« Light posting this week | Main | Things you should read »

August 30, 2005

Comments

I agree. It was an inspiring interview.

What I don't understand about Hitchens is... well, his position. He has called himself a liberal, yet spends most of his time trying to demolish liberal positions. What is his background?

He has referred to himself as a hitman. A paid assassin with a pen. His "job" is to ruin people. I read his hyperbolic article about Michael Moore when F911 was released. I found it dubious at best. Not only was the writing bad, but the arguments were so over the top and muddled I found it nearly impossible to follow his logic. Similar in many ways to the methods the current administration uses to frame debates... confuse the issue with muddled messages, odd logic, and twisted word play.

I guess I simply don't understand why anyone takes this guy seriously, especially considering his position on the Holocaust.

Nonetheless, I would expect to see this interview on a Best of The Daily Show Cd.

Hitchens is very anti-religion. He sees the GWOT as a fight against the forces of fatwa that interfere with democracy, a fight he's been itching for since that unpleasentness in the early 90's involving his friend, Salman Rushdie. He was a very dedicated communist---a past he's downplayed recently---and so had some strong connections on the left. But he burned some bridges in 1999 with "No One Left To Lie To" about the Clinton administration, and in 2002 when he left his job at The Nation.

He seems a little free-floating now. Too hawkish for the left, but too atheistic for the right. But his position is pretty consistent: the Middle East is a mess because religion has warped public discourse, and mutated public power. The Kurds have been screwed too many times and need Western help. Saddam should have been deposed in 1991, sparing us all a decade of no-fly-zone, oil-for-food ugliness. Bush is a bold actor who is willing to (if not always capable of) speaking truth to dogma. And mostly that the West needs to stand up now to religious bullies and thugs who use their followers' faith to drive money and power into their own pockets. And that goes for all religions, though he does savor the GWOT more than he seems to fear the homegrown fundies.

A fascinating guy who shouldn't mumble so much. I'd recommend reading a lot of him before passing judgement. Like Chomsky, his view is too outside the norm for easy dismissal.

Oh, and his penchant for tricky rhetoric renders him almost unintelligable. Like his mumbling, he seems to relish the fact that people have to lean forward and furrow their brows when he talks. Very indirect and sneaky; someone who deserves Stewart's scolding.

The Daily Show is simply the best political op ed in the country right now.

I actually agree with much of Hitchens' view on the Middle East and religion in general, for that matter, but he's stubbornly standing by a failed war. If Jon Stewart makes you look dumb, maybe you should prep better. And, Chris, please give up on the Hussein-Bin Laden "connection." there was nothing there, ever. Ask Greg Thielman.

It is curious you write that Stewart destroyed Hitchens. I saw that interview, Stewart didn't do that; Hitchens only handed it down to the mob on Stewart's show; his condescension of them was deserved, and well done. As to arguments about the war, it's neither here nor there, and that's just being kind.


Hitchens handed Stewart his ass. What were you watching, sunshine?

The comments to this entry are closed.