RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Happy Face 29]

"There seems to be this sense that his excellent facility with prose excuses his sins."

 

"The blood on his hands"

 

 

With regards to the Salon article: These are the pious tones we have come to expect from writers of this persuasion, especially when it comes to Iraq. Anyone who values and appreciates free speech will understand why it was important for a figure such as Hitchens to make a case for the conflict in Iraq, especially as the public debate over such a complex issue had been reduced to screams of, "no blood for oil!," by the likes of Michael Moore. People of an anti-war persuasion, or at least anti-Iraq war, would rather that there were no arguments for the conflict whatsoever, because it is evil, and that's that--go against this consensus in any way and you have blood on your hands.

 

 

Hitch was very much with the consensus in his cheerleading for the Iraq invasion at the time. To try and portray him as a brave intellectual fighting the tide of misinformed opinion is absurd. He became that only as the consensus changed and he refused to admit his views could have been ill-judged or based on lies. The likes of Moore (can't find the quote you attribute him) and The Dixie Chicks were totally ostracised for their anti-war stance which was about as popular as a Mosque half a mile from ground zero.

 

As to the charge of him never going near the front line, Hitchens went to Iraq again in 2003 during the first stages of the conflict. I've not read his reportage on that trip, but would be interested in doing so. I personally find nothing repellent in Hitchen's wish for members of religious death-cults like Al Quaeda to be killed, in fact I happen to agree with him that the world would be a better place without them. They fail to mention Hitch undergong waterboarding and his repeated attacks on the Bush administration for employing torture techiques on Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo.

 

Nice twist of words but he clearly says Hitch didn't "fight" the war he cheered. And he credits him...

 

Hitchens, like most people, did have admirable traits, impressive accomplishments, genuine talents and a periodic

willingness to expose himself to danger to report on issues about which he was writing

 

And the wish to see Al Qaeda "members" dead point reads like one of your Leazes impressions in what seems to be a serious post. Who could oppose justice against Al Qaeda? When the cost of justice is an aggressive war, invasion of a nation that's shown no violence towards you, the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, then that muddies the water a tad. I'm in favour of giving the nations police every possible means to fight crime within the UK too, I wouldn't say that justifies on the spot house to house searches of entire random streets around the country...though that would be VERY effective. The balance of cost and effect has to be weighed up.

 

I notice that there are not many excerpts from Hitchen's writings in the piece, save for a sentence or two which the writer would have you believe represented his wish for the slaughter of all Muslims, as opposed to the actual mass-murderers who routinely attempt to kill as many innocent people as they can manage.

 

Here is another accusation: "he’s now revising what he said during the buildup to the Iraq war." This is stated twice in the piece, with no examples. Sloppy!

 

Of course, all this is not to say that Hitchens was always right, not even regarding Iraq (I have a horrible feeling that after the withdrawal of US troops Iraq will descend into a bloody civil war; certainly there seems to have been an increase in violence and instability in recent weeks). However, his writing increased my knowledge and understanding of whatever subject he covered, even if I disagreed with the points he was making. I suggest that your time would be much better spent reading Hitch's stuff than a manipulative character-assassination on Salon, and then you can make your own mind up.

 

The point of the article as I read it wasn't the character assassination of Hitchens itself (though it is one), it's that there's been too few of them written, and Hitchens himself would prefer a debate to be had (like he contributed to following the deaths of Mother Theresa and Diana and Jerry(?) Fallwell). I totally agree with that point.

 

Much of the anti-Hitchens stuff Greenwald has done here leaves a sour taste in my mouth, not because I disagree, but because I wish it had been written while Hitch was alive. I've read Greenwald for years and (like he says) he never wrote about Hitch before now. Reading the strong feelings in this article I got the impression he feared getting into a war of words with such an intellectual heavy weight and waited the bloke out before presenting his thoughts.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Hitch was very much with the consensus in his cheerleading for the Iraq invasion at the time. To try and portray him as a brave intellectual fighting the tide of misinformed opinion is absurd. He became that only as the consensus changed and he refused to admit his views could have been ill-judged or based on lies. The likes of Moore (can't find the quote you attribute him) and The Dixie Chicks were totally ostracised for their anti-war stance which was about as popular as a Mosque half a mile from ground zero.

 

First of all, it's hard to take you seriously because I know you haven't actually read much, if any, of Hitchen's stuff. It says a lot that you're able to get so worked up about someone who takes an opposing view on an issue, yet you have no idea on what basis they have established that stance. If asked to give a criticism of Hitchens you will just regurgitate whatever you have read on Salon/Juan Cole, rather than being a critical reader of the man himself (something I think would be a positive, if nothing else Hitch tends to turn you in the way of some great lit).

 

Don't attribute me with portraying him as 'a brave intellectual fighting the tide of misinformed opinion'. I merely think he added to the debate, and this would have gone even further if the anti-war types seriously engaged his points at the time, as you alluded to this didn't happen much--beyond labelling Hitch a neo-con that is. The fact is Hitchens had been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power from as early as 1989 when he began a genocide of the Kurds (Saddam that is, not the Hitch, who has so much 'blood on his hands'), and crucially before 'we' became his business partners. A regular talk Hitch gave was along the lines of '10 reasons why the US is ill-equipped to be involved with Mesopotamia', where he outlined 10 points of this nature and then concluded with his view that despite this he still supported the conflict, and gave his reasons for doing so. In brief, made points for and against the conflict, added to the debate. If you value free speech you'll realise why that's important.

 

I have to at you saying you can't find the 'quote' I attribute to Moore. I was merely summing up the attitude of a lot of the anti-war types. 'No blood for oil', 'not in my name', these were common chants amongst those crowds, and Moore was their cheerleader. You talk of the 'consensus' as though there was mass support for this conflict. There wasn't, at least not within the public. Moore was ostracized for his stance? He made millions out of it.

 

Nice twist of words but he clearly says Hitch didn't "fight" the war he cheered.

 

"and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours"

 

Are these the words I'm twisting? So let me get this straight, I said he charged Hitch with never going near the front-line, a Machiavellian twist on the original words... right. Ok, let's address the charge that Hitch didn't fight the war he cheered. Can this even be taken seriously? He was a fat, chain smoking writer in his 50s who imbibed Johnnie Walker by the gallon. Somehow I don't think he'd have made the cut for the Marines. What else could he have done, bar going to Iraq during the conflict as he did? Would Greenwald prefer it if he went over with a SA-180 and shot some kids? "Ah, well now at least I can respect his views, given that he was willing to fight." In fact, if we're going to play this stupid game, how am I expected to take you and Greenwald seriously until you have offered yourselves as human shields to protect Iraqi civilians against US fire? This is stupid stuff, and is not in any way taking on Hitch's arguments.

 

And the wish to see Al Qaeda "members" dead point reads like one of your Leazes impressions in what seems to be a serious post. Who could oppose justice against Al Qaeda? When the cost of justice is an aggressive war,

 

Why? Al Quaeda is a death-cult, they welcome the destruction of Western civilization, to be replaced by a Caliphate, they welcome the killing of non-believers as this will earn them a place with the 72 virgins/raisins (depending on translation). They want to die, preferably blowing up as many people as can be managed in the process. I'd rather these people didn't exist, ie I wish they would die.

 

Hitchen's support for the Iraq war was not based upon his hatred for Al Quaeda (although that did come into it), as I mentioned earlier he had been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein since 1989. If you bothered to actually read the people you attempt to criticize you might have known that.

 

The point of the article as I read it wasn't the character assassination of Hitchens itself (though it is one), it's that there's been too few of them written, and Hitchens himself would prefer a debate to be had (like he contributed to following the deaths of Mother Theresa and Diana and Jerry(?) Fallwell). I totally agree with that point.

 

You're quite right here. I just had to take issue with what I saw as innaccuracies/half-truths in the article, especially as I knew the likes of you would lap them up and then feel there was no worth in reading anything by Hitch. Again, he may well have been wrong, but in either case he added as much as he could to the discourse.

 

Talking of Jerry Falwell:

 

 

Edited December 26, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

I'll reply to you in detail at some point. Just want to say, if you think I've not read any Hitchens, you should read some of the posts where I've referred to him on here going back years....

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1

Edited December 27, 2011 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

If you'd actually highlight which specific parts of Hitch's arguments you take issue with maybe I could see your point and it could be interesting. It seemed to me like you were taking issue with him just because he favoured the Iraqi conflict, without reading or listening to what he had to say. It's easy to refute certain arguments for the conflict because they are based on lies. Others weren't. If you are positing that every argument for a conflict is wrong, what would you say to the Kurds and Iraqis--victims of Saddam--who were in favour of one? I believe it is a very complex issue and ought to be thought about and discussed a lot--it deserves more than the reductive attitude a lot take to the discussion, ie 'all about oil', or just discussing the issue of WMDs and nothing else. Reading/listening to Hitch expanded my view, and reading his stuff encourages you to read further--that was certainly his aim.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[NJS 4386]

I know you shouldn't associate yourself with the views of people just beacuse they broadly align with yours but that doesn't stoip me getting really pissed off at the venom with which fellow lefties attacked Hitchens over Iraq. I thought the war was wrong because it was a con with faux morality like removing Saddam bolted on as an afterthought but I don't think supporting said war for the reasons he stated made Hitchens a "traitor" or even a neocon stooge. I think if you disagree with someone on one topic you can do so without a total rejection of their whole.

 

The way this one "aberration" is supposed to negate all of his other views and somehow extinguish all of his due admiration (imo of course) is a damning indictment of the "liberal" establishment.

[Park Life 71]

I'm with Gorgeous George on this one; Hitchens was "a lying, opportunistic, cynical contrarian; a drink-sodden, ex-Trotskyist popinjay," not to mention "the only buttefrly who changed into a slug."

 

Not his biggest fan by any means, but the boy had charisma and some important scribbling to mull over. In my eyes will always be tainted by his ridiculous stance on Iraq.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Park Life

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I'm with Gorgeous George on this one; Hitchens was "a lying, opportunistic, cynical contrarian; a drink-sodden, ex-Trotskyist popinjay," not to mention "the only buttefrly who changed into a slug."

 

Not his biggest fan by any means, but the boy had charisma and some important scribbling to mull over. In my eyes will always be tainted by his ridiculous stance on Iraq.

 

By all means, bring up some of the arguments he made for the war/removal of Saddam that you find so ridiculous. HF too. Surely you're not branding something that you've never read/listened to ridiculous? That would be poor form--poor form, my dear old chap! However I get the distinct impression from both of you, mainly due to the absence of any specific citations regarding the issue, that you don't know what you're talking about.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I know you shouldn't associate yourself with the views of people just beacuse they broadly align with yours but that doesn't stoip me getting really pissed off at the venom with which fellow lefties attacked Hitchens over Iraq. I thought the war was wrong because it was a con with faux morality like removing Saddam bolted on as an afterthought but I don't think supporting said war for the reasons he stated made Hitchens a "traitor" or even a neocon stooge. I think if you disagree with someone on one topic you can do so without a total rejection of their whole.

 

The way this one "aberration" is supposed to negate all of his other views and somehow extinguish all of his due admiration (imo of course) is a damning indictment of the "liberal" establishment.

 

I agree, but that was before I realised that Hitchens was responsible for the death of millions of innocent Iraqis by writing columns and taking speaking engagements--according to the likes of Greenwald anyway.