• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

Was anyone else silently anticipating a Hitchen's invective? I sat there in the audience and knew it was coming. Seen it before....will see it again. He always reminds me of the classic school bully...locate the weak and hone in. Scott Dikkers is not a political commentator or a journalist. It says it right there in his bio. He's a comedy writer. When asked about his political philosophy (a rather personal question to begin with), he responded by simply implying that he applies critical thinking when viewing our government's development and implementation of US foreign policy within the Islamic world. Well if there is one area in which Hitchens deplores skepticism, that's it. For Hitchens is a man who I think has been successfully terrorized. He demands we all buy into his view of a monolithic Islam bent on holy war. Failure to do so or even questioning his position elicits venom and vitriol. To me, it is just so ironic that a man who earlier had spent 15 minutes discussing the consequences of fear and terrorism, shows no apparent control over his own.
 
richorman said:
Frankly Reager, I think that your statement is a complete non-sequitur, but I will say that absolutely and completely agree with everything that Hitchens said. As I said before, at least Hitchens had the guts to challenge Dikkers statment blaming Great Satan for the existence of Islamist terrorists ( and before you reply, I acknowledge that he didn't say "Great Satan," that is just my unfair and biased summary of his statments). In a our wonderful modern, multi-cultural, politically correct world full of the mealy-mouthed, the timorous, the people who watch everything they say so as to avoid giving offense, Christopher Hitchens is a breath of fresh air. Horray for Christopher Hitchens.
Click to expand...

My statement was not a non-sequiter, because the point of my original post was not whether Hitchens was justified in his response to Dikkers, or whether Dikkers was being a bad widdle wiberal, or whether you are quoting Hitchens correctly. My point was that Hitchens' obsession with Islamic extremism has grown tired at a conference devoted to something besides Islamic extremism. Hitchens is a broken record. Give his spot to someone else at TAM6.
 
Non-admission

skeptigirl said:
I'll have to look at your sources before taking you on here (actually in a new thread when I get to it) but I do have a comment now.

Actually, three comments.

Even Bush now admits the Niger yellow cake incident was false. Your claim Wilson's report backed the lie is incredulous.

Whether or not his wife had anything to do with the assignment (I'll look at your citations), Wilson had done work in Africa, knew the political territory, and was qualified for the job. As evidence, he got it right, didn't he?

And three, the Scooter Libby trial jury selection continued today.
Click to expand...


No, Bush does admit anything of the sort. British intelligence claimed that Iraqi agents were seeking to negotiate the purchase of yellowcake from Niger, a country that doesn't have anything else to sell. A bi-partisan Senate committee determined that Wilson's trip supported, rather than contradicted, the British findings. Bush never claimed that Iraq actually obtained any yellowcake.

Hitchens has written extensively on Joe Wilson and the Plame kerfuffle (see the Slate articles I linked to). The Wall Street Journal editorial on Saturday asked reasonable questions: Given that the leaker was Richard Armitage and Fitzgerald knew the leaker's identity long ago, which means that Fitzgerald KNEW LONG AGO that neither Cheney nor Rove had anything to do with it, why does this prosecution continue? Is this not another example of a political witch hunt conducted by an out-of-control special prosecutor?

According to Hitchens, Joe Wilson was an unqualified Democratic operative who, along with his wife, was simply out to undermine Bush.
 
skeptigirl said:
Well I was going to look up http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Authors.asp to analyze it as a valid source. But as I started listing the authors, I got to the last one here and decided I need go no further.Not exactly a basket of credibility there when Coulter is listed as a contributor.

And you aren't doing your credibility any favors listing how many times "Bush and Hitler" comes up on Google as useful data.

I got 2,020,000 for jesus and hitler. So?
Click to expand...


So, skeptigirl, you're really closed-mindedgirl. I'm not an Ann Coulter fan, but that doesn't mean that everything she writes is wrong. For that matter, the other writers you mention are not responsible for Coulter's excesses. I suspect that your opinions don't require many facts to bolster them.
 
Pointless Request

skeptigirl said:
The word Hitler does not appear in this Source Watch bio of Soros.

Care to find a source for your curious beliefs.

And just which bipartisan committee report would that be which found Wilson both a liar, and a supporter of the Bush statement about the Niger yellowcake deal. Aren't you using a double negative there?
Click to expand...


My belief is far from curious. If you won't trouble yourself to read the article I linked to, it's a bit silly to ask about sources. Did you try ANY of the Hitchens pieces in Slate that I mentioned?

I assume that the question about the Senate Intelligence Committee's report reflects genuine ignorance. Here is a link (I hope I'm not violating some rule here, but I don't know how else to provide references to support my opinions):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php
 
Last edited:
Enough Already

skeptigirl said:
Thank you, drapier. It's like the right wing propaganda machine attributing blog replies to the blog author.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clarity

Cleon said:
Indeed. The original claim:



has been completely, totally, and unequivocally debunked.
Click to expand...


Gee, I guess we must have established that Bush really "admitted" that lyin' Joe was right after all.

I'll concede that Moveon.org backed away from the ads that were posted on its website. Will you concede that far-left types, as typified by Moveon.org, CONSTANTLY compare Bush to Hitler?

I didn't think so.
 
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.
 
I'll comment here. I might as well, since I was on the panel and mulling over the goings-on while they were going on.

I'll split up this discussion into two things: what Hitchens did, and what he said.

What he did was be a jerk. No two ways around that. There were many ways he could have disagreed with Dikkers. He chose to be a jerk. I was pretty upset by that, especially since the rest of the conference was upbeat, jovial, and convivial. Hitchens's behavior was like finding a bug in the middle of your ice cream cone.

This should not be mixed up with what he said. What he said was wrong. Or more accurately, oversimplified. So was what Dikkers said, sorta. Dikkers said the first place he looks when things go sour is at himself. This is a fine course of action; it prevents you from trying to unfairly avoid blame. He didn't say that was the only place to look, but he did stop short of actually saying that. He corrected that after Hitchens finished.

Hitchens, however, was wrong. Yes, fanatic religions and millennia of social traditions are at work here. But the US propped up Saddam Hussein, and his reign in Iraq is largely due to US efforts. That is simply a fact. Hitchens wants to lay the blame entirely on Iraq. That's ridiculous.

So there is truth in what they both said, but they both missed the point (though Dikkers did correct himself). Basically, the US threw gasoline on an already existing fire. To deny our role in this is insanity, but to blame ourselves entirely is also wrong.

I'll add that when Dikkers corrected himself, he upstaged Hitchens in two ways. One, he admitted he wasn't complete in his statement, and therefore got closer to the truth than Hitchens did. Second, he took the high road, while Hitchens simply attacked.

After Dikkers spoke the second time, I sat there for a moment thinking about stepping in and saying basically what I have written here, but decided against it. Hitchens is an accomplished speaker, and would have ripped me apart verbally, even though I would have been correct. Second, the political nonsense had gone on long enough, and there was no need for me to prolong it.

All in all, I found Hitchens to be highly objectionable during that question on the panel. I found him otherwise to be a fascinating and eloquent speaker, which makes it more the pity he made two such bad decisions : to behave so poorly, and to make such an egregiously oversimplified and erroneous argument.
 
pomeroo said:
You could read this piece by Byron York.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
C'mon, Now

Cleon said:
Trying to emulate Hitchens' arrogance and vitriol doesn't do much for your argument, such as it is.
Click to expand...


You're seriously contending that refusing to read an article because an author you disapprove of appears occasionally on the same site is rational behavior? I don't think you've persuaded me.
 
Where Hitchins lost the plot!

I had no problem with Hitchen's thesis - ie that Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous! What I did have a problem with is where he went with it. Islam has not always been, and even now is still not, 'fundamentalist' in all its manifestations. Maybe because of who he is and what he does Hitchins has to be a 'contrarian', but I think he misses the point when demonising Islam as the only religion which preaches intolerance, violence and destruction!!!

The real danger in our world comes from fundamentalists of all persuasions - religious, political and dare I say it, environmental. (I no longer have much respect for the Church of Greenpeace.) Osama and his mates are dangerous people because they are fundamentalists. Islam is the context. These fellows have no problem demonising anyone who doesn't fit into their own world view and have proved that they absolutely have no conscience about doing whatever it takes to achieve their ends. They aren't reasonable people, and we make a grave mistake in thinking that they are!!!! We also make another grave mistake in accepting blame for the mess that some people manage to get themselves into. I get sick of seeing America and Western civilization being cast in the role of scapegoat by people who, for whatever reason, can't leave their tribal and/or barbarian pasts behind.

Maybe Shermer could send Hitchens a copy of 'Why People Believe Weird Things'.

I'll get off my soapbox for now.
 
pomeroo said:
You're seriously contending that refusing to read an article because an author you disapprove of appears occasionally on the same site is rational behavior?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back on the soapbox

I need to clarify something from my previous post.
I thought Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a dumb one and nothing that has happened since then has made me change my mind - quite the reverse. Iraq is a 'mess' that Dubya has managed to get himself (and his country) into. Our Prime Minister Honest John Howard has taken us along for the ride! I had no problem with the overthrow of Saddam. He was not a nice man and did not deserve a nice fate! My concern was that his overthrow would leave a vacuum which would spring open the proverbial can of worms. Sadly, this is what has happened. I really wish people would study history instead of repeat it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom