C Hitchens explains why Iraq elections mean d*ck

shecky

Master Poster
shecky
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
2,192
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000730.html

Christopher Hitchens said to Ghassan Atiyyah: “If the Iraqis were to elect either a Sunni or Shia Taliban, we would not let them take power.” And of course he was right. We didn’t invade Iraq so we could midwife the birth of yet another despicable tyranny. “One man, one vote, one time” isn’t anything remotely like a democracy.
Click to expand...

He didn't mean it like it sounds. Or did he?
 
"Christopher Hitchens said to Ghassan Atiyyah: “If the Iraqis were to elect either a Sunni or Shia Taliban, we would not let them take power.” "

Looks like this is exactly what happened, no suprise to anyone I imagine (except for the pseudo patriotic blowhards who are willing to chear on any American military operation).

Hitchens really sounds amazingly clueless these days. Doesn't he know who the Bushes are and how their people operate? He really seems to believe that their top priority is to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East.
 
It's NOT about the oil. It's not ABOUT the oil. It's not about the OIL...
 
Re: Re: C Hitchens explains why Iraq elections mean d*ck

Renfield said:
Hitchens really sounds amazingly clueless these days. Doesn't he know who the Bushes are and how their people operate? He really seems to believe that their top priority is to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East.
Click to expand...
I'm a little slow on the uptake here. I do think Hitchens was correct in this assessment. Did you mean "clueless" insensitive or "clueless "wrong".
 
Re: Re: Re: C Hitchens explains why Iraq elections mean d*ck

Atlas said:
I'm a little slow on the uptake here. I do think Hitchens was correct in this assessment. Did you mean "clueless" insensitive or "clueless "wrong".
Click to expand...

If it really were another Taliban, I guess you could take that part of the statement as literally true, but Hitchens was making the argument that Bush really wants us there to make sure democracy becomes a reality in Iraq. Clueless.
 
Just a quick derail to note that Christopher Hitchens now also appears to believe that the recent US presidential election didn't mean much either.
From a recent diary at Daily Kos:

Christopher Hitchens has a new article in Vanity Fair entitled, OHIO'S ODD NUMBER'S. The lead-in states "No conspiracy theorist, and no fan of John Kerry's, the author nevertheless found the Ohio polling results impossible to swallow: Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines."
Click to expand...
While the article is not yet available on-line, BooMan23 (author of the diary linked to) transcribed some of it in his diary. Here's a brief excerpt:
Whichever way you shake it, or hold it up to the light, there is something wrong about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. The sheer number of irregularities compelled a formal recount, which was completed in late December and which came out much the same as the original one, with 176 fewer votes for George Bush. But this was a meaningless exercise in reassurance, since there is simply no means of checking, for example, how many "vote hops" the computerized machines mights have performed unnoticed...
Click to expand...
It's an interesting article. If no one else starts a separate thread on it today, I'll probably do so myself late tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom