Article

2004-08-02 Home Front: Politix

Hitchens: Opening Firehouses in Iraq and Shutting Them in USA

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-02 9:13:30 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ...and I think it's a sad thing that we can move fire hydrants in Iraq but not in the United States of America!
Wait...that's not right.
Taraaaaaysa!

Posted by John Fn Kerry 2004-08-02 10:55:40 AM|| 2004-08-02 10:55:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 PSA for those not in on the joke:

So why did Heinz's application stir up such a brouhaha in the Boston papers? Perhaps because it came after Kerry and Heinz had a fire hydrant moved in front of their Boston townhouse to open up a more convenient parking space. That particular mini-scandal began in March 1996, when the Boston Globe printed a photo showing Heinz's Jeep Cherokee parked next to a fire hydrant near her five-story brick home at Beacon Hill's Louisburg Square.

A little more than a year later, the couple put in a formal request to the Boston fire department to move the hydrant. Within a week, the district chief went to the site himself and approved the move.

After the hydrant was moved around the corner (at the expense of Kerry and Heinz, not taxpayers), Kerry irritated his neighbors by claiming the five new legal parking spaces created by the move. Local real-estate gurus estimated the new spaces would add $200,000 or more to the value of the Heinz-Kerry mansion. Eventually, the senator sent word to his neighbors that he would abide by the longstanding unwritten agreement that each house on the privately owned square has a right to only two parking spaces.

Neither controversy had much political fallout for Kerry, besides a few snickering newspaper columnists. Then again, he's a Democratic incumbent in Massachusetts, not exactly an endangered species.

Posted by Raj 2004-08-02 1:04:55 PM|| 2004-08-02 1:04:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasnât for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery?

In case many of you don't realize this...Hitchens speaks thru both sides of his mouth. He's a left wing Bolshevik who only recently became a "liberal hawk". Though Hitchens has now become part of the Iraq War cheerleading squad and in this article he derides his left wing pals, whom he refers to an interview in Frontpage as "comrades", never forget that Hitchins is a chameleon and a part-time "hawk." The only reason he mocks Kerry now is because Hitchens thinks that there's plenty of taxpayer $ to go around for both the welfare mother buying the Cadillac as well as the Arab Iraqis. Hitchens' left wing mindset comes through when he yaks about poverty/misery causing and exporting terrorism. Crap. OBL and his followers are middle class or filthy rich. That suddenly Iraq will not want to bomb Israel to planet Pluto or let the Pope visit Baghdad and establish a Catholic college there is ridiculously optimistic about we can achieve with the taxpayer dole in Iraq.

Here's the interview with Hitchens in Frontpage in 12/03-2 parts-some of pompous pronouncements about our "achievement" in Bosnia is enough to make me retch. This guy is a phony through and through so keep that in mind when you think he's so wildly eloquent in attacking Kerry and the Democrats, in 2008 I'd lay bets that Hitchens would support Hildabeast in a heartbeat if she ran on the Dem ticket.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11241

Posted by rex 2004-08-02 1:34:05 PM|| 2004-08-02 1:34:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I thought the question of opening or shutting firehouses were a municipal affair. Just like education. Last year the mantra among the US Left was that we were spending $ in Iraq but our schools didn't have enough books. Last time I checked, my local elementary and high school districts are supported through local property taxes, and not by money from DC. Not enough $ for books, hold a tax referendum, LOCALLY.

Don't forget that last year's debate on the $87 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan the Dems were for making half of $20 billion earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction a loan, not a grant. Fortunately, logic prevailed and the $20 billion was provided as a grant.

Posted by Michael 2004-08-02 1:46:11 PM|| 2004-08-02 1:46:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 1. Hitch is a lefty. He aint a bolshevik
2. Hitch has explained at length the connections between his leftism and his opposition to islamofascism.
3. Hitch says lots of things I disagree with. So, why should anybody be in lockstep with anybody?
4. Iraq probably will not bomb Israel to pluto, or anywhere else.
5. Why should the Iraqis welcome the Pope, when he opposed the liberation of Iraq?
6. Why shouldnt he speak of our achievements in Bosnia - we DID achieve things in Bosnia.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-02 1:51:11 PM|| 2004-08-02 1:51:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 probably will not bomb Israel

Hmmmm..... strong words LH.
What do you figure a 10 percent chance?

Let's see...... assuming only a 10 percent chance of total annihilation per annum....
let see.... uhmmm.... carry the sigma thingy grab ahold of the imaginary vector and divide by the golden tensor.... yep. State of Israel kaput in 6.7 years.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-02 2:24:27 PM|| 2004-08-02 2:24:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Hitch is a lefty. He aint a bolshevik
Read the interview in Frontpage interview of Hitchens. He was associated with the Trotsky-ite left. Trotskey was a follower of Lenin and both are associated with the Bolshevik movement. Also, on a less literal level, to call someone a Bolshevik outside Russia is a form of derision to highlight that person's extreme left wing ideaology.

Hitch has explained at length the connections between his leftism and his opposition to islamofascism
Oh really? Read part 11 of the Frontpage interview. Hitchens can be "opposed" to lots of groups at his whim. In Part II Hitchens is very sympathetic to the Palestinians and very negative to Israel and the "Zionists." In Part I, Hitchens is very opposed to Christians-petwewie!. Whatever. Hitchens is opposed to Islamofacism...as long as we don't do profiling on airlines and as long as Israel boots out Sharon and bends over to Arafat. Apart from that, you're right. Hitchens is very clear.

Iraq probably will not bomb Israel to pluto, or anywhere else...Why should the Iraqis welcome the Pope, when he opposed the liberation of Iraq?
That was a bit of levity, in case you missed it, LH. My point is that guys like Hitchens argue for America flexing its military might[not that Hitchens would join the military] to secularize and democracize "rogue regimes" around the globe...on the US taxpayers' dime...no worries, Americans are filthy rich...My point is that no matter how much $ and military might we throw at Iraq, NEVER will a Jewish leader or a Catholic leader be invited to Iraq. Iraq will be secular and pluristic in name only. Jews and Christians will be loathed 100 years from now in Iraq as they were under Saddam Hussein.

Why shouldnt he speak of our achievements in Bosnia - we DID achieve things in Bosnia.
What did we achieve in Bosnia? I guess you have missed last week's articles about Bosnia being the new home for Islamic terrorists. That we stepped into a thousand year old conflict and liberated Muslims who despiese us and want us killed. That's your success story?

Posted by rex 2004-08-02 2:47:22 PM|| 2004-08-02 2:47:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Cmon, Ship, Im not the kinda guy to toss around the word never. But the reality is most Israelis are delighted Saddam is gone, and, I think are glad Allawi is in.

Was Hitch once a Trotskyite - i dunno, so were a lot of people who later became strong anticommunists.

Its used as a form of derision? Its also misleading, esp in the current instance.

Is hitchens anti-Catholic, and pro-PLO. Yup. Like i said i dont agree with him on everything. Thats what coalitions are about, and big wars mean coalitions.

I have idea when an Israeli leader will visit Iraq. Israelis have had summits with leaders in Jordan, Egypt, Turkey - i see no reason why they cant someday have a summit in Iraq.

Most Bosnian muslims opposed the Jihadis, who had a tendency to deface gravestones, a Bosnian muslim custom, as heretical. Bosnia, like Albania supported the US in the invasion of Iraq. The success is that ethnic cleansing was stopped and peace was restored to Bosnia.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-02 3:00:13 PM|| 2004-08-02 3:00:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I think Hitchens, like Andrew Sullivan, uses his contraian veiws as a way of adding some sort of extra ligitimacy to the medals on his chest. Smart guy, chummy, but he'll say what he needs to say to be taken seriously.

Posted by Lucky 2004-08-02 3:32:11 PM|| 2004-08-02 3:32:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 LH the only thing I was factoring in was the Mullah bomb.... the rest of 'em can seethe.

A mullahKrat with a bomb has a chance to use it and that makes me tense.

Altho it in litter teenn tiny type I have a hunch the bastards couldn't detonate a gun bomb if the instructions were written inside they're turbans.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-02 5:51:27 PM|| 2004-08-02 5:51:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#11
Re: #7 (Rex)Hitchens ... was associated with the Trotsky-ite left. Trotskey was a follower of Lenin and both are associated with the Bolshevik movement.
He's not a Trotsyite now. It's admirable, Rex, that you perhaps have always been right and consistent in all your political opinions, but many people have changed through their lives. They ought to be judged by their more mature opinions.
Whitaker Chambers, Irving Kristol and George Orwell were Communists. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were loyal subjects of the King of England. Paul persecuted Jesus.

======

That we stepped into a thousand year old conflict and liberated Muslims who despise us and want us killed. That's your success story?

I think most Bosnian Moslems are very pro-American.

I'm curious, Rex, do you support our occupation of Iraq? If so, what distinctions in your reasoning do you make between Bosnia and Iraq?

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-02 6:53:55 PM|| 2004-08-02 6:53:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 He's not a Trotsyite now. It's admirable, Rex, that you perhaps have always been right and consistent in all your political opinions, but many people have changed through their lives.
I'm not being self righteous about my clear vision, not do I use my vocation as a bully pulpit to persuade others. Hitchins is open to scrutiny because he has chosen a high profile profession. I believe he's a political chameleon. I think he's still a Trotsky-ite deep inside. It's convenient for him now to be a hawk. If Hildabeast were running on the Democrat ticket instead of Kerry, I think Hitchens would be circumspect with his "hawkish" position.

I think most Bosnian Moslems are very pro-American
I think you are wrong.

Rex, do you support our occupation of Iraq
I never believed we should have invaded Iraq. I have made that clear. Now that we are in Iraq, I think we should get the elections over with and stay no longer in Iraq than 5 years maximum. Tommy Franks has been doing interviews this past week to promote his new book. Tommy Franks, like me, says we should get out of Iraq in a timely manner. Franks says we should not stay in Iraq longer than 5 years. Franks has been hailed to be a military genius in some quarters. So I'm in good company.

I don't think we should have invaded Bosnia. The ethnic "genocide" had been going on by both sides for hundreds of years. Briefly communism put a lid on the old ethnic religious rivalries. We only saw a slice of history in Bosnia and jumped in with both feet. Furthermore,Bosnia was a European country and the EU should have led the charge. It's not our job to be the world's policeman.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-30-2004/0002222112&EDATE=
"Retired Gen. Tommy Franks Says U.S. Should Put Iraq On 5-Year Plan"

Posted by rex 2004-08-02 7:44:47 PM|| 2004-08-02 7:44:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Thanks for your response, Rex.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-02 10:49:17 PM|| 2004-08-02 10:49:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Getting involved in Bosnia--and on the wrong side--was a mistake, but that was what Clinton wanted.
Bosnia is now (and may have been for some time) one of the areas in the world where Al Queda and the jihadis are waging their war for Islam.
The US should either get out or change sides.
There was a time when we weren't the world's policemen.
That ended on 9/11.
Jihadi war, murder and mayhem is global.
Therefore, so must be our fight against it.
The only thing we can choose is to be wise about picking our battles.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-02 11:09:44 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-02 11:09:44 PM|| Front Page Top

03:26 FlameBait93268
03:16 Anonymous6006
14:26 john
11:13 BigEd
09:26 .com
00:33 gromky
00:27 Ol_Dirty_American
00:25 Anonymous5977
00:17 Ol_Dirty_American
00:01 Seafarious
00:00 Zenster
23:58 CrazyFool
23:51 Seafarious
23:48 Oldspook
23:46 Frank G
23:46 CrazyFool
23:42 Ol_Dirty_American
23:37 CrazyFool
23:36 Ol_Dirty_American
23:09 GreatestJeneration
23:06 Lucky
22:53 Mike Sylwester
22:49 Mike Sylwester
22:37 Brutus