Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[Margaret K]

Hitchens the former Marxist

I think I remember Hitchens saying that he was a former Marxist.
A bit later he added that the Marxist interpretation of history was the correct one!
Is this a non sequitur piece of logic or what?
I don't think too many real historians (those who haven't let themselves and their work be entirely highjacked by postmodernism) would agree.
My guess is that they'd tell him that a Marxist interpretation can only ever be part of the story. At times it can be a valuable part. This is particularly true when economic factors are major drivers behind events. But economic factors never provide the full story.
Hitchens seems not to have abandoned his Marxist mind set - thesis, antithesis, synthesis which becomes the new thesis, antithesis, synthesis........ repeat ad nauseum.
Karl Marx would have to be close to being the most boring writer it has ever been my misfortune to have to read.
Now if Hitchens meant Marxist as in Groucho and his brothers, then that would be a different story!

 

[MadOverlord]

Googling "Bush and Hitler" produces about 2,040,000 results.

One should take care when using Google hit numbers as an argument. For example. "Randi and Hitler" returns 893,000 results, "Clinton and Hitler" returns 1.4m results, and "Martin Luther King and Hitler" returns 1.1m results. When I put my own name in with Hitler, I only get 16,300 results -- I guess my diabolically subtle plan for world domination is perhaps a tiny bit too subtle.

I found him otherwise to be a fascinating and eloquent speaker, which makes it more the pity he made two such bad decisions

Well said. Remind me to buy one of your books in the near future

Dikkers took the high road and was a true gentleman.

Plus he can get his revenge in The Onion any time he so desires.

Osama and his mates are dangerous people because they are fundamentalists. Islam is the context.

Or perhaps, more generally, ideologues. I am more and more convinced that the problem isn't religion, but ideology in general. Which leads me to the dilemma of whether my skepticism about -ism's should also apply to the -ism of skepticism.

Now please excuse me while I recurse until my stack overflows.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think we've worn this to rags. Moveon sponsored a contest. The two ads comparing Bush to Hitler were featured on the website until enough people complained about them. If you want to pretend that this particular vile smear is unusual in the left-blogosphere, that Bush isn't compared to Hitler CONSTANTLY, I'm afraid that's one bridge I'm not buying.

Since I live on the left, I can tell you no one has even mentioned Hitler and Bush in any blog I've read or conversation I've heard since about the time of the Moveon ad contest in '04. This is '07. Why you are so hung up on this is probably easily explained. If you focus on straw men, you don't have to focus on the disasters Bush has actually brought on the country.


D'Nile floats a lot of boats.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The net result is that what Wilson claims he said is at odds with what everybody else says he said. Sure, maybe there's a conspiracy to misrepresent his findings from hi trip to Niger, but bear in mind that we have a special sub-forum just for conspiracy theories, and we have it for a very good reason....

What I Didn't Find in Africa is in Wilson's own words. What is in the "Intelligence Report" which was what page 43 in the 911 report was referring to was hearsay. I see nothing in Wilson's own words that allude to any failed transaction or attempted transaction. Wilson does refer to what we now know to be forged documents which were the origin of the claims about Iraq's attempts.

In addition, if you look at the bottom of page 44 of the 911 report, it says the opposite. It says "the ambassador" found no evidence of an attempt to buy yellow-cake. There is a reference above that the former Prime Minister suggested Iraq may have requested "expanding commercial relations" which might have been interpreted as an attempt to buy uranium. It wasn't from Wilson's report.

You have a forged document, Wilson found no evidence, and the former Prime Minister said Iran attempted to buy yellow-cake. The Iraq reference is more indirectly described.

There's no conspiracy here. It's clear from other evidence the CIA told Bush the Niger document was likely forged, the ambassador said there was no truth to the allegations, and Bush ignored all that regardless of any vague attempt which I'm not clear from those reports Bush even knew about at the time.

 

[Merko]

Editing

 

[Merko]

I found that heated moment very interesting and I don't think it was a big problem at all. Sure, if that kind of tone had been dominant at TAM it would not have been the pleasant event that it was, but it was just a short moment of antagonism, not a big deal.

The way I interpreted it is that Hitchens has developed an allergic reaction to some real or imagined leftist positions related to the Iraq war and Muslim extremism in general. Mr Dikkers just happened to utter some key words that triggered this reaction, whether Dikkers in fact holds the position Hitchens can't stand or not, I don't know
(and clearly Hitchens was not in a position to know either, based on what little Dikkers actually said). If Hitchens didn't agree, it would have been proper for him to ask Dikkers a straight question, not exploding in a series of insults.

I believe the reason for Hitchens anger on this issue is that he has put himself in a very difficult position because of his support for the Iraq war and all his debates against war opposers. Clearly his position is that 'something has to be done' about Muslim extremism, and for him, the Iraq war is a necessary part of that 'something'. The problem for me is that he seems to equate opposition to the Iraq war with a strawman position of doing absolutely nothing about Muslim extremism.

I also dislike the way Hitchens puts Muslim extremism as basically a category of its own. It is ridiculous when he singles out the Koran for its claims of finality, considering how the Bible claims the same (remember how Jesus says not a letter of it can be changed..). I'm fine if he claims that Muslim extremism is the most dangerous religious extremism in the world today, because of the support it has, the power it wields, and the dangerous intolerance that is part of it. But to describe it as something qualitatively different than other forms of extremism is just plain wrong. He also seems to imply that Islam, unlike other religions, can't change or evolve, which I think is ridiculous.

I also think he was a bit too one-sided in his speech about the Danish cartoon controversy. While I completely agree with the main point, eg that there was not enough principled support for the right to publish the cartoon, and too much 'understanding' of the supposed Muslim right to be outraged, it seemed to me that he was more or less giving hero status to Jyllands-Posten for this action, making them far too more innocent than I believe they actually are. While the cartoons were fine with me, by themselves, this paper has capitalised on Muslim-bashing for a long time, feeding anti-Muslim sentiments in Denmark in a shameful way. I do not believe the intents of the editors were so heroic as Hitchens seemed to imply. We should defend their right to print whatever they want to print, but that doesn't mean we should like them.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Hitchens has developed an allergic reaction to some real or imagined leftist positions related to the Iraq war and Muslim extremism in general. Mr Dikkers just happened to utter some key words that triggered this reaction, whether Dikkers in fact holds the position Hitchens can't stand or not, I don't know (and clearly Hitchens was not in a position to know either, based on what little Dikkers actually said).

[snip] The problem for me is that he seems to equate opposition to the Iraq war with a strawman position of doing absolutely nothing about Muslim extremism.

[snip] I'm fine if he claims that Muslim extremism is the most dangerous religious extremism in the world today, because of the support it has, the power it wields, and the dangerous intolerance that is part of it. But to describe it as something qualitatively different than other forms of extremism is just plain wrong.

[snip]We should defend their right to print whatever they want to print, but that doesn't mean we should like them.

Well said, Merko. I think you've summarized it about as well as anyone could.

The only thing I can add is this: You hire Hitchens to come to your meeting, you get Hitchens. You hire Rosanne Barr to sing the national anthem, you get Roseanne Barr.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The only thing I can add is this: You hire Hitchens to come to your meeting, you get Hitchens. You hire Rosanne Barr to sing the national anthem, you get Roseanne Barr.

Then I would propose we get Lilly Tomlin for future TAMs.

 

[NotJesus]

I don't think anyone has mentioned something that may be a contributing factor to Hitchens' intensely personal antagonism towards Islam -- He's a very good friend of Salman Rushdie.

 

[KingMerv00]

Noblecaboose, you have made my day. I confronted Hitchens about the very same article, at the very same forum party, because it also pissed me off. My misstep? I was already drunk when I tried to do it, and realized only after I'd already spoken that I was not prepared to get into an argument with a guy who specializes in rhetoric.

Hitchens was almost certainly drunk at the time too. Of course...

Popeye:Spinach::Christopher Hitchens:alcohol.

 

[pomeroo]

Sheer Chutzpah

Since I live on the left, I can tell you no one has even mentioned Hitler and Bush in any blog I've read or conversation I've heard since about the time of the Moveon ad contest in '04. This is '07. Why you are so hung up on this is probably easily explained. If you focus on straw men, you don't have to focus on the disasters Bush has actually brought on the country.


D'Nile floats a lot of boats.

Yes, and the preposterous attempt at denial by a handful of leftists of the left's most repugnant and overused smear is the height of disingenuousness. For sheer chutzpah, this one takes the cake! Create your alternate realities and Orwellian exercises for people who never check out democrats.com, or Cannonfire, or the Democratic Underground, or the dozens (hundreds?) of sites that spew this Bushitler crap (have you tried Googling "Bushitler" lately?). As you may have noticed, I'm not buying.

 

[pomeroo]

Arguing From Ignorance

What I Didn't Find in Africa is in Wilson's own words. What is in the "Intelligence Report" which was what page 43 in the 911 report was referring to was hearsay. I see nothing in Wilson's own words that allude to any failed transaction or attempted transaction. Wilson does refer to what we now know to be forged documents which were the origin of the claims about Iraq's attempts.

In addition, if you look at the bottom of page 44 of the 911 report, it says the opposite. It says "the ambassador" found no evidence of an attempt to buy yellow-cake. There is a reference above that the former Prime Minister suggested Iraq may have requested "expanding commercial relations" which might have been interpreted as an attempt to buy uranium. It wasn't from Wilson's report.

You have a forged document, Wilson found no evidence, and the former Prime Minister said Iran attempted to buy yellow-cake. The Iraq reference is more indirectly described.

There's no conspiracy here. It's clear from other evidence the CIA told Bush the Niger document was likely forged, the ambassador said there was no truth to the allegations, and Bush ignored all that regardless of any vague attempt which I'm not clear from those reports Bush even knew about at the time.

Please, if you truly know nothing about this controversy, stop pontificating. The forged Italian documents are a red herring: they played no role in shaping the findings of British intelligence. As you refuse to read Hitchens's essays on the subject, you are in no position to dispute his conclusions.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, and the preposterous attempt at denial by a handful of leftists of the left's most repugnant and overused smear is the height of disingenuousness.

I find it interesting that you persist in refusing to provide any substantial evidence of this beyond skewed opinion articles, but you still claim to be incredulous that we're not buying it.

(have you tried Googling "Bushitler" lately?).

Honestly, I'm starting to think that "evidence by Google count" should be its own fallacy. It's statistically meaningless, it doesn't establish who's using a word how frequently, and doesn't filter the results for purpose or use.

For example; you can google the forum for "bushitler" by clicking on the "search" dropdown at the top; every single use is by Bush supporters mocking Bush opponents. Every single fracking one. I'm sure in the global google, many of them are "real," but I'm sure many of them are used in the same way.

But ok, let's play this game.

"Bushitler" generates 87,600 results.

"Hitlery" generates 94,500. "Hitlary" generates an additional 19,100, for a grand total of 113,600.

Care to comment? Or are comparisons with Hitler only objectionable if the target is Bush?

 

[a_unique_person]

I guess it wouldn't do any good to keep pointing out that nobody is saying that the Iraqis actually obtained any yellowcake. I wonder why nobody will READ Hitchens's articles?

My point is that he says of course the only reason this person would go to Niger was to by Uranium. According to his logic, it's the only reason anyone would go there, since that's all the place sells.

Fine, if that's the only reason to go there, then he must have been buying some uranium, only, he didn't. That Saddam was a dangerous nut who would like to be a regional tyrant as well is not in dispute, as to whether or not he actually had the ability to further his aims using nuclear power is quite clear, he had no ability at all. No infrastructure, no uranium, nothing. That was known, due to UN inspections. To say he would like to rule the world is just pointless.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yes, and the preposterous attempt at denial by a handful of leftists of the left's most repugnant and overused smear is the height of disingenuousness. For sheer chutzpah, this one takes the cake! Create your alternate realities and Orwellian exercises for people who never check out democrats.com, or Cannonfire, or the Democratic Underground, or the dozens (hundreds?) of sites that spew this Bushitler crap (have you tried Googling "Bushitler" lately?). As you may have noticed, I'm not buying.

OK. I went to Democrats.com and did a search for Hitler. I found a few such comparisons in their user contributed content over the past year and the last one produced by democrats.com itself is about five years old now. It's archived so I can't really tell if they actually compared Bush to Hitler or merely considered the possibility.

If it's so overused why not just prove the point by posting a bunch of links from the past week? At the moment, this looks as serious as the war on Christmas.

 

[NotJesus]

If it's so overused why not just prove the point by posting a bunch of links from the past week?

I'm a Democrat and I think Bush is like Hitler.

So there's one.

 

[pomeroo]

Bad Joke

I find it interesting that you persist in refusing to provide any substantial evidence of this beyond skewed opinion articles, but you still claim to be incredulous that we're not buying it.

Honestly, I'm starting to think that "evidence by Google count" should be its own fallacy. It's statistically meaningless, it doesn't establish who's using a word how frequently, and doesn't filter the results for purpose or use.

For example; you can google the forum for "bushitler" by clicking on the "search" dropdown at the top; every single use is by Bush supporters mocking Bush opponents. Every single fracking one. I'm sure in the global google, many of them are "real," but I'm sure many of them are used in the same way.

But ok, let's play this game.

"Bushitler" generates 87,600 results.

"Hitlery" generates 94,500. "Hitlary" generates an additional 19,100, for a grand total of 113,600.

Care to comment? Or are comparisons with Hitler only objectionable if the target is Bush?

Are you seriously trying to pretend that leftists haven't trumpeted their Bush-is-Hitler trope for over five years? This is a joke, right? Do you require that I provide evidence proving that the North won the Civil War? What point are you trying to make? Is everyone who complains about this vile tactic hallucinating?

 

[pomeroo]

Repeat

My point is that he says of course the only reason this person would go to Niger was to by Uranium. According to his logic, it's the only reason anyone would go there, since that's all the place sells.

Fine, if that's the only reason to go there, then he must have been buying some uranium, only, he didn't. That Saddam was a dangerous nut who would like to be a regional tyrant as well is not in dispute, as to whether or not he actually had the ability to further his aims using nuclear power is quite clear, he had no ability at all. No infrastructure, no uranium, nothing. That was known, due to UN inspections. To say he would like to rule the world is just pointless.

"I wonder why nobody will READ Hitchens's articles?"

 

[pomeroo]

Honesty

I'm a Democrat and I think Bush is like Hitler.

So there's one.

Your opinion is irrational nonsense, but at least you admit to holding it.

 

[Cleon]

Are you seriously trying to pretend that leftists haven't trumpeted their Bush-is-Hitler trope for over five years? This is a joke, right? Do you require that I provide evidence proving that the North won the Civil War? What point are you trying to make? Is everyone who complains about this vile tactic hallucinating?

Once again, more incredulity, zero actual evidence.

I also notice you're ignoring the bit about "Hitlery." Funny, that.