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.

[Burkeman1]

And why Iraq? Becasue there are UN resolutions they are in violation of? Because they are convenient? We know that elements within the governments of our own "allies" support Al Queda and provide refuge for them. If we crush Iraq will that gurantee that a nuke won't go off in America? If so- then the war is worth it. What happens if one goes off after we invade and topple Sadaam?

[marron]

The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with nukes or WMD or 9/11

The invasion of Iraq, or rather, the overthrow of Saddam, is the logical conclusion of a 10 year old war.

By now everyone knows what Saddam is about. We can't walk away, and we can't go on the way we are. The present tactic for keeping him in his box is victim to the law of diminishing returns. He is emerging from his box, with the help of our putative allies.

So, we can walk away with the knowledge that the Saddam of 1990 is still with us, with sons waiting in the wings that are more psycho than he is, or we can continue to send our pilots out to face his missiles on a daily basis knowing that in the end that tactic must fail. Or we can cut to the chase and remove him.

This is not about a new war. It is about bringing a very old one to a close at long last.

[RJCogburn]

I may not agree with him a lot, but I like the guy!

[Burkeman1]

And what is the alternative? How about just leaving him alone? How about just withdrawing from the region entirely and trading and dealing fairly with all? How about not supporting corrupt regimes all over the region and letting them stand and fall on their own and dealing with whomever takes over and supporting no side and having no treaties? I wonder if we had such a posture if we would be the target of such madmen? I wonder how long Islamic regimes would last without their boogeyman America to divert resentment towards for their corrupt and repressive rule?

[marron]

And why Iraq? Becasue there are UN resolutions they are in violation of? Because they are convenient? We know that elements within the governments of our own "allies" support Al Queda and provide refuge for them

It is not about UN resolutions. That is just eyewash for the folks who believe the UN to be relevant despite all evidence to the contrary.

You are right in pointing out that the theater is much more complicated than we are admitting up front. That doesn't make our situation any more secure, however.

Sooner or later we are going to be hit (again). The price tag for waiting to be hit is prohibitively high. I agree that, if you know they are coming for you tomorrow, you must go and find them today.

And who are they? I would point at three, as have you. There is Al Qaeda, which is, in essence, a network which was supported and fomented by the Saudis. You could surmise that we tolerated this movement for a very long time, both out of misplaced loyalty to our Saudi ally, and because many of their operations were pointed at Russia, and China. I assume that we were hoping to be able to influence, and possibly take advantage of this movement. Consequently we ignored their first few attacks against us, hoping that we could redirect their fire away from us with a mild slap.

It didn't work.

Since the most recent attack on us was so public, and so bloody, we have been forced to go after them, and we are rolling up this operation wherever we find them. Its no secret where they are, of course.

Our alliance with the Saudis has been damaged possibly beyond repair. My prediction is that the Saudi monarchy will not survive long after the overthrow of Saddam. Certainly no one in this forum will miss them.

I think they see their end coming, too.

Iraq is on our hit list, just because we've been messing with them for 10 years, and we have to bring this to some logical conclusion. Our hope is to enlist the assistance of the Iraqi Army. With some luck, it just may work.

And Iran. Iran is a special case. They will be a nuclear power very soon. They are one of the more active sponsors of terror groups (second only to Saudi Arabia) and would eventually have to be dealt with. The good news is that Iranian citizens will quite possibly bring down that regime, without any public help from us.

[Paulus Invictus]

Not a good reason.

[GHOST WRITER]

Zero credibility from who? The F.B.Lie under Clinton and Freeh? Clinton was very anxious to blame Rush Limbaugh and Right Wingers. I did not hear about this "crackpot theory" from the Wall St. Journal. A TV reporter from Oklahoma City has been investigating the Saddam-McVeigh connection. It may or may not be true, but the evidence she has put together is not "crackpot". Can you explain why McVeigh went out of his way to write a letter a couple of years before he was executed, that was pro-Saddam Hussein? He said that Saddam had a right to have weapons of mass destruction for his own self-defense. He wrote about how it was OK to kill civilians because, after all we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima. I also suppose the eye witnesses who saw John Doe #2, described by all as a middle-eastern man, with McVeigh the morning of the bombing were all "crackpots." Maybe it's all crap, but maybe it's not. In any case, Iran is dangerous, but not at the present moment. Saddam is. We will deal with Iran in due time.

[Burkeman1]

So- in essence every public reason this adminstration has floated for an invasion of Iraq is a lie or a feeble rationale at best? I know this as well. What I can't stomach is being lied too. And what really is annoying is that so many on this site buy into to it. I am no fool. I can see the long term reasons for invading Iraq. I may even agree with them. But if we committ to such a course I hope the people in charge know what we are getting into because we will be there for decades! And to be honest. If you want to enact a policy that you can't be honest about to the American people up front- it is most likely not a good idea.

[lavrenti]

Thus The Nation. (never forget the period) is now yet another cookie-cutter designer Marxist rag.

Well, it's their loss.

[copycat]

No delivery mechanism that threatens us seriously

Right...and Al Queda has no planes that threaten our skyscapers seriously.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- and I am sure they know that as do all the others in the region. Is it a secret that once we are in Iraq we will utilize it to take over the rest of the region? That our troops will be there for decades- possibly engaged in guerilla confilct for years? I have never been a "Viet Nam" analogy guy but this is a recipe for disaster. Iraq is not even a real nation and is held together by only Sadaam and by force! As for McVeigh- every nutjob militia man loved Sadaam and opposed the war- they were extreme right wing nuts who saw any resistor of American policy - no matter how evil- as a hero. McVeigh also wrote against medical experiemnts on animals and was pro animal rights. The guy was a nut.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Agreed!! Bump for Hitchens and for Zell Miller today!!

[Burkeman1]

Yeah- they did- and our goverment knew about it but didn't want to "profile" anyone either prior to 9/11. Please provide proof that Iraq could deliver either Anthrax or chemical weapons on a mass scale to kill more than a dozen people? While you are at it tell me why Iran couldn't do the same or even a stateless org as well and why Iraq is more fitting than say even Sudan to attack first?

[GHOST WRITER]

P.S.: A link to the "crackpot Oklahoma City Bombing theory".
http://www.glennbeck.com/okc/index.htm

[copycat]

Please provide proof that Iraq could deliver either Anthrax or chemical weapons on a mass scale to kill more than a dozen people?

You can't be serious.

As for Iran, I suspect they are next on the hit parade.

I do, however, agree with you that we should be profiling at our borders and airports.

[Burkeman1]

I will concede everthing on that site is true. And if true then All I would need is for President Bush to come forward and say so. Any nation that had anything to do with the OKC bombing is guilty of an act of war against this nation and we would be justified in attacking. But since no one in the Bush Adminstration has even remotely suggested this is this case or put forward this as a reason for war I will ignore it.

[Burkeman1]

No - I am serious. Anthrax is very hard to spread effectively. So is smallpox. Does Iraq have the missles to do so? What delivery system would they use?

[Howlin]

Can't seem to get your point across without that personal attack on Burke

Shows how much you know about the people around here; your description of Burke is preposterous.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

How about just leaving him alone? How about just withdrawing from the region entirely and trading and dealing fairly with all? How about not supporting corrupt regimes all over the region and letting them stand and fall on their own and dealing with whomever takes over and supporting no side and having no treaties? I wonder if we had such a posture if we would be the target of such madmen?

The answer to your last question is YES. If you cannot understand that these people would hate the US even if we were completely isolationist, simply because of who we are and what we represent, then you don't have the capacity to understand.

Oh, and why didn't you just come out and say we should let Israel go it alone (i.e. be destroyed by the Arab world). You know you wanted to, what with all that talk of "dealing fairly." That's one of the things that would be necessary to cave in like craven cowards to the demands of those medieval barbarians like you want. Go ahead and say it; we won't mind...

[The Other Harry]

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...

I'm way behind in this thread, but I agree with you. Fwiw.