Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[pomeroo]

Concession Speech

I read it. It does not substantiate your allegation. The article was able to find three individuals who are not employees or spokespeople for MoveOn making such comments on three separate occasions (occasions that were not related to MoveOn in any way, shape, or form). Of course, it also mentions the infamous "Hitler ad," which we all know was not sponsored by MoveOn. It didn't even win the damn contest.

So the article in question does not substantiate the allegation. If anything, it's inability to find an occasion of MoveOn issuing any sort of publication making such a comparison or any spokesman or employee of MoveOn making such a comparison is an indication to the contrary.

Now for the kicker. Enter the following into Google: "site:moveon.org hitler" (sans quotes, of course). What this does is google MoveOn's site for the word "hitler." You get seven (7) hits. Of those,

5) are referencing the "Hitler ad," which again, we know was not supported, funded, or produced by MoveOn.org.
1) is actually a link to an NYTimes article that I'm not going to pay money to read.
1) is a link to the main page for some reason. No "Hitler" referenced. (If I had to guess, I'd say it was a reference to the "Hitler ad" that Google cached.)

One would think that if MoveOn was "CONSTANTLY" comparing Bush to Hitler, we'd get a wee bit more than the above.

So, as far as I can tell, what you have provided evidence for is the existence of the allegation that MoveOn is "constantly" comparing Bush to Hitler. But evidence for the allegation itself seems to be somewhat lacking.

The funny part is that I don't even LIKE MoveOn. But, this being a skeptic's forum, when you make an empty claim, people are going to want evidence.

Well, you win. I have concluded that the sea of posters I encountered at those "peace" rallies in 2002 and 2003 showing Bush with a Hitler-mustache was a figment of my imagination. I was hallucinating. Margaret Cho doesn't compare Bush to Hitler; Janeane Garofalo doesn't; Bob Fertig doesn't; Bob Fitrakis doesn't; Julian Bond doesn't. Nope. Not a single one of the show-biz types who routinely compare Bush to Hitler really does it.

Come to think of it, even mainstream politicians like Charley Rangel don't indulge in the Nazi stuff. I and thousands of conservative pundits and bloggers fabricated the whole thing. Those loony-left blogs that compare Bush to Hitler on a daily basis--they're not real. We're just all crazy to think that the left has employed this vicious smear tactic countless times.

Who would have thought that I needed critical thinkers to show me a whole new fantasy world ?

 

[Cleon]

Well, you win. I have concluded that the sea of posters I encountered at those "peace" rallies in 2002 and 2003 showing Bush with a Hitler-mustache was a figment of my imagination. I was hallucinating. Margaret Cho doesn't compare Bush to Hitler; Janeane Garofalo doesn't; Bob Fertig doesn't; Bob Fitrakis doesn't; Julian Bond doesn't. Nope. Not a single one of the show-biz types who routinely compare Bush to Hitler really does it.

So no evidence, just more anecdotes, this time with a snarkier attitude. Do I need to repeat my advice about trying to emulate Hitchens again?

 

[pomeroo]

Not Fooled

I didn't say that, did I? I said that trying to emulate Hitchens' arrogance and vitriol doesn't do much for your argument. I will repeat that advice, as it seems you've decided to ignore it:

Trying to emulate Hitchens' arrogance and vitriol doesn't do much for your argument.

Attributing arrogance and vitriol to me is a form of ad hominem attack. They are your subjective impressions of me and have no relevance to the points I'm attempting to make.

 

[pomeroo]

Irony

So no evidence, just more anecdotes, this time with a snarkier attitude. Do I need to repeat my advice about trying to emulate Hitchens again?

Yes, you're right: I've presented no evidence.

 

[a_unique_person]

Glenn, I'm astonished by your evident lack of familiarity with Christopher Hitchens's work. A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee determined that Joe Wilson did indeed lie when he claimed that his wife did not suggest him for the assignment to Niger. That same committee concluded that Wilson's visit did not refute the findings of British intelligence but, rather, lent support to them. Here are links to several pieces Hitchens has published on Slate.com that deal with Iraq's attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger:

"Wowie Zahawie"--www.slate.com/id/2139609/

"Clueless Joe Wilson"--www.slate.com/id/2140058/

"Case Closed"--www.slate.com/id/2146475/

"Into the Fray"--www.slate.com/id/2144017/

"Hello. Zahawie, My Old Friend"--www.slate.com/id/2148995/

"Christopher Hitchens Responds"--www.slate.com/id/2150433

Fine, lets look at the evidence. How much uranium was found in Iraq?

 

[pomeroo]

Correction

Hitchens is hardly the authority on Wilson.

At what point do you continue to look at Coulter's nonsense before deciding none of it is of value, pom?

Along the same vein, at some point there is enough evidence to conclude there is no point in actually discussing issues with you. You are fixed in place.

Hitchens has provided us with some real investigative reporting, the sort we rarely encounter nowadays, in his series on Wilson and Zawahie. You blithely state that Hitchens is "hardly the authority on Wilson." Actually reading what he wrote might change your mind. Hitchens happens to be an outstanding authority on Joe Wilson's tangled and self-serving tale.

By the way, is Coulter wrong in her analysis of the Duke University "rape" travesty?

 

[pomeroo]

Sinking Feeling

Fine, lets look at the evidence. How much uranium was found in Iraq?

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?

 

[SkeptiKilt]

I have read many of Hitchens's articles on Iraq, and what I find is a drunken former socialist who is so afraid of Muslims that he has embraced a philosophy of "Kill 'em all." To this end has written multiple apologias for the disastrous weltanschauung of a neocon cabal, and is in too deep to extricate himself with anything resembling grace. He and George W Bush are well-suited to each other; they are both congenitally unable to apologize.

And to think that a decade ago Hitchens was railing at Clinton for not being liberal enough; from Trotskyist to neocon in just a few short years.

 

[noblecaboose]

I think Hitchens lived up to my previous impression of him. He's outspoken and a jerk who chooses to see things through the lens of his existing opinion. For example, his article on why women aren't funny really pissed me off. While I agreed with some of his theories about it, I disagreed with his major premise. It was insulting to me, as I made comedy my career to some extent. When I confronted him about this at the forum party, he was quite willing to debate it with me, and my conversation with him was one of the highlights of the weekend for me.

Unfortunately, his behavior on the panel was one of the low points for most of us, but I can speak for only myself when I say that I slightly enjoyed hearing people disagree for once. I can't think of a group of people more difficult to offend, and it was kind of exciting to have the calm waters churned up. True, there's a fine line between polite debate and schoolyard scrapping, and that came dangerously close to the latter. Peter Sagal diffused things perfectly, and thank goodness for that. I voiced my opinion by NOT clapping for Hitchens when I disagreed, and only clapping when I did. I definitely don't agree with the man on all points, but his behavior was no surprise. There's no excuse for that, but it's what one ought to expect from a man who can blithely eviscerate Mother Theresa.

Besides, wouldn't it have been cool to see someone go all Buzz Aldrin on him (i.e. Pop him one)?

 

[ravdin]

it's what one ought to expect from a man who can blithely eviscerate Mother Theresa.

And what is so terrific about Mother Teresa?

 

[infidelguy]

I admit I was taken aback by his responses. Turned me right off. I didn't wish to hear anything else he had to say. A man of his intellect I thought would be beyond blanket assertions and ad hominems. I guess I was wrong.

 

[articulett]

Hence my use of the word "unnecessary".

Agreed. I find it hard to be as nice as Randy, I must say--and he is far more likable than Hitchens. Moreover, his solution to the "faith=truth" problem is much less bloody and more effective than Hitchens' warmongering approach!

Educate the young--use the internet--they (we) will educate each other...the old blow hards are not educable, but they will die--and if we educate their young, we keep the old woo blow hards from exercising their influence in destructive ways. It is uncritical crowds letting a single person do the thinking for the group that are frightening--

And thanks to the person who posted the clip of Hitchens' on Maher's show. Bill Maher is a Libertarian too, isn't he? I'm too polite to boo Hitchens--I walked out. But I would have preferred if Hitchens was off entertaining the troups rather than being at TAM. That being said, you can have a bunch of Hitchens-types at TAM, and you won't keep me away. TAM has been the highlight of my year for the 4th year in a row. But if we are going to have atheist Libertarians, maybe we can ask Bill Maher to come next year. He'd love it more than Hitchens, I'm sure, and he'd be much more enjoyable to the crowd. And boy would it be great (to me at least) if he was a regularly attendee!

 

[ravdin]

I agree with Phil that there's a big difference with saying that Hitchens' behavior was wrong and that his comments were wrong. I agree with the general consensus on the thread that Hitchens was a jerk on the panel. But I also agree with just about everything that Hitchens said- my issue is that he overreacted and directed his tirade at the wrong target.

Our invasion of Iraq has been unfortunate for many reasons, but among them is that it's a distraction from a very huge threat. We have an enemy that has already murdered thousands of our citizens and is determined to do it again. Let me be very clear: Wahabi Islam is poison. It is deeply rooted in a totalitarian mindset and is antithetical to our civilized values.

It's part of our values to be tolerant of different views, which is a good thing when we're dealing with people with weird but harmless beliefs. But we must demand reciprocity for our tolerance. Hitchens' tirade was rude but it was a valuable wake up call all the same.

Dikkers took the high road and was a true gentleman. I wouldn't have wanted to take a thumping like that and he handled it very gracefully.

 

[Euromutt]

Fine, lets look at the evidence. How much uranium was found in Iraq?

Well, that's precisely beside the point. The whole kerfuffle started over the "Sixteen Words"--when Bush claimed in the 2003 SotU that:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The operative word have being "sought," which is not the same as "acquired."

Wilson made a stink when the NYT ran an op-ed piece by him on 06-Jul-2003, titled "What I Didn't Find in Niger." In this piece, Wilson stated that he had not found any evidence that Iraq had acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger (which was true), and that Bush was lying when he uttered the "Sixteen Words." Later, in his subsequent book The Politics of Truth, Wilson claimed:

In [the NYT piece], I stated that the Bush administration had been informed a year and a half earlier that their claims of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger were false.

I turn now to the Senate Intelligence Committee's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." On page 43, there is a description of a CIA report based on Wilson's debriefing following his return from Niger:

The intelligence report [based on Wilson's trip] indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

The long and short of it is that the Wilson apparently found that Iraq had apparently sought to acquire yellowcake from Niger, but had not succeeded in actually acquiring any. Thus, Wilson's subsequent claim (in his book) that there had been no such attempt contradicts the report based on his debriefing. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report goes on to describe that, when interviewed by the Committee, Wilson emphasized the obstacles to Iraq actually acquiring yellowcake from Niger, but did not make any statements to the effect that no attempt had been made.

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.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hitchens's behavior was like finding a bug in the middle of your ice cream cone.

I was thinking more like a piece of bitter dark chocolate in the middle of a pasty vanilla ice cream cone that was about to fall off the edge of a cone of blandness.

~~ Paul

 

[saganite]

I think Hitchens lived up to my previous impression of him. He's outspoken and a jerk who chooses to see things through the lens of his existing opinion. For example, his article on why women aren't funny really pissed me off. While I agreed with some of his theories about it, I disagreed with his major premise. It was insulting to me, as I made comedy my career to some extent. When I confronted him about this at the forum party, he was quite willing to debate it with me, and my conversation with him was one of the highlights of the weekend for me.

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. I backed off right away and made a mental note to raise the argument later--which then never happened. But maybe if nothing else, I primed him to speak about it rationally with you later on. Good for you! His arguments in that article are so wrong.

 

[Reager]

I was thinking more like a piece of bitter dark chocolate in the middle of a pasty vanilla ice cream cone that was about to fall off the edge of a cone of blandness.

~~ Paul

It's possible to spice up a "bland" event without being a wanker to fellow guests and attendies.

PS. You thought TAM was bland? Perhaps we weren't at the same conference.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's possible to spice up a "bland" event without being a wanker to fellow guests and attendies.

Agreed. I'm not praising Hitchens so much as saying "that's Hitchens for you" and letting his behavior pass on by.

PS. You thought TAM was bland? Perhaps we weren't at the same conference.

I thought the panel discussion was a bit bland, probably because I think of panel discussions as debate forums. But we all agree on these subjects, more or less! We need a few woos to spice things up, I guess.

It wasn't that I liked Hitchens's behavior per se. I just enjoyed a bit of voice-raising.

~~ Paul

 

[TsarBomba]

Because it seems like this thread is getting a little repetative, I won't say anything substantive, but I will take this opportunity to pimp my podcast, Dogma Free America (available on Itunes or at dogmafreeamerica.com). The new episode, which is due to be released some time on Saturday, will feature an interview with Joe Kauffman of Americans Against Hate. We will discuss many of the same issues that Mr. Hitchens brough up in his statments during the panel. If any member posting to this Forum wants to appear on the podcast to give a counterveiling opinion (i.e. that radical Islam is not a serious threat to Western Civilization), please let me know, and I will have you on the Podcast at a later time. Please send a private message if you are interested.

 

[pomeroo]

Well, that's precisely beside the point. The whole kerfuffle started over the "Sixteen Words"--when Bush claimed in the 2003 SotU that:The operative word have being "sought," which is not the same as "acquired."

Wilson made a stink when the NYT ran an op-ed piece by him on 06-Jul-2003, titled "What I Didn't Find in Niger." In this piece, Wilson stated that he had not found any evidence that Iraq had acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger (which was true), and that Bush was lying when he uttered the "Sixteen Words." Later, in his subsequent book The Politics of Truth, Wilson claimed:

I turn now to the Senate Intelligence Committee's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." On page 43, there is a description of a CIA report based on Wilson's debriefing following his return from Niger:The long and short of it is that the Wilson apparently found that Iraq had apparently sought to acquire yellowcake from Niger, but had not succeeded in actually acquiring any. Thus, Wilson's subsequent claim (in his book) that there had been no such attempt contradicts the report based on his debriefing. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report goes on to describe that, when interviewed by the Committee, Wilson emphasized the obstacles to Iraq actually acquiring yellowcake from Niger, but did not make any statements to the effect that no attempt had been made.

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.

Thank you, Euromutt. You have restored my faith in this forum (Hmmm, faith in skepticism--well, what's wrong with a little oxymoronic insight?). Some people here have so insulated themselves from reality that they simply can't accept the fact that just about everything Joe Wilson said turned out to be incorrect. He is a self-promoting liar. His fellow Democrats have prudently distanced themselves from him since his story fell apart.