Thursday, March 23, 2006

Christopher Hitchens On
The Media Coverage Of Iraq

[scroll down on hyperlink to find section quoted]

Hugh Hewitt - Wednesday March 22nd, 2006 - Radio Blogger

Hugh Hewitt (HH): Christopher Hitchens, just objectively stepping back, is Iraq better off today than it was four years ago, given the documents we are now seeing, given what Robert Kaplan called the unbelievably Stalinist nature of Hussein's regime, and the mad as hatter sons who were in line and would never have given it up.

Christopher Hitchens (CH): Yes.

HH: What do you think?

CH: Oh, on that decision, there's only one way to argue it. It's not only a great deal better off than it was four years ago, but it's enormously better off than it would have been if it had been left to rot and crash under this mad despotism, which bear in mind, stayed in power by using the tactics of divided rule, and importing jihadists like Zarqawi, and the Fedayeen Saddam, who were going to be the suppressor regime. I mean, if you think it's bad now, just try and imagine what it would have been like if it had been left alone. And on that, I don't think there's any dispute at all. And by the way, I've made this point in countless arguments with so-called anti-war people, many of whom are actually pro-war, but on the other side, in public and in print and on television and on radio and in universities. I've never had any of them reply to my point there.

HH: When you say pro-war but on the other side, what do you mean, Christopher Hitchens?

CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.

I have recently been called a "right wing wacko" for expressing the very same view, expressed eloquently above by Christopher Hitchens, noted liberal and marxist. (Can a liberal and marxist be a right wing wacko?)

Hitchens and I do not agree on everything, but Hitchens has one characteristic that makes him one of my favorite writers. He will tell you WHY he believes the things he believes. He argues his case. I believe that if more people who oppose the war were required to explain themselves rather than just throw insults, the public dialog on the war against islamofascism would be more usefull. Our main stream media has totally disserved the nation by blatantly taking sides on this issue and failing miserably to provide a forum for intelligent discussion.


Post a Comment

<< Home