Christopher Hitchens Quits Magazine Column Over Opposition to Hawkish Iraq Stand

Talking Points Memo ^ | Sept. 25, 2002 3:59 PM | Josh Marshall

[tip of the sword]

(Editor Statement leaked to Talking Points Memo to run in Hitchens final next week column)

We note with keen regret that this week marks the final appearance of Chistopher Hitchens column.

We have been publishing Christopher for more than twenty years, and the relationship with him has been a rewarding one for this magazine and our readers.

That is testimony to the fact that Christopher has always been completely free to express his views, and differences he has had with the editors he has honorably ventilated.

We will miss his eloquent and passionate voice and his eloquently crafted prose.

[tip of the sword]

Speculation says he may be headed to the Atlantic..and as always free speech for liberals but not so for the other side of the aisle.

[NYCVirago]

Hitchens' columns are the only reason to read the Nation!

[tip of the sword]

Hitchens archive...including 'It's A Good Time for War' 9/8/02 http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/

[Wolfstar]

Bump for yet more bravery in the face of the craven Leftist cowards who want to see this nation destroyed.

[Burkeman1]

If Hitchens is for the war against Iraq then that is reason enough to oppose it. Hitchens is a socialist. True- he is critical of the corrupt and bankrupt left as it is today but he sees America as the chief champion of socialistic goals today (and not without reason.) He champions American Hegemoney and Empire in the name of his ideology.

[tip of the sword]

And another highlight his 9/11/02 column 'Our War on Fanaticism is Just'

[dfwgator]

Socialists were also for fighting Nazi Germany (granted they only changed their mind after Hitler invaded their beloved Soviet Union), but it was still right that we fought the Nazis.

[dwilli]

I used to see Chris Hitchens on C-Span along
with his brother who is very conservative. Think his
name was Patrick Hitchens. Has anyone heard from
him in the last few years. Seems like he might have
returned to the UK.

[motexva]

What a suicidal limp wristed zombie you are. It's inevitable that some American city will be atomized by Hussein if we don't act quickly. Why don't you vote for Democrats - they want to see American cities nuked too. Even socialists like Hitchens and Tony Blair see the threat Saddam poses - why don't you? Maybe you're posting from Baghdad.

[Burkeman1]

Sadaam is not Hitler. He is not even Hitler lite. There are 10 regimes worse than Iraq (some of them are our "allies" in that region right now.)

[dighton]

That's Peter Hitchens.

[Burkeman1]

So it is nukes that we concerned about? Wait I thought it was 9/11? No- what about Chemical gases or bio weapons? Pakistan has the bomb? What nonsense. If Iraq atomizes a city as you say- then we would crush them - kill them to the last man, women, and child. Besides. Iran is about to complete a nuke reactor with Russian aid and is closer to the bomb than Iraq. The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with nukes or WMD or 9/11. Stop it. If a nuke goes off in one of our cities it will not be from a state. It will be Al Queda that is stateless. And what is our government doing about stopping this from happening? Nothing- issuing visas by the thousands for middle eastern men daily and railing about "profiling" at our airports. Pathetic. You are the zombie.

[BlackVeil]

'some of them are our "allies"' Too right. Such as Pakistan? A cauldron of intolerance, violence, fundamentalism etc. And fully funded by the United States! Pakistan has no need to acquire nuclear weapons - they already have them. We know because we helped them get them (just as we did with the chemical weapons held by Hussein of Iraq). The alliance with Iraq was yesterday's mistake - it was a Chris Hitchens style war on fanaticism - trying to knock over the Iranians. Today we are making today's mistakes, falling in with all sorts of strange allies in order to police Iraq. If we had left Sadaam Hussein to face the consequences of his own aggression, back in 1987 when the Iran/Iraq war turned against him, there would not BE a problem now.

[Burkeman1]

Shhh. You are not supposed to say that! To point out how American mingling in other parts of the world may have contributed to where we are today is heresy. YOu must be one of them "isolationists" that are so evil.

[Arioch7]

Ok, lets take them all out. :D

Just kidding. I would like to know exactly WHO the regimes are that are "worse" then Iraq and if you answer that; then answer the question: If subject a is evil and subjects b-j are evil, do we have to let A go because there are other evil regimes in the world?

If so, why? There will ALWAYS be evil in the world. It seems to me that you are suggesting that unless we go after EVERY evil regime and declare a global jihad then we have no right to topple Saddam.

I am neutral on this issue but it seems like a weak premise to me.

[shrinkermd]

Chistopher Hitchens was an is a Trotskyite. He is a non-repenant socialist at best and a command socialist at worst.

[Burkeman1]

It is feeble. But that is what the adminstration is putting forward. They floated 9/11 as the reason but that is weak. Nukes? Iran has a more advanced program that is being aided by the Russians. Chem and Bio? No delivery mechanism that threatens us seriously. Repression? Iraq is more of an open society than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Egypt and has religios minorities that are treated far better than in the rest of the region. On all standards this administration has put forward just about any other country in the region is worse, more resposible for 9/11, or more of a threat to this country.

[GHOST WRITER]

He's not Hitler? Why, because he doesn't have a huge military machine? Hitler practiced 19th and 20th century warfare. 21st century warfare will be weapons of mass destruction. One person, or a handfull of people can have more destructive power than Hitler and his conventional military machine. Saddam does not want to conquer the world. But he is capable of doing vicious things to his enemies. There is suspicion that he was connected to the Oklahoma City bombing. He was crazy enough to try to kill Bush Sr. He thought it would not be traced back to him, so he tried to kill him. How do you know he won't give nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to Muslim terrorist groups to use against us, figuring that they won't be traced back to him? That makes him possibly more dangerous than Hitler was.

[marron]

If a nuke goes off in one of our cities it will not be from a state.

You have just stated what I have been saying myself for some time.

It doesn't take a ballistic missile to deliver an atomic weapon. A freighter will do. Or a leased airliner. Or it can be simply brought ashore and delivered in the back of a rented van.

The beauty of it is that the blast will leave no evidence to tie it back to its sender; any clues that might exist would simply point back to some blind cleric somewhere.

So finding the will to go after Saddam would be no easier after being hit than it is now. Maybe harder; what if we move against him, and he has another device pre-placed and ready to detonate if we retaliate.

Two of the crew that attacked the World Trade Center in '93 had close Iraqi ties. But, even knowing that, we found it useful to pin it on a blind cleric. Not that he was innocent; I'm sure he was an encouragement to the guys but there was certainly more to the picture. You see it takes an act of will even to connect the dots.

[Burkeman1]

I love that. The OK city bombing and Iraqi involvement was a crackpot conspiracy theroy given zero credibility for years until the Wall street journal (major Bush backers) picked it up a month ago. How convenient! But you are right. Anyone could get hold of and light of a nuke in a city at anytime. But Iraq is the one most likely to do it? No. Iran is more likely or some of the elements in Saudi Arabia who make up that fractured ruling family. But most likely it will be a stateless group like Al Queda

And what are we doing to prevent that from happening? Are we restricing visas and immigration from such countries? No. Are we "profiling"? No- that is "bad". Are our borders any more secure and immigration policies anymore tough than they were a year ago? In some cases maybe. But in most not at all. It will take a nuke to go off before we are serious and Bush gets the balls to confront the domestic poltically correct forces in our country that threaten us with their lack of concern more than Iraq does with a nuke.