Comments on: Christopher Hitchens interview by Peter Robinson Uncommon Knowledge http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/ Seeking reliable, objective sources on economics, foreign-policy and energy-policy issues. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:14:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: jim crawford Westwood NJ USA http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/#comment-14966 jim crawford Westwood NJ USA Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:30:37 +0000 http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/#comment-14966 III Trotsky, no slouch at slaughter himself, would perhaps have been impressed with the level of violence and destruction currently being wrought on the Iraqi people by the Bush regime, that which Hitchens supports, somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 Iraqi civilian dead at minimum, with 4 millions of refugees having fled into neighboring states. Even Saddam, an expert at the processes involved, even Saddam, left to his own devices could not have achieved as much in this regard. No, it is Bush and his minions who are the Mothers of All Slaughterers, and Hitchens his willing Ganymede. Next he'll be telling us that Alger Hiss wasn't framed. III Trotsky, no slouch at slaughter himself, would perhaps have been impressed with the level of violence and destruction currently being wrought on the Iraqi people by the Bush regime, that which Hitchens supports, somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 Iraqi civilian dead at minimum, with 4 millions of refugees having fled into neighboring states. Even Saddam, an expert at the processes involved, even Saddam, left to his own devices could not have achieved as much in this regard. No, it is Bush and his minions who are the Mothers of All Slaughterers, and Hitchens his willing Ganymede.

Next he’ll be telling us that Alger Hiss wasn’t framed.

]]> By: jim crawford Westwood NJ USA http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/#comment-14965 jim crawford Westwood NJ USA Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:30:00 +0000 http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/#comment-14965 II No matter how brilliant some of us may deem ourselves to be, the fact is that the rest of us do not know better than the legal minds from dozens of countries who sat down together after WWII to hammer out the agreements that led to the UN Charter, to the principles of US law, all inspired by the dominance of regimes like Hitler's and Mussolini's [and, yes, like Hussein's]. Nor are most of us so arrogant as to presuppose that we know better than the democratic opinions of the UN representatives of all the other nations of the world. No doubt Hitchens will shock us with the news that such votes are "political" in nature, as though the process of voting itself were not political. Alas, not the only sign of his naïveté, since he apparently thinks that Bush & Co really believed that what they were doing was the right thing, that the intelligence was "simply wrong," most available evidence to the contrary. And as though a Vatican office in DC would indicate that the US is a Catholic country, so he thinks that an Al Quaeda presence in Bagdad was proof of Saddam's being in bed with them, or perhaps a more suitable analogy would be a Cuban government official coming to the US for medical treatment making us Communists, or Cubans. Perhaps a Catholic bishop coming to Washington DC for treatment at Walter Reed - - - does such an action put us in league with the Catholic church? Ian Peasley coming here …. in league with the Irish Protestant revolutionaries? Or perhaps the fact that we are "harboring" an antiCommunist Cuban terrorist in Florida, refusing to extradite him to Cuba for blowing up a plane would qualify our government as terrorist. Not quite so simple as Mr Hitchens and the neocons make it out to be. II No matter how brilliant some of us may deem ourselves to be, the fact is that the rest of us do not know better than the legal minds from dozens of countries who sat down together after WWII to hammer out the agreements that led to the UN Charter, to the principles of US law, all inspired by the dominance of regimes like Hitler’s and Mussolini’s [and, yes, like Hussein’s]. Nor are most of us so arrogant as to presuppose that we know better than the democratic opinions of the UN representatives of all the other nations of the world. No doubt Hitchens will shock us with the news that such votes are “political” in nature, as though the process of voting itself were not political. Alas, not the only sign of his naïveté, since he apparently thinks that Bush & Co really believed that what they were doing was the right thing, that the intelligence was “simply wrong,” most available evidence to the contrary. And as though a Vatican office in DC would indicate that the US is a Catholic country, so he thinks that an Al Quaeda presence in Bagdad was proof of Saddam’s being in bed with them, or perhaps a more suitable analogy would be a Cuban government official coming to the US for medical treatment making us Communists, or Cubans. Perhaps a Catholic bishop coming to Washington DC for treatment at Walter Reed - - - does such an action put us in league with the Catholic church? Ian Peasley coming here …. in league with the Irish Protestant revolutionaries? Or perhaps the fact that we are “harboring” an antiCommunist Cuban terrorist in Florida, refusing to extradite him to Cuba for blowing up a plane would qualify our government as terrorist. Not quite so simple as Mr Hitchens and the neocons make it out to be.

]]> By: jim crawford Westwood NJ USA http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/#comment-14964 jim crawford Westwood NJ USA Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:27:36 +0000 http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050616/christopher-hitchens-interview-by-peter-robinson-uncommon-knowledge/#comment-14964 Sad it is to see Mr Hitchens on the same side as George Bush, whom he apparently thinks will be "treated more kindly" by history. Never a mention in Hitchens' discussions of Bush's willfully arrogant violations of UN resolutions, time after time [the 16 year continuing embargo on Cuba – Democrats too], by the government of the US; of the most serious violations of international law [unilateral invasions of other countries, for one; Guantanamo, torture, and renditioning for others] and therefore of US law; of the Geneva conventions, et al. Although I'm certain that Hitchens' response would be along the lines that necessity demanded that the US remove Hussein, no such necessity has historically dominated our concern in other parts of the world - - - in the Dominican Republic or El Salvador, Chile or Argentina, for example. Nor does such concern manifest itself in the case of Mobutu or any of the "stans" currently run by dictators. And, contrary to his opinion, water boarding is a form of torture, as anyone who has the reading capability can see from the broad definitions laid down in the Genevan Conventions, et al. The technique was in fact one of the central charges in the capital trials of Japanese officers after WWII, and has been regarded as torture since the Inquisition, of which Mr Hitchens has perhaps heard. No matter how brilliant some of us may deem ourselves to be, the fact is that the rest of us do not know better than the legal minds from dozens of countries who sat down together after WWII to hammer out the agreements that led to the UN Charter, to the principles of US law, all inspired by the dominance of regimes like Hitler's and Mussolini's [and, yes, like Hussein's]. Nor are most of us so arrogant as to presuppose that we know better than the democratic opinions of the UN representatives of all the other nations of the world. No doubt Hitchens will shock us with the news that such votes are "political" in nature, as though the process of voting itself were not political. Alas, not the only sign of his naïveté, since he apparently thinks that Bush & Co really believed that what they were doing was the right thing, that the intelligence was "simply wrong," most available evidence to the contrary. And as though a Vatican office in DC would indicate that the US is a Catholic country, so he thinks that an Al Quaeda presence in Bagdad was proof of Saddam's being in bed with them, or perhaps a more suitable analogy would be a Cuban government official coming to the US for medical treatment making us Communists, or Cubans. Perhaps a Catholic bishop coming to Washington DC for treatment at Walter Reed - - - does such an action put us in league with the Catholic church? Ian Peasley coming here …. in league with the Irish Protestant revolutionaries? Or perhaps the fact that we are "harboring" an antiCommunist Cuban terrorist in Florida, refusing to extradite him to Cuba for blowing up a plane would qualify our government as terrorist. Not quite so simple as Mr Hitchens and the neocons make it out to be. Trotsky, no slouch at slaughter himself, would perhaps have been impressed with the level of violence and destruction currently being wrought on the Iraqi people by the Bush regime, that which Hitchens supports, somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 Iraqi civilian dead at minimum, with 4 millions of refugees having fled into neighboring states. Even Saddam, an expert at the processes involved, even Saddam, left to his own devices could not have achieved as much in this regard. No, it is Bush and his minions who are the Mothers of All Slaughterers, and Hitchens his willing Ganymede. Next he'll be telling us that Alger Hiss wasn't framed. Sad it is to see Mr Hitchens on the same side as George Bush, whom he apparently thinks will be “treated more kindly” by history.
Never a mention in Hitchens’ discussions of Bush’s willfully arrogant violations of UN resolutions, time after time [the 16 year continuing embargo on Cuba – Democrats too], by the government of the US; of the most serious violations of international law [unilateral invasions of other countries, for one; Guantanamo, torture, and renditioning for others] and therefore of US law; of the Geneva conventions, et al. Although I’m certain that Hitchens’ response would be along the lines that necessity demanded that the US remove Hussein, no such necessity has historically dominated our concern in other parts of the world - - - in the Dominican Republic or El Salvador, Chile or Argentina, for example. Nor does such concern manifest itself in the case of Mobutu or any of the “stans” currently run by dictators. And, contrary to his opinion, water boarding is a form of torture, as anyone who has the reading capability can see from the broad definitions laid down in the Genevan Conventions, et al. The technique was in fact one of the central charges in the capital trials of Japanese officers after WWII, and has been regarded as torture since the Inquisition, of which Mr Hitchens has perhaps heard.

No matter how brilliant some of us may deem ourselves to be, the fact is that the rest of us do not know better than the legal minds from dozens of countries who sat down together after WWII to hammer out the agreements that led to the UN Charter, to the principles of US law, all inspired by the dominance of regimes like Hitler's and Mussolini's [and, yes, like Hussein's].  Nor are most of us so arrogant as to presuppose that we know better than the democratic opinions of the UN representatives of all the other nations of the world.  No doubt Hitchens will shock us with the news that such votes are "political" in nature, as though the process of voting itself were not political.  Alas, not the only sign of his naïveté, since he apparently thinks that Bush & Co really believed that what they were doing was the right thing, that the intelligence was "simply wrong,"  most available evidence to the contrary.  And as though a Vatican office in DC would indicate that the US is  a Catholic country, so he thinks that an Al Quaeda presence in Bagdad was proof of Saddam's being in bed with them, or perhaps a more suitable analogy would be a Cuban government official coming to the US for medical treatment making us Communists, or Cubans. Perhaps a Catholic bishop coming to Washington DC for treatment at Walter Reed - - - does such an action put us in league with the Catholic church?   Ian Peasley coming here …. in league with the Irish Protestant revolutionaries?  Or perhaps the fact that we are "harboring" an antiCommunist Cuban terrorist in Florida, refusing to extradite him to Cuba for blowing up a plane would qualify our government as terrorist.  Not quite so simple as Mr Hitchens and the neocons make it out to be.

Trotsky, no slouch at slaughter himself, would perhaps have been impressed with the level of violence and destruction currently being wrought on the Iraqi people by the Bush regime, that which Hitchens supports, somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 Iraqi civilian dead at minimum, with 4 millions of refugees having fled into neighboring states.  Even Saddam, an expert at the processes involved, even Saddam, left to his own devices could not have achieved as much in this regard.  No, it is Bush and his minions who are the Mothers of All Slaughterers, and Hitchens his willing Ganymede.

Next he’ll be telling us that Alger Hiss wasn’t framed.

]]>