link: http://featuringdave.com/logicalmeme/?p=1407 I’m betting Christopher Hitchens has lost a good many friends in recent years. In “The Export of Democracy” he argues that Jefferson’s ideas presaged the Bush doctrine. Oh, the humanity! Categories: Writers 14:56 Iowa Voice - Karl Rove Did Nothing Wrong, And Should Stay Weblog: Iowa Voice Source: Karl Rove Did Nothing Wrong, And Should Stay Link: http://www.iowavoice.com/index.php?/archives/532-Karl-Rove-Did-Nothing-Wrong,-And-Should-Stay.html I can’t help but add my two cents in here, because this issue just isn’t going to go away until we on the right rise up and put a stop to it. The Dems are in a frenzy, throwing wild accusations all over the place, lying through their teeth, and Wilson is fueling the fire with his lies, and his wife is doing the same thing. Couple that with the MSM’s willing cooperation, and you have a scandal (only it’s NOT a scandal). Here are the facts as I have seen them (links will be at the end of the post): Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, but she wasn’t a ‘deep undercover’ agent. She posed as a student, a business manager, an embassy staffer, and several other roles in her career. When I say she wasn’t ‘deep undercover’, it means that the CIA didn’t go to great lengths to hide her identity. Where a deep undercover agent is given a background history, a covert place of employment, hobbies, habits, etc., to throw off a foreign government, none of these things were done for Ms. Plame. Enter her husband-to-be, Joe Wilson. They started dating and that, by CIA accounts, effectively ended her career as an undercover agent (deep or otherwise). The two returned to Washington in 1997, and Ms. Plame started to jockey a desk. She never went overseas on CIA business again. Remember that year, because it’s VERY important. Sometime later, the two were married and had twins. Now, according to the law that has been supposedly violated, a person has to have engaged in deep undercover work within the last 5 years to be covered by this law. Ms. Plame was not. So neither Rove, nor any of the columnists that actually “outed” her, broke any laws here. Furthermore, Wilson has been shown time and time again to be a liar. He claimed he was sent to Niger by the Vice President’s Office, but that was a lie, and he knew it to be a lie. According to him, the CIA asked him to go to Niger because Cheney’s office had asked a question regarding a specific piece of evidence, and so they needed to send someone so they could answer the question. When that came about, Cheney said “I’ve never met Joe Wilson.” He went on to say that he never asked a question, never asked for any trips to be made, etc. So the Vice President exposes that lie, but nobody paid attention. This is where Rove came in, I imagine, to warn a reporter (Cooper) that he was about to publish an incorrect article. Now, about Wilson’s other lies. His bogus report about Iraq not trying to get yellowcake basically was dismissed by the CIA, didn’t change any minds or ways of thinking. It was a report full of errors and it was shown to be inept. Nobody outside of certain people in the State Department took it seriously, and even then, it didn’t change any opinions. It was also proven, and the Senate Intelligence committee, which has several Dems on it, concurred, that Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife was not the one responsible for sending him to Niger. It’s clear that Plame was not a serious covert agent, anyway. Several reporters already knew, and even Novak called the CIA to confirm her status (before the article hit) and they told him she was an ex-covert agent who was working as an analyst. No, I’m sorry. The issue here isn’t that Karl Rove spoke to a reporter at all. The issue isn’t that Karl Rove “might” have broken a law (because it’s clear he didn’t). The issue isn’t that an agent who probably was already “out” was “outted”. The issue is Joe Wilson, who has lied and twisted every step of the way to make a target out of the Bush Administration, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove. The issue is that you have a so-called “non-partisan” trying to undermine the President and his staff, and the war on terror, by turning a “fact-finding” mission into a political hack-job. Joe Wilson is anything but a non-partisan. He gave money to Kerry’s campaign, even served on that campaign. He’s given money to the Democratic Party. So it’s clear he’s a fellow Dem, and they love him. So that’s just one more lie, but who’s counting, right? Democrats are biting hard because nothing would give them more satisfaction, short of an impeachment of Dubya, than to force Karl Rove out of the White House. Well, it’s just not going to happen. To put it bluntly, no laws or ethics were broken. No harm was done. Nobody was really “outed” who wasn’t already, and no amount of spin from the left is going to change this fact, so they may as well give it up, and prepare for the pending Supreme Court showdown. Articles used in preparing this post: (WSJ: Karl Rove is the real whistleblower in the Plame kerfuffle) (NYDN: Michael Goodwin: Civil War, D.C.-style) (NY Times: A Few Thoughts on Karl Rove) (NY Daily News, Michael Goodwin: Civil War, D.C.-Style) (Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove –Byron York) (NewsMax: Lawyers Who Wrote the Law Say Plame Leak Not Illegal) (Wall Street Journal: Karl Rove, Whistleblower) (AHN: Special Prosecutor; “Rove Not Target of Investigation”) (NewsMax: Prosecutor: Karl Rove NOT Target of Probe) (RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Statement On The Democrat Attacks Of Karl Rove) (NY Times: Senator Leahy (D-VT) Leaked Report of Panel -07.29.87) (John Podhoretz: Maybe Judith Miller was the leak?) (John Podhoretz: Scandal Implosion) (American Spectator: Treasure Rove. Big press is biting off its nose to spite Karl Rove) (NewsMax: Valerie Plame vs Juanita Broaddrick?) (Joe Wilson Names His Wife in His Own Online Biography!) (The American Spectator: nothing to offer this side of Judith Miller and Karl Rove) (TAS: Big press is biting off its nose to spite Karl Rove) (Washinton Post: Plame’s Input Is Cited on Niger Mission) (Slate: Plame’s Lame Game - Christopher Hitchens) (Weekly Standard: Four Facts and Five Conclusions) (NewsMax: Novak: Wilson’s Wife Not a Covert CIA Agent) (WSJ: The End of the Plame Kerfuffle!) (WS: Additional Views. What did Rockefeller say back in 2002? - Stephen F. Hayes) (NRO: Exposed and Discredited, Joe Wilson Might Consider Going Back) (Daily Times: Iraqi PM: “Saddam Hussein had link with Al Qaeda”) (The Weekly Standard: The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties) TCS: The Iraq — Al Qaeda Connections (Weekly Standard: The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties) (National Review: Iraq & al Qaeda — 9/11 Commission raises more questions) (Washington Times: Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus) (Global Security.org: Salman Pak — Iraq Terrorist Training Facilities) (Putin Warning) (Frontpagemag.com: More Connections Between Saddam and Osama) (I added this to the Wizbang Carnival.) Categories: Writers 13:49 The Liberal Avenger - I will open a can of whupass on Christopher Hitchens if I have to Weblog: The Liberal Avenger Source: I will open a can of whupass on Christopher Hitchens if I have to Link: http://liberalavenger.com/2005/07/i-will-open-can-of-whupass-on.html It seems like every wingnut with an internet connection is creaming his pants over former leftist/current Bush apologist Christopher Hitchens’ supposed take-down of Ron Reagan on Reagan’s MSNBC show ‘Connected Coast to Coast.’ A Technorati search for ‘Hitchens’ and ‘Reagan’ produces a seemingly endless list of bloggers delighting in Reagan being “taken to the woodshed”; their exchange is described as a ‘demolishing’, a ‘royal spanking’, a ‘trouncing’, and a ‘bitch-slapping’.Here’s the transcript of the alleged ass-kicking:RR: Christopher, I’m not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we’re actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it’s about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?RR: No, actually, I didn’t say that, Christopher.CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.CH: How can you know so little about…RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.CH: Absolutely nonsense.RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst…RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that’s how, Christopher.CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren’t they?RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.CH; Well, I’m not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn’t know of any actual operational connection…RR: That’s right. No substantive operational connection.CH: …which was the Iraqi Baath Party and…excuse me…and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that’s because they don’t know. They don’t say there isn’t one. They say they couldn’t find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.But Clark Stooksbury says that “while Hitchens wins on style, his substance is wanting”:Note Hitchen’s “answer” to the first question. He tosses in a kitchen-sink-full of examples of Islamic extremism that have little to do with our current predicament. He failed to note that prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi operated out of Northern Iraq, where Saddam had no control. As bad as Abu Nidal was (he died in 2002, before the invasion), He was hardly the reason we invaded Iraq. That occurred because of the “grave threat” posed by Saddam’s large collection of chemical and biological weapons and his drive to get nuclear weapons.Christopher Hitchens is a follower of “they hate us for our freedom” school of thought. “We know very well what the ‘grievances’ of the jihadists are. The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London.” He should read Robert Pape, who argues convincingly that their grievance is actually foreign military occupation.I’ll second the suggestion to read Pape - an interview with him can be found here. He is a popular neoconservative author who convincingly refutes the myth that there is no ‘rationality’ to be found behind the actions of Islamic terrorists.Voodoo Knickers has an accurate translation of Hitchens’ remarks:Ronny: England Bombings non indicative of winning war on terrorism status.Bitchens: Unrelated rant, I know salman rushdie natch, saddam harbored abu nidal long live the war on TERRAH!Ronny: but…Bitchens: terrorists are totally irrational and have no concievable reason to attack britain, you’re an idiot, sir.and adds:changing the subject doesn’t count as winning the debate in my book.It doesn’t in my book either. Neither does being a pompous, pretentious asshole, nor a “drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay,” as George Galloway described Hitchens. (Galloway also said to Hitchens: “Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink.”) No, I am not sure what the hell a ‘popinjay’ is, but it doesn’t sound good.Basically, Hitchens is just hurling insults at Reagan and spouting the same tired bullshit that you’ll hear out of the mouth of any College Republican. Just because he’s dropping names and speaking with a British accent doesn’t make it any less stupid.Hitchens is a punk; the size of his head continues to grow in direct disproportion to that of his liver. This is a ‘man’ who desperately needs an ass-kicking.Now, I’m a relatively peaceful person, but I’ve called out punks like Hitchens before, and they’ve run away in terror. I don’t want to kick Hitchens’ ass, but I will if I have to. So listen up, ‘Hitch’: either cut the shit, or prepare for a whupping you won’t soon forget, I don’t care how many Johnnie Walkers you pour down your wretched piehole. Categories: Writers 13:37 Pandagon - When Steadfastness Goes Completely Awry Weblog: Pandagon Source: When Steadfastness Goes Completely Awry Link: http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/07/when_steadfastn.html [...]
4. The Liberal Avenger: I will open a can of whupass on Christopher Hitchens if I have to says:

   Aug 29th, 2005 at 2:43 am

   [...] It seems like every wingnut with an internet connection is creaming his pants over former leftist/current Bush apologist Christopher Hitchens’ supposed take-down of Ron Reagan on Reagan’s MSNBC show ‘Connected Coast to Coast.’ A Technorati search for ‘Hitchens’ and ‘Reagan’ produces a seemingly endless list of bloggers delighting in Reagan being “taken to the woodshed”; their exchange is described as a ‘demolishing’, a ‘royal spanking’, a ‘trouncing’, and a ‘bitch-slapping’.Here’s the transcript of the alleged ass-kicking:RR: Christopher, I’m not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we’re actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it’s about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?RR: No, actually, I didn’t say that, Christopher.CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.CH: How can you know so little about…RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.CH: Absolutely nonsense.RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst…RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that’s how, Christopher.CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren’t they?RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.CH; Well, I’m not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn’t know of any actual operational connection…RR: That’s right. No substantive operational connection.CH: …which was the Iraqi Baath Party and…excuse me…and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that’s because they don’t know. They don’t say there isn’t one. They say they couldn’t find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.But Clark Stooksbury says that “while Hitchens wins on style, his substance is wanting”:Note Hitchen’s “answer” to the first question. He tosses in a kitchen-sink-full of examples of Islamic extremism that have little to do with our current predicament. He failed to note that prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi operated out of Northern Iraq, where Saddam had no control. As bad as Abu Nidal was (he died in 2002, before the invasion), He was hardly the reason we invaded Iraq. That occurred because of the “grave threat” posed by Saddam’s large collection of chemical and biological weapons and his drive to get nuclear weapons.Christopher Hitchens is a follower of “they hate us for our freedom” school of thought. “We know very well what the ‘grievances’ of the jihadists are. The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London.” He should read Robert Pape, who argues convincingly that their grievance is actually foreign military occupation.I’ll second the suggestion to read Pape - an interview with him can be found here. He is a popular neoconservative author who convincingly refutes the myth that there is no ‘rationality’ to be found behind the actions of Islamic terrorists.Voodoo Knickers has an accurate translation of Hitchens’ remarks:Ronny: England Bombings non indicative of winning war on terrorism status.Bitchens: Unrelated rant, I know salman rushdie natch, saddam harbored abu nidal long live the war on TERRAH!Ronny: but…Bitchens: terrorists are totally irrational and have no concievable reason to attack britain, you’re an idiot, sir.and adds:changing the subject doesn’t count as winning the debate in my book.It doesn’t in my book either. Neither does being a pompous, pretentious asshole, nor a “drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay,” as George Galloway described Hitchens. (Galloway also said to Hitchens: “Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink.”) No, I am not sure what the hell a ‘popinjay’ is, but it doesn’t sound good.Basically, Hitchens is just hurling insults at Reagan and spouting the same tired bullshit that you’ll hear out of the mouth of any College Republican. Just because he’s dropping names and speaking with a British accent doesn’t make it any less stupid.Hitchens is a punk; the size of his head continues to grow in direct disproportion to that of his liver. This is a ‘man’ who desperately needs an ass-kicking.Now, I’m a relatively peaceful person, but I’ve called out punks like Hitchens before, and they’ve run away in terror. I don’t want to kick Hitchens’ ass, but I will if I have to. So listen up, ‘Hitch’: either cut the shit, or prepare for a whupping you won’t soon forget, I don’t care how many Johnnie Walkers you pour down your wretched piehole. [...]
5. XDA says:

   Aug 16th, 2006 at 1:30 am

   Iraq never had anything to do with the war on terror (as lefty writer Christopher Hitchens has pointed out Iraq was the retirement home for old terrorists including Abdul Rahman Yasin and Abu Nidal, as well as the shelter for the late Mr. Zarqawi ; Steven Hayes has a whole book about the connection) and that’s just a fact (Democrat talking point) and that;s what the 9/11 Commission said (not even close–the Commission did find evidence of
6. Cryptic Subterranean: 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 says:

   Nov 4th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

   [...] terrorist in pre-9/11 days- the one who was working out of an Iraqi government office when Christopher Hitchens interviewed him. Nor did Saddam Hussein have any problems with Palestinian suicide bombers- in [...]