Cunningham wrote:Hitchens can't keep his position knowing about the widespread abuse of private contracts and weapons production. Bush and Co. are lining their pockets as we speak, 4 years into this war. Look at the bottom line, follow the money, that's all there is to it. The republicans take pride in this, its what they ADVERTISE god damnit! You can't overlook this when it is EVERYTHING.
Well, I think he can still keep his position because he thinks that Saddam and people like him have to be taken out by countries that can do it. He can think that the Bushies were right to do it, but also think they did it totally wrong and not be in conflict - the old Fitzgerald line about reconciling seemingly contradictory remarks comes to mind.
I never supported this war and I thought Hitchens was wrong in doing so, just about any way you sliced it. Meaning, there are lots of things that look good on paper, but CAN NOT be effectively acheived. I love the idea of taking out Kim Jong Il, because it would help the greater good. I could even argue that the support in Korea would be pretty high, but the fact is there are too many imponderables which make planning impossible, so the default is don't attack.
Or to quote Chris Rock,
"People say 'there's no reason to hit a child.'
There's a REASON to kick an old man down a flight of stairs, just
don't do it."
I'd like to think someone as smart as Hitchens would think that too.
Apparently he does not.
The basic premise of most of his arguments is "don't let shitty people get away with stuff."
That goes for Kissenger, Hussein, Falwell and, oddly, Mother Theresa.
I can accept that he believes that and can see the consistency in that belief.
He's always been wrong about Iraq though because it was logistically impossible to do the "right" thing.
-A