| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Hitchens Eviscerates Ron Reagan |
| 2005-07-09 |
| Christopher Hitchens fisks Ron Reagan to the 10th degree...and more. Freaking awesome display of knowledge and desirion of Ron Reagon, now a simple leftist hack. God I Ron Reagan just proved that brilliance is not hereditary. On MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair was involved in a complete verbal undressing of Ron Reagan. Reagan, like all the other feel first, hate Bush second, think last lefties, is so intent on re-writing history to make the case that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, got boxed around the ears by Hitchens. Here's the exchange: RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure? CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal? RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which... CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher. CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday? RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now. CH: How can you know so little about... RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. CH: Absolutely nonsense. RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher? CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst... RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either. CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do? RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher. CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they? RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher. CH; Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection... RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection. CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples. Ron Reagan couldn't see fire if the flames turned his shorts black. Hitchens may be wrong on a lot of issues, but he understand the nature of the people we're fighting, and what is necessary to defeat them. Ron Reagan is a sad political hack, trying to trade on his father's name, and doesn't have a clue in the world about the war we are facing. All he knows is what the DNC tip sheet tells him. COMPLETELY DEVASTING. 'nuff said. |
| Posted by:Brett |
| #55 brett you ignorant cretin ...just as your response is "thoughtful and respectful"...i'm no quieter just too busy laughing my ass off at your complete lack of insight ...furthermore this is a sight for political discourse ..not playground bullies ...get a clue you ass hole |
| Posted by: tsotsi 2005-07-09 20:07 |
| #54 now we all know that frank g is a pussy ....how about the rest of you |
| Posted by: tsotsi 2005-07-09 19:42 |
| #53 such intelect my my I'm so intimidated and clearly out gunned by your collective wit and vast knowledge ...is there not a single one of you half wits that can actually mount an argument or are you all too busy watching dukes of hazard reruns ...i'd honestly be surprised if, collectively, you have a single day of tertiary education |
| Posted by: tsotsi 2005-07-09 19:36 |
| #52 well well, there are a few semi-literate right wing dumbasses after all ...I have to ask that suppose we could prove, some how, that you were being lied to by your leaders ...how would you respond? Would you be so blinded by flag waving and sloganeering that you'd still believe everything you'd been told. many of you idiots aren't worth the effort but at least you do read which puts you , sadly at the apex of your tribe |
| Posted by: tsotsi 2005-07-09 18:43 |
| #51 Brett...you are showing your ditto headed lack of intellect by supporting this pompous, arrogant ass. Hitchens is either too stupid to think for himself and dredging up right wing talking points or else (probably worse) too myopic to understand their complete lack of relevance. We all know that Saddam was a bad man with a history of bad deeds, as a matter of historical fact we know that both Abu Nidal and Sheik Yassin were in Iraq and enjoyed the protection of this despotic Tyrant. Hitchens is factually correct in both of these statements. To my knowledge however the Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie was issued in Iran, which anyone with an ounce of frontal lobe should remember was mortal enemies with Iraq which never dispatched anyone to harm Mr. Rushdie in any way shape or form. To lump Iran, Iraq, Algeria etc. together just because they are Muslim is ridiculous and shows an amazing arrogance. Neither of these crimes elevates to the level which warrants a military invasion from across the world which has cost far more lives than were being threatened. Saddams victims were predominantly in the â80âs when we were still trading military equipment with him to help out against Iran. Visit http://www.iraqbodycount.com/forum/ or read the Lancet journals accounts of lives lost. The invasion of Iraq had in fact NOTHING to do with terrorism and the bush team knows that now and knew it then which is why they misled the American public by lying about the intelligence that existed.(This is not merely my opinion but verifiable fact, please feel free to check it out using whatever resource youâd like if you want a synopsis go to http://www.truthuncovered.com/timeline.php). Another thing Hitchens got completely wrong was that there is no rationale behind these attacks. George Bush and the Neo-cons felt that this was their chance to end fighting in the Middle East by weakening one side of the Arab Israeli conflict and hopefully forcing a settlement precisely because they are smart enough to know there is a rationale to these acts of terror. The rationale is the Israeli/Palestinian one in which the US has blindly supported the Israelis with out the requirement for accountability. This is an election issue in which no politician wants to be labeled âanti Israeliâ because âanti-Semiticâ would be closely behind that and that would crush any chances they had of winning a presidential race here. (Look what happened to Howard Dean when he was stupid enough to use the words âwe should take an even handed approach to Israelâ in the run-up to the last electionâ¦.. gone within days) Unfortunately too many people think weâre at war because âthey hate usâ or âtheyâre jealousâ or âthey want everyone to follow Islamâ or some other ridiculous rant â¦..these people have lives and families and are attacking us for a reason , they believe that they are under attack by us â¦( if you donât understand yet let me draw you a picture: Israel is involved in a bitter religious/racial battle over land which they have occupied since â67 â¦many lives have been lost on both sides but more on the Arab side â¦.the Arabs are not getting anywhere substantive with this omnipresent violence and random killings in Israel â¦their logic is that (just as George Bush said after 9-11) if you support them then youâre with them â¦the USA is the single biggest trading partner of Israelâ¦ergo the US is a Target )please donât get me wrong I have no sympathy for these monstrous terrorist acts but it is important to understand what they are thinking right or wrong in order for us to try and prevent this terrible escalation. We need to defend ourselves of course but future defense has more to do with winning the hearts and minds of people so they donât grow up with hatred in their hearts, not bombing their cities and killing them. An old cliché goes something like.. âThose who do not learn from history are destined to repeat itââ¦. here are some historical quotes that, if heeded may have caused a different outcome to this war which is absolutely, unequivocally the Vietnam of our era⦠Like Bush, Alexander the great used a powerful Western army to subdue the exotic cultures of the East, in lands that make up present-day Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Like Alexander, Bush is finding âthese regions easier to conquer than to ruleâ. A principle learned over and over again through history and warned against in Platoâs Republic. âThe general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to w in or lose.â-Sun Tzu, the Art of War âIn the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it.â-Sun Tzu, the Art of War âWe cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors.â -Sun Tzu, the Art of War And this one is for Bob Novak & Karl Rove⦠âSpies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity; (2) They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straight forwardness; (3) Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports; (4) Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for every kind of warfare; (5) If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told.â -Sun Tzu, the Art of War |
| Posted by: tsotsi 2005-07-09 02:35 |
| #50 goodbye tsotsi. say hello to murat and the rest of the asshats who visit. Btw, tsotsi, you missed the whole point of what I posted, which was how Hitch cut little Ronnie to shreds based on the simple fact that little Ron was as ignorant as you are. And i LOVE how Hitch wondered how MSNBC could ever have put such an ignoramous as a lead on a show. The reason is, of course, is they all live int he same hothouse, breathing each other's noxious fumes and repeating the same nostrums. If you'd like, we can certainly furnish a list of website and blogs you could visit. Start with James Lileks, who was quoted earlier and LEARN. see ya! |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-07-09 22:37 |
| #49 After watching his several comments, I agree. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-09 20:22 |
| #48 troll |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-09 20:09 |
| #47 tsotsi, CLAP CLAP CLAP, very good, now you can go to your like-minded friends and tell them how you tought us "red-state knuckle draggers"what the story is. You are so blinded by your own ignorance that anyone that thinks differently must be a "half-wit." Nice, very nice. Brett, I agree with your sentiments in #50, watch, read and learn. |
| Posted by: djh_usmc 2005-07-09 20:06 |
| #46 tsotsi is...back? quieter now, eh? after the ass-whopping i put on his scrawny ass, i'm surprised. now he's whining we ar halfwits who watch Dukes reruns. wow! such a powerful argument. I am soooo skeered! i have a slogan for you, tsotsi. "Respond in the Chicago Way". do you know what that means tsotsi? a word of advice I learned several years ago at rantburg....watch, read and learn. THEN comment in a respectful, thoughtful way. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-07-09 19:58 |
| #45 "top of your tribe" isn't exactly an intelligent response to any of the comments. Please come back when you can argue coherently, with your own thoughts. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-07-09 19:56 |
| #44 Tsotsi's educated? His writing looks like he barely got out of grade school. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-09 19:54 |
| #43 Ive seen a hundred tsotsi's come and go here at RB and almost without exception they don't last 24 hours. One of two things happens. They either try to engage in argument and lose badly, or they degenerate into abuse and more or less laughable insults. My personal favourites are those who end up sounding like a parody of a Monty Python sketch - 'Your mother wears army boots and watches Dukes of Hazard.' |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-09 19:54 |
| #42 Tertiary education? Tsotsi finished the third grade and he thinks he's one up on us. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-09 19:51 |
| #41 I believe James said it best: Some believe that the bombings in London, like the ones in Madrid, can be blamed on Bush and Blair for the Iraq campaign. Itâs always interesting to see how people who pride themselves on sophisticated analyses and exquisitely tuned cultural sensibilities cannot see the plain home truths. The foe sneers: you are infidels; you die now. The moderns pull a face, steeple their fingers, and wonder what they really mean. Surely this is a result of invading Iraq and forcing them to have elections. Surely one of the bombers was an ordinary Iraqi who lived a peaceable life â well, aside from the time that Qusayâs men came by, took his daughter, returned her the next day as a broken heap who died from a vaginal hemorrage, and aside from the time when his brother was thrown off a roof because someone said he had turned his portrait of Saddam to the wall - surely it was the invasion that made this ordinary man take the understandable step of moving to London to kill commuters. tot - I have to give you credit. At least you had the courage to venture out of your ivory tower. Careful, you might get some sun on your lilly white hands. Now take your own advice and run away like a good little liberal. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-07-09 19:51 |
| #40 :-) ignore the troll |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 19:44 |
| #39 meow |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 19:37 |
| #38 Team America: "You thought you'd seen everything. Well have you ever seen a man eat his own head?" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 19:29 |
| #37 BTW what's it like seeing yer own guts eaten? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-09 19:15 |
| #36 LOL! Just another name for the resident bed wetter. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-09 19:14 |
| #35 tsotsi, look up projection. You will find it explains a lot. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-09 18:47 |
| #34 ignore the troll |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 18:46 |
| #33 Hmmm... anyone notice an up-tick in trolling? God, I'd hate it if the trolls think 50 dead in London is reason to troll pro-civilization sites. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-09 17:56 |
| #32 what makes it all so ironic is they keep telling us we need to pull out of Iraq, when, if their fathers had just practiced the same, the world would be a lot better and safer place |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 17:48 |
| #31 Where the heck did all the Chomskite trolls come from? They can't take it when a true classical conservative reams one of their own, just like he did Chomsky. One of the reasons, classical liberals like Chris Hitchens., he gets it without giving up any of his credentials as a card carrying "liberal"/classical conservative. Makes all the TRANZIs and commies go ape shit as evidenced in this thread. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-09 17:44 |
| #30 Croluter Jolumble6769 - too bad your talking points don't work here - I'm sure when you post at Kos and DU it's a real circle jerk |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 17:40 |
| #29 Now we know what happens when Spembles mate with Goats. |
| Posted by: Calvin 2005-07-09 16:58 |
| #28 And Ron Reagan junior is an idiot. I've met him. He's even simpier in person than he is on tv. I hope you didn't slip in his drool. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-09 16:56 |
| #27 Comment #25 was in response to comment #24, right? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-09 16:53 |
| #26 Hitchens is a wet-brain hack squeezing the most from his 14th minute Hitchens has more leftist credentials - REAL ones, backed by integrity and action on his part - then you can count. Especially if, as seems likely, you are limited to your fingers and toes, Croluter. And Ron Reagan junior is an idiot. I've met him. He's even simpier in person than he is on tv. |
| Posted by: anon 2005-07-09 16:39 |
| #25 Creditor nation to debtor nation? When was the last National Credit, Croluter? What type of economy did Reagan inherit from Democrat Carter, Croluter? And what legislative body approves all budgets? And what party controlled that body while Reagan was president? |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-09 16:36 |
| #24 What kind of dumb-ass comment is that? When you're out-smarted, just shut, take a seat and try to learn something. |
| Posted by: Croluter Jolumble6769 2005-07-09 16:10 |
| #23 Hitchens is a wet-brain hack squeezing the most from his 14th minute. Ron's dad was an amiable dolt; dumber than a bag of hammers. Ron's dad, in three short years, turned the USA from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world; where it remains today, despite the Clinton administration reversing the US deficit. Those are the fact, folks. Like 'em or lump 'em. |
| Posted by: Croluter Jolumble6769 2005-07-09 15:41 |
| #22 *sword not *swod although maybe swod is arabic for sword--no--that's saif--oy--i think they put a timer in my brain |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2005-07-09 14:01 |
| #21 we should read history?--what a half educated maroon--the history of the world since 634 has been defending itself against this desert death cult--ask the byzantine christians in syria and palestine and egypt and the magbreb and visigoth christians in iberia--the zorasterians in mesopotamia and persia--the hindu of india etc etc--islam spread by the swod--that is history--blame it on the israelis and you deny 1500 years of the murderous imperialist expansion of the dar al islam into the dar al harb--this putz knows history-- the history of the belly button lint he ponders or the smegma which has invaded his brain cells from sucking too much muzzie dick--but he's got all the LLL buzzwords down--neo-con's/imperialism/zionists/oil/rove....dja come yet |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2005-07-09 13:57 |
| #20 these people have lives and families and are attacking us for a reason , they believe that they are under attack by us Well shit. It's so obvious yet we missed it. But if this is all it is, then it's good news! All we have to do, is send an envoy, and tell them, that we are NOT attacking them! Problem solved. Heh, so simple. |
| Posted by: R 2005-07-09 13:21 |
| #19 "...future defense has more to do with winning the hearts and minds of people so they don¡¯t grow up with hatred in their hearts..." This conflict has no more to do with "winning hearts and minds" than World War II had to do with "winning the hearts and minds" of the Nazis or the Japanese imperialists. And the people we're fighting don't "have hatred in their hearts" because of anything we've done to them: they hate us BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MUSLIMS. There are some people for whom the description "fucking idiot" is just too kind; you're one of them. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-09 12:22 |
| #18 Well all you have to know about how much those ragheads want peace is to look at slick willies Camp David misadventure. Arafat got everything the palestinians had ever had a dream about and at the eleventh hour, Arafat turned tail and chose to go on his Infatada rampage instead of getting a new country. Anyone that things you can negotiate with a terrorist is a moron. The terrorists are playing the media like a cheap kazoo and the suicide bombings are more of a media event than an act of terrorism. I for one say that we should quit pussyfootign around and being such a bunch of WIMP's and go for it. It is guys like Reaganlite, Matthews, Franken and Oliphant, Durbin and Kennedy that give comfort and encouragement to the enemies. The Islamofascists do not want peace, they want to either convert the world to Islam or kill everyone trying. IT does not matter what country you live in, what religion you are or what color your skin, they will kill you if you are not muslim. And they will kill you if you are the wrong kind of muslim. It is naiveity of the most infantile order to think that they are setting off bombs because of IRaq. They were setting off bombs in 1993. It used to be that we sided with Isreal. We sided with Palestine and negotiated a sweetheart deal and they went on a rampage. If they had a nuke they would use it tomorrow and they would use it anywhere. You have to shoot a mad dog and these people are not worthy of any kind of jurisprudence or recognition of rights. |
| Posted by: SockPuppetofDoom2 2005-07-09 12:17 |
| #17 damn! I arrive late and only patches of fur and blood remain.....greedy bastards :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 12:09 |
| #16 Yikes! Brett! SPIT OUT THE BONE, Humans don't have the molars for it! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-09 11:40 |
| #15 Thank you Spot and Darth for your positive comments. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-07-09 11:30 |
| #14 if you donât understand yet let me draw you a picture: Israel is involved in a bitter religious/racial battle over land which they have occupied since â67 Let me draw you a picture. The Israelis didn't take any land from the Paleos. They took it from the Jordanians and Egyptians in '68 acting before their enemies could destroy them. There was no Palestine cause their Arab brothers took the land in '48 before a Palestine could even see the light of day. Even after the formation of the PLO, those countries did not give up claim of the land until they realized they'd never see it again. Then and only then as a political expedient did they play the game of recognizing the Palestinian claim to land which they, the Jordanians and Egyptians, really had no further claim to. It would be like Spain today recognizing a Mexican claim to the state of Texas. |
| Posted by: Ulamp Chosing2348 2005-07-09 11:19 |
| #13 tsotsi, if push came to shove could you park a bicycle? Not unless it could find supporting 'evidence' and Sun Tzu quotes... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-07-09 11:12 |
| #12 To lump Iran, Iraq, Algeria etc. together just because they are Muslim is ridiculous and shows an amazing arrogance. Algeria wasn't mentioned because it supported terrorism. It was mentioned because it waged a long and bloody war against terrorism. Saddams victims were predominantly in the â80âs when we were still trading military equipment with him to help out against Iran. And to paraphrase another Hitchens' quote: if we were supporting the bastard, doesn't it double the reason for taking him out? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-07-09 11:10 |
| #11 Brett, you are just so mean. What did poor ol' tsotsi ever do to you? He surfs the web gathering all this information, and as .com noted, is reaching out (from his mother's basement?) to enlighten us poor knuckle-dragging mossbacks. Tsotsi obviously likes doing book reports, so here is one for him. As for the "study" in The Lancet, the president of the Statistical Assessment Service of George Mason Univerisity might be able to shed some light on the methodology used. And Karl Rove is a Satanic Genius. After all, in order to perpetrate the lies that Tsotsi mentioned, he had to subvert MI-6, the FSB, the DGSE, the BND, and most of the other intelligence agencies, and get Bill Clinton to say that "predators of the twenty-first century...will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.". And he had to get him to do this in 1998! And then, he made Clinton's Justice Department prepare an indictment of bin Laden claiming that "Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.". That's quite a bit to get accomplished - far too much for anyone without supernatural resources. But it really is Viet Nam all over again. 'Cept for no draft, desert instead of jungle, no super-power backing, and the complete inability to get quality patchouli oil anywhere. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2005-07-09 09:49 |
| #10 Damn, Brett, great job *clap, clap*. I was going to respond, but you nailed him to the wall. I'm really tired of Israel-Paleo argument. Every f'ing problem the Arabs have would still exist if Israel didn't exist. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-07-09 09:44 |
| #9 I am so pleased this morning. My 1st fisking by an asshat, tsootsi. I am here in my PJs...smiling. Let me say I grew up an an Aramcon kid, took several courses on Allenism and had a buddy killed by Paleostinian terrorists at Dawson field in 1970, which was long before W was elected President. So, let it begin. You say: To lump Iran, Iraq, Algeria etc. together just because they are Muslim is ridiculous and shows an amazing arrogance. No, it shows an understanding of the what Allenism is, an ad-hoc 'religion' which was all about obtaining power by a misguided Arab. Originally praying to Jerasalem, now praying to a formerly pagan black rock, war, war, war until everyone is subjected and then there is peace. 'Religion of Peace' it is not. It is a religion of war. Probably 90% of the violence around the world occurs on the periphery of Allenland. What IS ridiculous is your ability to find sources which solely support your pre-conceived notions. Neither of these crimes elevates to the level which warrants a military invasion from across the world which has cost far more lives than were being threatened. It is interesting how much you miss of the history of Islamofascism. Their stated intent is to kill us or make us dhimmis (look it up on google, doofus). Actually, the invasion was from a neighboring country, not across the world. Sheesh. read the Lancet journals accounts of lives lost.This study has already been debunked by many statisticians. Check the range of the 'Confidence Level', doofus. This is not merely my opinion but verifiable fact, please feel free to check it out using whatever resource youâd like if you want a synopsis go to http://www.truthuncovered.com/timeline.phpAs opposed to a known asshat site, why not check the flawed, but good 9/11 Commission report. It establishes that there were no lies by the Bush team, unless that team includes almost every intelligence service in the world. You confuse the lack of a stockpile with the enormous risk inherent in a known terrorist supporter and WMD user. After 9/11, we simply couldn't allow the risk. You act like we now need some metaphysical certainty to take action, but all we need to do is establish the risk. An Iraqi said it best when he said "Saddam was the main wapon of mass destruction". Khadaffy saw this, shit his drawers and immediately began surrender negotiations. I bet we won HIS 'heart and mid', no? Another thing Hitchens got completely wrong was that there is no rationale behind these attacks.Have you ever read what the Islamofascists pronounce? EVER? There goal is to kill what they refer to as 'infidels', THAT is their rationale. If your looking for logic from a muslim perspective, well, your an idiot. The rationale is the Israeli/Palestinian one in which the US has blindly supported the Israelis with out the requirement for accountability. Like when we pressured the Israelis in 1948? and 1956? and 1973? and 1982? and 2000? The problem here is with the completely irrational arab paleostinians who have transmorgified into a death cult. I say give them nothing as there already is a Palestinian state called Jordan. Again, read history. if you donât understand yet let me draw you a picture: Israel is involved in a bitter religious/racial battle over land which they have occupied since â67 Well, actually, the Israeli's conquered it in a defensive war. The problem, once again, is the irrationality of the Paloestinians who insist it is ALL theirs. Or aren't you aware of this basic paleostinian tenet? e need to defend ourselves of course but future defense has more to do with winning the hearts and minds of people so they donât grow up with hatred in their hearts, not bombing their cities and killing them. I don't want to 'win their hearts and minds' as those organ are filled with the desire to kill us. Where DO you get your information? What cities have we bombed? it is THEY who bomb cities, not us (see New York, Madrid, London, DC, etc.). Last city I recall us bombing was hanoi in 1972..and that went VERY WELL, thank you very much USAF. to this war which is absolutely, unequivocally the Vietnam of our eraLaughably ignorant. Tell me, what was the 'Vietnam war' of the 1st half of the 20th century? WWI or WWII? For you, it is alllll about Vietnam. is this Ron Reagan? Could be because the level of knowledge is about the same. Now I need to go fart in the direction of Mecca. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-07-09 09:08 |
| #8 tsotsi, I have a quote for you "The only lesson to be learned from history, is there are no lessons to be learned from history." I'm sure google will attribute it for you. I don't have the time or inclination to rebut the fallacy of historicism (ref Karl Popper ), but I would point out that there is only place is the entire Middle East where Arabs have full legal and civil rights and that is Israel. I wonder why I don't hear a deafening clamour from the 1 million Arabs in Israel to join the proposed Arab Palestine state. OK, I'll settle for just Israeli Arab who wants to. Get back to me when you find him. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-09 07:10 |
| #7 Oh, I almost forgot... For ist-ost, Karl Rove is a Satanic Genius - and every unexplained setback or disaster for his beloved Moonbats is directly attributable to Rove. Any meme blaming Rove is reflexively swallowed whole. It's the Moonbat diet. *burp* |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-09 05:15 |
| #6 In the dreamworld ist-ost lives in, he's won... cuz his post is bigger... For him, the tail wags the dog. I.e. everything is related to or derives from Paleostine. For him, the "iraqbodycount" and "truthuncovered" Kool Aid dispenser sites are the holy grail. For him, the Jooos are the root of all evil... and the "NeoCons" are their slavish minions. For him, the "we asked for it" explanation of 9/11 is obvious fact. For him, the timeline leading to Iraq is a cherry-picking expedition, ignoring the Gulf War I ceasefire, the 17 UNSC resolutions, and still enthralled by the "Bush Lied" and "No WMD's" memes (recently deep fried by the UN, itself). For him, The Bush Doctrine is terrifying (his real target) and he would prefer Saddam back in power playing hide 'n seek with UNMOVIC, Iran's MM's getting a nuke while "negotiating" with the EU3, and Lil Kimmie taking over for Khan in exporting nuke tech. He thinks this is a clearer, less dangerous world. For him, the "lands of the East" are romantic mysteries - unfathomable and strangely beautiful, not Islamic shitholes run by insane power-hungry dictators, despots, Royal thugs, and Mad Mullahs. Watching Aladdin is as close as he's gotten to it, personally. For him, running a close second to the Kool Aid Moonbat websites, the Monthly Book Club is the cat's meow. He picked up Sun Tsu's The Art of War there and, by God, he's gotten his money's worth. He's got his eye on some guy named Clausewitz for next month. I expect he'll be back to give us a book report on that one, too. For ist-ost, in his twisty-swirly mind, he's sure he's got it: the answer. We are lost sheep and he's come to rescue us. Sure he's kinda clumsy about how he does it - letting Chris Hitchens' rape of Ron Reagan cloud his message, but it's really very sweet, when you think about it. It's awfully early in the RB Day, but I nominate ist-ost for today's RBFFA without hesitation and with great pride and appreciation for his compassion. It's the least we can do. *wipes tear* |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-09 05:06 |
| #5 oh goodie, cliches! I love cliches! Here is another one for you tsotsi... "a stitch in time saves nine" And since we are on famous quotes, here is my personal favorite from the wise sages of the left, not responsible for anything of consequence in this world: "quagmire, quagmire!" RUN! |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-07-09 03:07 |
| #4 tsotsi, if push came to shove could you park a bicycle? |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-07-09 02:44 |
| #3 Everything I've read or heard from Christopher Hitchens about the WOT has been clear. He confronts any and all, who try to dismiss its [WOT]righteousness, or deny the exsistance of Islamo fascism. sort like an old, old fashioned liberal in this one reguard. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-07-09 02:29 |
| #2 I thought the title was Hitch' emasculates the prodigal son. Shoulda been... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-09 00:50 |
| #1 Ronnie was a ballerina, so be must know, right? One should check his birth certificate to determine if in fact he was the placenta. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-09 00:21 |
