Merged Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

[Cain]

Maybe you mean this. Hitchens with Chris Hedges:

Good find, that's the one. The Second Airborne division apparently protects me while I sleep. Nice to know.

And this is well-said:

The problem for me is that after dabbling with skepticism over Bush and his "Axis of Evil" and after publicly stating that he would need reassurances on a "million fronts" (IIRC) he suddenly lost all doubts whatsoever and began to propagandize hard for war. Anyone who disagreed with him, even mildly, were savaged and denigrated and he started to argue that there were WMDs in Iraq and soon everyone would know it and then they would see he was right. Of course, such weapons weren't found and he seems to have allowed himself to be duped, once again over "yellowcake from Niger" which was based on forged documents. Again, the same pattern of abuse of any naysayer or advocate of caution while blustering away about how many Ba'athists and jihadists were going to be killed and what happy days these were. In short, I think he became a little bit deranged in the run-up to the war to the point were he could no longer climb down or admit he was wrong. So, he doubled down on it, urging more and more destruction and "endless war" - he literally did this! When he turned up to some atheist convention he said he wanted to piss the audience off and then started urging the bombing of Iran and killing of more jihadists. By this point, I think Hitchens was just trying to be consistent as he could no longer start saying, "well, hold on now. Let's slow down and think about this rationally" the logic of his Iraq War stance ruled this out. So, the guy who accused Bill Clinton of war crimes, for bombing al-Shifa in Khartoum, was demanding that the US start bombing the **** out of just about anything and everything.

Not only did he say Clinton was guilty of war crimes -- which is correct -- he charged that the primary intention of the attacks was to distract from the Lewinsky Affair, a view that has considerably less going for it. His schtick in the late 90s would now be termed Clinton Derangement Syndrome. During that time he was probably on more cable news shows than Ann Coulter.

The medicine factory bombing reminds me of how Hitchens re-ignited his feud with Chomsky after the Bin Laden assassination. There was a big thread on it here as I recall. Hitchens misrepresented the professor's views on responsibility for 9/11 conflating trials and conviction with preponderance of evidence, but what stood out most to me is that he seemed to have no problem with an extra-judicial killing, which pained me because he has spoken quite eloquently in opposition to the death penalty. In one of his articles or books, he provided me with the strongest position I know: it gives the government too much power. Yet, he had no problem bending this principle for terrorist number 1 despite the official story that Bin Laden was unarmed and could have been captured.

Googling I found an appropriate comment on the two personalities:

Oh Christopher, go and read Chomsky properly. You've pitted yourself against this man because you are, and have always been, on the deluded side of this "War on Terror". And here you are, at the bitter end, your intellectual vanity still trumping your intellectual courage. You simply cannot admit you were wrong.

Neither you nor Chomsky has many years left. The difference is that Chomsky will be using his years to fight establishment power and propaganda, while you use yours to get the last word.

 

[angrysoba]

Thank you for the links. As for the narrative, read your posts, what point are you trying to convey? Look, I'm honestly and sincerely skeptical of the picture you seem to me to convey. But I will honestly consider the info. I'm not a sycophant. But I respect Hitchens very much. Given the sins of Lincoln, FDR and others I think humans like Hitchens are fallible. Human.

This sounds like a "going nuclear" tactic. If you point out that Hitchens was human then you can simply say that all his faults were human. Well, that goes for every other human, so it is no defence at all. What I am saying is that when some humans said that they were a little bit unsure about the war in Iraq he called them Saddam apologists/capitulationists and people who really ought to get used to seeing a few casualties. I don't know what to say to you, Randfan, if you don't know all this. I can only assume you know very little about Hitchens because this is not some kind of fabricated argument, this is what Hitchens was doing for about four years from early 2003 to 2007. I suggest you simply read Hitchens from that era and check out some of the videos he appeared in.

He was very close friends and admired by many with whom he debated. He reserved his combativeness for debate and writing. He respected his audience and thought the issues too important not to.

Here's some respect for his audience (I must admit I enjoyed this though):

I don't know all of their names. Many we're rabbis and ministers. I've seen several in interviews since his death who counted him as their friend. Francis Collins was a close personal friend. Rabbis Shmuley Botech and David Wolpe, Pastor Douglas Wilson. Some I only learned about since his death and don't know their names.

Who cares how close he was to people he debated for big cash? Do you honestly think that Dinesh D'Souza and he didn't have some business arangement? Besides, whether they did or did not I hope you're not assuming that because some "men of God" liked him then that confers any kind of respect due to him. They are rabbis and pastors therefore they are charlatans.

 

[JihadJane]

Not sure of your perspective. Is it pacifism or simply an aversion of American imperialism? Was the combat of Guverra, a religion to him? Or, simply a means to an end, or do you take exception to all violence?

I put religion in quote marks.

I take exception to aggressive violence.

I don't care about respecting the dead. I care about disrespectful living.

How is it not living respectfully to say that Hitchens died with blood on his hands ?

 

[FireGarden]

Hitchens referred to himself as a Marxist.

E.g.: "Well, yes, I'm a Marxist, after all." - May, 2010.

Perhaps I should have refered to the way in which comments reffered to him as a Marxist. That might have underlined the bit about Hitchens getting it from all sides.

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps I should have refered to the way in which comments reffered to him as a Marxist. That might have underlined the bit about Hitchens getting it from all sides.

I see you what you meant now.

 

[RandFan]

I put religion in quote marks.

I take exception to aggressive violence.

Thanks but that really doesn't help me at all. Are you a pacifist? I don't condone violence. I don't try to excuse it. I'm not sure that the world is so black and white. I have great respect for pacifists so if you are one then I can understand your position. At the moment I honestly don't.

 

[Pardalis]

How is it not living respectfully to say that Hitchens died with blood on his hands ?

What about the blood on your hands?

You support the insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan. You supported Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, they are far more responsible for the deaths of civilians than the NATO and US forces.

You would have preferred that Hussein and his crime family would have been left alone and continued to rape his people.

 

[RandFan]

This sounds like a "going nuclear" tactic.

?

If you point out that Hitchens was human then you can simply say that all his faults were human. Well, that goes for every other human, so it is no defence at all.

Where did I say it was a defense? I was responding the claims that he was combative and abusive to those he debated. He was largely liked and admired by those who he debated. I don't need a defense.

What I am saying is that when some humans said that they were a little bit unsure about the war in Iraq he called them Saddam apologists/capitulationists and people who really ought to get used to seeing a few casualties.

Let's assume for sake of argument that there is only one reasonable position to take as it relates to the Iraq war. Let's assume that Hitchens took the wrong position. Let's assume that having done so he was combative, smug and self assure in his tactics to persuade others to his position. Are you saying that there is nothing else with which to judge this man? I must only view him through this perspective? I don't think you've made either case convincingly. I know you think you have. I think you are selecting portions of this mans life and are now demanding that everyone else adopt your view and if not then those who disagree are unreasonable.

Who cares how close he was to people he debated for big cash? Do you honestly think that Dinesh D'Souza and he didn't have some business arangement? Besides, whether they did or did not I hope you're not assuming that because some "men of God" liked him then that confers any kind of respect due to him. They are rabbis and pastors therefore they are charlatans.

I'm sorry but I do not have that degree of cynicism. Hitchens is respected by my many luminaries including Dawkins, Fry, Randi, Shermer, etc.. Not only that but his words were powerful and his arguments persuasive. He changed many lives.

I don't know what you expect of me but if it is to hate Hitchens or find that he is not due respect then I can assure that while the job is not impossible, you've got a long, long way to go. You've got to convince me that Dawkins, Randi et al are in this CT business adventure, or they are cynical or evil or deluded and that Hitchens life was a sham. His assault against Kissinger and Theresa and other frauds was designed with only $$ as his goal. Okay, I can be convinced. Convince me.

Let me tell you though, you are going to have to do much more than find some quotes you find disagreeable.

 

[RandFan]

Until someone convinces me otherwise...

... then I choose to honor him. This isn't an argument that others should. It's just how I feel.

 

[Craig B]

How did you write to him? I tried to find an address over the last year or so but I didn't end up finding one. Should've looked harder.

I emailed him care of his publisher.

 

[RandFan]

Daniel Dennett: A lesson from Hitch

When rudeness is called for

I’ve just been reviewing my experiences with Christopher Hitchens.

He informed me, entertained me, provoked me like nobody else, and I will miss his antic spirit more than I can say. I didn’t know him for long, though I’d been reading his pieces, with mixed reactions, for years. We met in early 2007, and had dinner in Las Vegas, where we were both appearing in an Amazing Randi meeting. He kindled a happy bonfire of discussion that continued intermittently in meetings and emails.

Seemed apropos.

 

[dafydd]

I put religion in quote marks.

I take exception to aggressive violence.




How is it not living respectfully to say that Hitchens died with blood on his hands ?

You can say it but it's not true.

 

[bookitty]

This take-down of a "a New York Times columnist, a god-bothering newsboy on his best day, presuming to think — let alone speak — for a guy who is no longer here to think or speak for himself" is among Hitchens' best obits.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ross-douthat-christopher-hitchens-6618992

 

[Childlike Empress]

For those interested, here are the WSWS Trotskyites saying good riddance to the "scoundrel".

 

[RandFan]

For those interested, here are the WSWS Trotskyites saying good riddance to the "scoundrel".

None of this has anything remotely to do with the struggle for socialism, the building of a movement in the working class prepared to wage irreconcilable combat with the status quo.

Thus Hitchens is a heretic, those who do not remain ideologically pure must be utterly destroyed. Reasonable people cannot disagree. Therefore, any disagreement is cause for poisoning the well.

It's a screed written for the choir. That's fine.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I know only enough about Hitchens to know that he was of no significance to me, but can say that the snippet you posted and your summary does not fairly represent the criticism in that article. More like this:

The Christian right is not the only variant of contemporary reaction. That Hitchens did not share its bigotry and fanaticism is of no importance weighed against his support for the invasion of Iraq, with the resulting destruction of a society and the deaths of perhaps one million people, and other imperialist crimes, and his cheerleading the build-up of a police state in the US, including the murder this year of unindicted US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Hitchens died an unrepentant and unapologetic proponent of the “global war on terror” and the crusade against “Islamofascism,” the racist-chauvinist justification for the conquest of Middle Eastern energy supplies by the US and its allies.

The linked other articles from the late nineties and early zeros could also be interesting to you. If you can't accuse the authors of one thing, then that's inconsistency.

 

[RandFan]

I know only enough about Hitchens to know that he was of no significance to me, but can say that the snippet you posted and your summary does not fairly represent the criticism in that article. More like this:

The Christian right is not the only variant of contemporary reaction. That Hitchens did not share its bigotry and fanaticism is of no importance weighed against his support for the invasion of Iraq, with the resulting destruction of a society and the deaths of perhaps one million people, and other imperialist crimes, and his cheerleading the build-up of a police state in the US, including the murder this year of unindicted US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Hitchens died an unrepentant and unapologetic proponent of the “global war on terror” and the crusade against “Islamofascism,” the racist-chauvinist justification for the conquest of Middle Eastern energy supplies by the US and its allies.

The linked other articles from the late nineties and early zeros could also be interesting to you. If you can't accuse the authors of one thing, then that's inconsistency.

Let's be clear here, I accuse the authors of selectively viewing the record and framing events to fit a preconceived narrative. Consistency is not at issue. I have great contempt for ideological purity. It has done as much to harm people and societies sin general as has theological purity. Dogma is BS. I don't mind that they criticize Hitchens. I don't mind it at all. Hell, HE wouldn't mind it. They have something to say and it's worthy to hear it and understand it. I read the article and didn't dismiss their factual points out of hand. It's fine but there is no balance to the article. It's very similar to right-wing screeds that are also accurate and consistent. It's not all that hard to do. It's propaganda. It was developed and perfected in the early to mid 20th century. If anything we ought to be able to easily recognize one sided polemics, right?

I take from it what I can but I'm reasonably skeptical of their conclusions and assertions.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Fair enough. I actually prefer my information from sources with transparent agendas (of several flavours which brings the balance). They are actually quite competent journalists and it's easy to see the obligatory "oh, and our splinter party will bring about world revolution" paragraph for what it is. But facts are facts. Here from the linked article on Hitchens written on 7 October 2002:

[Hitchens] continues, “There is not the least doubt that he [Hussein] had acquired some of the means of genocide and hopes to collect some more.” Hitchens here employs a method favored by Vice President Dick Cheney in several recent speeches—he uses the phrases “not the least doubt” without providing the “least” amount of evidence.

Hitchens’s attempts to connect Hussein to the Islamic fundamentalists—including reviving the widely debunked claim that alleged suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague—do not even appear to convince him. He comments defensively, “People keep bleating that Saddam is not a fundamentalist. But he did rejoice in the attacks on New York and Washington and Pennsylvania, and he does believe that every little bit hurts.” This is simply gibberish: either Hussein was connected to the suicide bombing, of which there is not a shred of evidence and which has no political logic, or he wasn’t. Hitchens’s fishing expedition is no more convincing than the White House campaign of lies.

Hitchens solidarizes himself with the “Iraqi and Kurdish opponents of this filthy menace.” Which opponents? Legitimate popular opposition to Hussein? No, in this article and others, Hitchens makes clear that he means the CIA-financed Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the opportunist nationalists of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), who have lined up in support of a US invasion in hopes of sharing in the Iraqi oil wealth once the present regime is deposed and the country broken up. None of these forces represents a progressive alternative to the Hussein dictatorship. They are merely stooges in waiting.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough. I actually prefer my information from sources with transparent agendas (of several flavours which brings the balance). They are actually quite competent journalists and it's easy to see the obligatory "oh, and our splinter party will bring about world revolution" paragraph for what it is.

That's fine.

But facts are facts. Here from the linked article on Hitchens written on 7 October 2002:

[Hitchens] continues, “There is not the least doubt that he [Hussein] had acquired some of the means of genocide and hopes to collect some more.” Hitchens here employs a method favored by Vice President Dick Cheney in several recent speeches—he uses the phrases “not the least doubt” without providing the “least” amount of evidence.

Hitchens’s attempts to connect Hussein to the Islamic fundamentalists—including reviving the widely debunked claim that alleged suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague—do not even appear to convince him. He comments defensively, “People keep bleating that Saddam is not a fundamentalist. But he did rejoice in the attacks on New York and Washington and Pennsylvania, and he does believe that every little bit hurts.” This is simply gibberish: either Hussein was connected to the suicide bombing, of which there is not a shred of evidence and which has no political logic, or he wasn’t. Hitchens’s fishing expedition is no more convincing than the White House campaign of lies.

Hitchens solidarizes himself with the “Iraqi and Kurdish opponents of this filthy menace.” Which opponents? Legitimate popular opposition to Hussein? No, in this article and others, Hitchens makes clear that he means the CIA-financed Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the opportunist nationalists of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), who have lined up in support of a US invasion in hopes of sharing in the Iraqi oil wealth once the present regime is deposed and the country broken up. None of these forces represents a progressive alternative to the Hussein dictatorship. They are merely stooges in waiting.

Okay, let's accept these facts. What then? Is Hitchens' in lock step with Bush et al? Is his motivation oil, the advancement of the GOP, world conquest, yankee Imperialism and/or the furthering of the Neo Con agenda? Is it blood lust or the hatred of Muslims? Why did he criticize Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, water boarding? How come Hitchens' support was narrowly crafted for the overthrow of Saddam? Why did he not defend Bush or Cheney against charges of war crimes? Why was Hitchens' a plaintiff challenging Bush's warrantless domestic spying program? Where are THOSE facts? Why be coy about Hitchens' purpose in all of this? Why the "wink wink nudge nudge" nature? Where IS the balance? This is what I mean. I know these facts. I didn't stumble into this issue yesterday. Though I currently disagree with Hitchens' as to the invasion and war I was once in favor of it. I've kept myself up to date on what's going on.

So, when I read a screed like the one you linked to I have to ask myself, "why leave out so much that does not fit their narrative?". Got it? It's propaganda pure and simple, the purpose of which is to advance an agenda regardless of all of the facts. And look, that's fine, they are entitled to do that, and I still don't dismiss the "facts" or even the article out of hand. It's just that I have some perspective. I don't give a damn that's it's partisan, transparently or otherwise. I give a damn that they are objective and care about the truth?

If you want to persuade me to something (which I don't know if you even know what it is you want to persuade me of) then you need something more than partisan polemics. You need to identify a specific charge or charges, you then need to provide premises that lead, via inference, to a conclusion that is consistent with the charge. Otherwise you are just throwing out criticisms, and that's fine too. Just don't expect it to be persuasive.

 

[angrysoba]

Thank you for the links. As for the narrative, read your posts, what point are you trying to convey? Look, I'm honestly and sincerely skeptical of the picture you seem to me to convey. But I will honestly consider the info. I'm not a sycophant. But I respect Hitchens very much. Given the sins of Lincoln, FDR and others I think humans like Hitchens are fallible. Human.

I'm just going to go back to this post quickly and then hopefully I can show you what the point of my posts was.

Please understand that I was specifically answering this post, particularly the highlighted:

I really started to pay attention and watch his videos online a little over a year ago and agree with 90% of what he had to say. I'm not familiar with his stance on Mother Teresa or Iraq that well. But his main goal was wanting Saddam ousted right? Then I started to read his book of quotes on various subjects and so far agree with 90% of those too.

He was tenacious and to the point, blunt- that was what I loved. Dawkins comes close but still...who can have that same effect? There is a huge void now.

So, I decided to give an account, which I think is accurate, on Hitchens' position on Iraq, which is why I began the post:

I think it would be worth finding out what Hitchens thought on Iraq.

It was a little unusual to say the least...

If you want to re-read the post then please go back to the link.

But then quoted a part of my post and you asked:

Thanks angry, could you provide some sources?

So, I did. I provided some sources. And you responded with what I thought was a very strange post equating me to a 9/11 Truther, or an anti-vax or Creationist.

Thanks. I'll look at it. Doesn't seem particularly damning. FWIW I find your final statement rather trite given Hitchens' depth of contributions including Vanity fair. It seems a bit of connect the dots 9/11 truther CT. But, i'll keep an open mind just as I do for anti-vax and creationism. I don't mean to be dismissive. I really do keep an open mind for both.

By this point I am starting to get confused. Does Randfan know nothing about Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War? I thought. Does he consider it a mere detail?

Sorry, I mean that you pull out events that seem to only fit a rather narrow narrative. I'm always skeptical of that. Again, I honestly don't mean that as a slight. It's just that given that so many on the left have so much respect for him and given his depth of writing and contributions it seems a bit of selective stringing the dots together and that does strike me as the kind of stuff the CT folks do.

Sorry if that is offensive. JMO honest observation. Hey, I could be wrong and your points are the only salient ones.

Again, this is confusing for me because we are talking about an extended period of time from 2003 to 2007 when Hitchens spoke of almost nothing but Iraq. Randfan, I can only imagine you only found out about Hitchens from his God is Not Great era onwards but you forget that this era is all but irrelevant when I am responding to a question about Hitchens' stance on Iraq. Given that you are bringing up irrelevancies and I am trying to answer the question, who is really acting more like a Truther?

By the way, then you brought up FDR and Lincoln and suggested that some people do hatchet jobs on them by picking out some tiny quotes or minor details and pretending this was their entire legacy. You suggest that this is what I was doing for Hitchens. But you are ignoring the fact that I am not talking about Hitchens' entire legacy but am specifically referring to his stance on the Iraq War.

But, if, as you suggest that to err is human then I say again that this is a "going nuclear" tactic as it can be used to whitewash all errors that any human ever makes. Maybe Hitchens was only human to err but so what? Relating to his errors on the war in Iraq they were quite damning:

This sounds like a "going nuclear" tactic. If you point out that Hitchens was human then you can simply say that all his faults were human. Well, that goes for every other human, so it is no defence at all. What I am saying is that when some humans said that they were a little bit unsure about the war in Iraq he called them Saddam apologists/capitulationists and people who really ought to get used to seeing a few casualties. I don't know what to say to you, Randfan, if you don't know all this. I can only assume you know very little about Hitchens because this is not some kind of fabricated argument, this is what Hitchens was doing for about four years from early 2003 to 2007. I suggest you simply read Hitchens from that era and check out some of the videos he appeared in.

You then suggested that it is of no consequence what many people think about Hitchens because some of his debating opponents had so much respect for him. You then mentioned some religious folk who he debated but again you seem to ignore the fact that this is irrelevant as they weren't talking about the war in Iraq they were arguing how many angels could dance on the end of a pin.

Who cares how close he was to people he debated for big cash? Do you honestly think that Dinesh D'Souza and he didn't have some business arangement? Besides, whether they did or did not I hope you're not assuming that because some "men of God" liked him then that confers any kind of respect due to him. They are rabbis and pastors therefore they are charlatans.

But, you seem again to miss the point:

?

Where did I say it was a defense? I was responding the claims that he was combative and abusive to those he debated. He was largely liked and admired by those who he debated. I don't need a defense.

Let's assume for sake of argument that there is only one reasonable position to take as it relates to the Iraq war. Let's assume that Hitchens took the wrong position. Let's assume that having done so he was combative, smug and self assure in his tactics to persuade others to his position. Are you saying that there is nothing else with which to judge this man? I must only view him through this perspective?* I don't think you've made either case convincingly. I know you think you have. I think you are selecting portions of this mans life and are now demanding that everyone else adopt your view and if not then those who disagree are unreasonable.

I'm sorry but I do not have that degree of cynicism. Hitchens is respected by my many luminaries including Dawkins, Fry, Randi, Shermer, etc.. Not only that but his words were powerful and his arguments persuasive. He changed many lives.

* No! I am not saying that at all. I am saying that when you judge him on his position on Iraq, you judge him by what he said and did related to his position on Iraq. I never said that you can only judge Hitchens on that one issue, that is merely an interpretation you have made of what I said.

I don't know what you expect of me but if it is to hate Hitchens or find that he is not due respect then I can assure that while the job is not impossible, you've got a long, long way to go.

When did I even hint that I expected you to do any such thing? I am only saying that if you want to talk about Hitchens' position on the Iraq War then you actually have to make relevant points. So far all you have said is that you dispute my "narrative" and then brought up irrelevant issues such as the following:

You've got to convince me that Dawkins, Randi et al are in this CT business adventure, or they are cynical or evil or deluded and that Hitchens life was a sham. His assault against Kissinger and Theresa and other frauds was designed with only $$ as his goal. Okay, I can be convinced. Convince me.

I don't have to do any such thing. What on Earth does Dawkins and Randi and Kissinger and Mother Teresa have to do with the Iraq War debate? When did I accuse Hitchens of doing nothing unless money was involved? Why are you setting up all these strawmen instead of dealing with my point about the war in Iraq?

Let me tell you though, you are going to have to do much more than find some quotes you find disagreeable

Let me ask this as clearly as I can, and may I request that if you answer this question then you are not to bring in any irrelevant things such as atheism, Randi, Dawkins, Dennett, Turek, Wilson, Boteach, etc etc..., which part of my "narrative" about Hitchens on Iraq do you think is wrong or exaggerated or unfair? What issue do you take with my answer to the initial point about Hitchens' stance on Iraq?