General Discussion

inademv

(791 posts)

3. He never changed his position, and what prejudice?

Reply to gratuitous (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:08 PM

Dec 2011

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

234 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 OP

But the gin-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay was really sorry later gratuitous Dec 2011 #1

He never changed his position, and what prejudice? inademv Dec 2011 #3

Hitchens was an outspoken atheist. Atheists are prejudiced, apparently... SidDithers Dec 2011 #13

Poor baby gratuitous Dec 2011 #58

There's that Christian spirit we all know and love...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #62

I'm not a Christian... well not for 45 years now, but I agree with those upthread. He was a bigot. TalkingDog Dec 2011 #72

Don't confuse the issue with facts gratuitous Dec 2011 #73

I really hate to ask, Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #88

He spoke quite vehemently about the importance of empowering women inademv Dec 2011 #94

Mostly from his own mouth gratuitous Dec 2011 #112

What misogynist divel? inademv Dec 2011 #134

Sorry, I gave you too much credit gratuitous Dec 2011 #136

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #137

Typical. Shoe Horn Dec 2011 #213

Really? gratuitous Dec 2011 #231

Thank you, he made the same mistake with Christians liberalhistorian Dec 2011 #193

Real Christians are great. dotymed Dec 2011 #218

This message was self-deleted by its author 12AngryBorneoWildmen Dec 2011 #223

The truth, it hoits! AlbertCat Dec 2011 #160

Christians are a much-insulted minority? UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #66

No, atheists are a much-insulted minority... SidDithers Dec 2011 #68

+1 sarcasmo Dec 2011 #152

Let's face it. Theists and atheists insult each other all the time caseymoz Dec 2011 #203

I guess it's like forgivng Osama bin Laden demosincebirth Dec 2011 #5

Popinjay? Good one! n/t Peregrine Took Dec 2011 #85

Steal from the best, I say gratuitous Dec 2011 #86

Maybe you should learn more about Hitchens' actual position and his actual works in his life inademv Dec 2011 #2

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #18

Because he was cognizant of history inademv Dec 2011 #46

Right. Wrong for Saddam to kill Iraqis when we could do it instead. aquart Dec 2011 #63

Yes, and that's utter nonsense. Hissyspit Dec 2011 #156

You mean like in '07 where he was whining that we weren't killing enough Muslims? Posteritatis Dec 2011 #22

How about a quote instead of pulling things from your arse n/t inademv Dec 2011 #41

Tell us please. ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2011 #37

What are you trying to use that quote to say? inademv Dec 2011 #48

Apologize for him all you want. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #69

Not re-writting what you don't know inademv Dec 2011 #75

Hitch was one of the few people who volunteered to be waterboarded LynneSin Dec 2011 #4

did he renounce its use? i heard he didn't. roguevalley Dec 2011 #23

Oh he wrote about it in Vanity Fair LynneSin Dec 2011 #38

You heard that? July Dec 2011 #101

This message was self-deleted by its author Bucky Dec 2011 #108

A simple google search gave me this... Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #131

So what? He was still dogshit. JVS Dec 2011 #39

Is your comment because he was an atheist? n/t RebelOne Dec 2011 #64

No, does being an atheist excuse him for being dogshit? JVS Dec 2011 #151

Of course it does. Critters2 Dec 2011 #182

Do you piss on everyone's graves or just those that knew how to use the English language properly? truebrit71 Dec 2011 #219

You can't compare that silly stunt to actual waterboarding CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #172

No you can't, even I know that LynneSin Dec 2011 #183

I remember reading that column. AngryOldDem Dec 2011 #210

Thats absurd. Hitchens had no political power or significant influence. phleshdef Dec 2011 #6

an internationally known writer has no influence? really? roguevalley Dec 2011 #24

Not if you're talking about the Iraq war inademv Dec 2011 #50

IDK let's look at his life Johonny Dec 2011 #54

Yea, friggin really. I didn't stutter. phleshdef Dec 2011 #61

His voice could barely be heard over Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al paparush Dec 2011 #148

Sorry, but that is just wrong CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #140

Thank you for that read, thucythucy Dec 2011 #181

Not sure I really want to jump into this fray, but... kag Dec 2011 #162

Pitiful. kentuck Dec 2011 #7

In the end, he became a neo-con, many of whom claimed to be converts from the Left. Romulox Dec 2011 #8

How exactly was he a neo-con inademv Dec 2011 #51

Here's some extreme bloodlust from Hitchens cpwm17 Dec 2011 #166

I can see how you would get that impression from reading an evaluation by someone who listen to him inademv Dec 2011 #169

He was. He had my attention until he turned right wing. That pissed me off. nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #9

he is like too many idiots. he lived at the extremes of left and right and mocked nuance roguevalley Dec 2011 #27

I sometimes think he switched because it allowed him to make more money. I don't know. nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #34

That's what someone who had been close friends with him said deutsey Dec 2011 #45

Wouldn't surprise me at all. nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #49

Quote/link? Which friend, I'm genuinely curious n/t inademv Dec 2011 #52

As I say, it was on KPFA's "Letters and Politics" deutsey Dec 2011 #71

Ah, Bob Baldock inademv Dec 2011 #81

I only know him as a voice in between shows, honestly deutsey Dec 2011 #82

looks like someone is itching for a fight. rurallib Dec 2011 #10

And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples. DFab420 Dec 2011 #11

Yea and what kind of liberals accuse writers of crimes against humanity over writing about opinions? phleshdef Dec 2011 #15

True, but the OP was about consequences for America eridani Dec 2011 #125

And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples. AlbertCat Dec 2011 #163

Colin Powell did it almost all on his own quinnox Dec 2011 #12

Yeah, that was ...something... Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #90

I never did. He was always a careerist/opportunitst. His role in tblue37 Dec 2011 #173

I think the 29 Senate Democrats who voted to allow Bush to go to war deserve greater condemnation. MNBrewer Dec 2011 #14

Christopher Hitchens doesn't deserve any condemnation over it at all. phleshdef Dec 2011 #17

humanitarian reasoning for war?? roguevalley Dec 2011 #30

Yea. I also said he was very misguided about that. phleshdef Dec 2011 #59

Ending the sanctions. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #189

How exactly do you feel that he was wrong on his area of support for the war? inademv Dec 2011 #53

He believed it was a fight worth having for various reasons. I see his reasons, but I don't believe phleshdef Dec 2011 #65

His support for the war was for the removal of Saddam, not the occupation inademv Dec 2011 #70

No. I heard and read Hitchens argue in favor of continued fighting in Iraq post saddam. phleshdef Dec 2011 #77

So do you find it more morally acceptable inademv Dec 2011 #78

Yes. I do. phleshdef Dec 2011 #83

"we have a moral obligation to do right by the societies we upheave" inademv Dec 2011 #89

I never said we didn't have a responsibility to do something. phleshdef Dec 2011 #92

So how is it morally acceptable to have left Saddam in power? inademv Dec 2011 #96

Wait for something like an Arab Spring to occur and treat it with a similar fashion as we did Egypt. phleshdef Dec 2011 #106

Well we were having a debate about it, if you don't care to continue that then that is unfortunate inademv Dec 2011 #109

Does that mean we should take out Saudi Arabia? Rozlee Dec 2011 #124

Thank you, Rozlee polly7 Dec 2011 #129

"Saddam was a secular leader for all his brutality" inademv Dec 2011 #130

Saddam was considered secular by the west Rozlee Dec 2011 #153

Yeah Hitler was totally secular too man </sarcasm> inademv Dec 2011 #165

Yes. If you've noticed Egypt and Tunisia lately, you'd easily see-- eridani Dec 2011 #126

Halabja poison gas attack inademv Dec 2011 #132

Nowhere near as many casualties as the US invasion eridani Dec 2011 #155

Arguing from hindsight doesn't make or support your case n/t inademv Dec 2011 #164

It certainly does, as most of the consequences were predicted in advance eridani Dec 2011 #168

If someone trashed your house, would you want to hire them to rebuild? eridani Dec 2011 #123

Sort of, yes. I'd expect them to supply the resources one way or another. phleshdef Dec 2011 #147

It was not possible to remove Saddam without becoming an occupier MNBrewer Dec 2011 #104

So we're doing the wrong thing in Libya? n/t inademv Dec 2011 #107

The two situations are nothing alike. MNBrewer Dec 2011 #111

They are very analygous inademv Dec 2011 #135

No, they dont deserve ANY condemnation. There was nothing wrong with that vote as I explained here stevenleser Dec 2011 #55

Actually I'm pretty sure they do inademv Dec 2011 #74

Nope, they don't. The IWR authorized war only if UN Resolutions were not followed. At the time IWR stevenleser Dec 2011 #87

So wait, because they voted to go to war before the inspection was complete they get a pass? n/t inademv Dec 2011 #91

Which makes sense if you remember the conditions under which the IWR was created stevenleser Dec 2011 #114

No level of weapontry they had or could get in a small timeframe would have been a threat to inademv Dec 2011 #133

That was my guess in 2002 too, but it was a guess. It was the UN stevenleser Dec 2011 #197

They knew they were giving Bush the green light to invade MNBrewer Dec 2011 #105

Nope, they didnt and the IWR was not written as a green light. nt stevenleser Dec 2011 #115

yes, they did MNBrewer Dec 2011 #120

The wording is right in the resolution. You ignore it because it proves you incorrect. nt stevenleser Dec 2011 #122

IWR text Section 3: SOS Dec 2011 #194

keep bolding. "in order to... defend the us.. and enforce UN resolutions stevenleser Dec 2011 #200

Will gladly continue bolding SOS Dec 2011 #228

I didn't know about the Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #192

we hardly needed Hitchen's war cheerleading to get us mired in Iraq... hlthe2b Dec 2011 #16

Talk about over the top sharp_stick Dec 2011 #19

I don't think he would take credit for that war. And it wouldn't be false modesty. immoderate Dec 2011 #20

On the one hand, I understand it, he hated religious zealotry particularly as the ruling order of a stevenleser Dec 2011 #57

Agreed. He was zealously anti-theocratic. But it's not an excuse. immoderate Dec 2011 #80

Weak. Very weak. MineralMan Dec 2011 #21

You are BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO MISS THE GODDAMN POINT! DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #25

ok, that just shows your comparison is even dumber quinnox Dec 2011 #28

Dumber? How does one get any dumber than the Hitchensia? DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #31

"Did Kim Jong Il vehemently argue for your invasion of Iraq?" quinnox Dec 2011 #33

Yeah, well...welcome to DU to YOU, too.... MADem Dec 2011 #44

i blame bu$h* and cheney.....hitchens is just a reporters opinion. spanone Dec 2011 #26

lol -- I don't think Hitchens support was a deciding factor fishwax Dec 2011 #29

North Korea's role in nuclear proliferation (and thus global destablization) Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #32

Most Americans have no clue who Hitchens was.. trumad Dec 2011 #35

Kim was also a better golfer. JVS Dec 2011 #36

I agree surfdog Dec 2011 #40

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #42

Yeah, ya think? frazzled Dec 2011 #56

Wow! Spazito Dec 2011 #43

None whatsoever is vastly more? dmallind Dec 2011 #47

Sheer, bloodcurdling FAIL. nt Dreamer Tatum Dec 2011 #60

Hitchens went after Kissinger which no one else did lunatica Dec 2011 #67

“Sometimes people are good, and they do just what they should. But the very same people... Ian David Dec 2011 #76

One more Book spirit of wine Dec 2011 #79

I thought he covered it well enough in Hitch-22 n/t inademv Dec 2011 #93

So much fail I don't even know where to start. Both death tallies are zero, LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #84

Whether Hitchens was for or against the Iraq war made no fucking difference Burma Jones Dec 2011 #95

Always good to read opinions that have null value here. GoneOffShore Dec 2011 #97

Christopher Hitchens worked for The Pentagon? Throd Dec 2011 #98

The No. 1 cheerleading chickenhawk? LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #99

limbaugh and sons, with 1000 coordinated radio stations and paid callers, endorsed by our universiti certainot Dec 2011 #119

And by the way.. LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #100

What a load of crap. Deep13 Dec 2011 #102

So... Only American lives matter? Ohio Joe Dec 2011 #103

He can't. Ms. Toad Dec 2011 #113

The US government chose to go to war without any input from Hitchens. ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #110

no one heard hitchens compared to team limbaugh, the real chickenhawk cheerleaders for iraq attack certainot Dec 2011 #116

RIP unrec RZM Dec 2011 #117

Hitchens did NO damage, he just talked..... djean111 Dec 2011 #118

wrong, wrong, wrong CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #143

I read that yesterday...... djean111 Dec 2011 #158

I could have posted a number of other links CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #178

And if Obama loses because enough people on the left stay home next year RZM Dec 2011 #199

LOL....one of the least informed OPs I have seen this month. n-t Logical Dec 2011 #121

I agree up to the "this month" part. great white snark Dec 2011 #127

Where does Dan Savage fall on this scale? cemaphonic Dec 2011 #128

With all due respect, your statement is utterly absurd. Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #138

Oh god, here we go again... Taverner Dec 2011 #139

Hitchens was wrong like so many in his assessment of the Iraq war, however, he did not vote or make Pisces Dec 2011 #141

indeed...nt and-justice-for-all Dec 2011 #146

I Would Forget About Christopher Hitchens' Iraq War Comments. AlBratt Dec 2011 #142

Hitchens had a tart tongue and was 100% wrong about the war, but was often right on issues REP Dec 2011 #144

I disagree with the OP title, what a pile of shit that is... and-justice-for-all Dec 2011 #145

So *, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. played no part in taking us to war? laconicsax Dec 2011 #149

Actually, Dick Cheney was the #1 chickenhawk. Iggo Dec 2011 #150

Hitch was wrong on many things...but got this one right knocklindquist Dec 2011 #154

72% of Americans opposed Bush's idiotic invasion, SOS Dec 2011 #196

support on DU for the horrid Libya invasion refutes you stockholmer Dec 2011 #211

Before that, he was a notable spokesman for left Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #157

Yeah Hitchens was a useless fascist, neocon warmongering piece of shit ButterflyBlood Dec 2011 #159

"Hitch" was the #1 cheerleading chickenhawk for the Iraq War. AlbertCat Dec 2011 #161

Hitchens was an ass spooked911 Dec 2011 #167

Let it die, folks, DTTO has been evicted from the thread by virtue of two hidden posts. n/t Ms. Toad Dec 2011 #170

Hitch chose Obama questforpatriots Dec 2011 #171

It almost makes me regret voting for him... ( n/t ) Make7 Dec 2011 #174

I like Hitchens the same way I like Trey Parker and Matt Stone...... SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2011 #175

Are you saying that if there had been no Hitchens skepticscott Dec 2011 #176

Nonsense post. Where did anyone say that? (n/t) CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #179

The war was inevitable, whether Hitchens had said a word about it skepticscott Dec 2011 #184

re-worded nonsense is still nonsense CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #187

Hitch wasn't all bad. questforpatriots Dec 2011 #177

This thread is going to inspire a lot of jury duty... n/t Mojambo Dec 2011 #180

How many legions had Hitchens? Survivoreesta Dec 2011 #185

More than Bush, Cheney, or Powell? beardown Dec 2011 #186

What point could you possibly be trying to make with this thread? shoutinfreud Dec 2011 #188

He got that one wrong. Jester Messiah Dec 2011 #190

So he was wrong. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #191

Shitty thread; stupid premise; non-sensical comparison. AmericaIsGreat Dec 2011 #195

bon Jovi did more damage than both of them put together Enrique Dec 2011 #198

Has anyone made a comparison to the Nazi's yet? BootinUp Dec 2011 #201

+1000!! nt Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #202

Why would it occur to you to compare those two? caseymoz Dec 2011 #204

This thread belongs on Jim Robinson's MB intaglio Dec 2011 #205

Yes, he knew he could be wrong . . . caseymoz Dec 2011 #227

Wow! HowHeThinks Dec 2011 #206

interesting is`t it. madrchsod Dec 2011 #208

Obviously, there's no factual support for the claim. None whatsoever. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #207

Just a wee bit over the top. AngryOldDem Dec 2011 #209

What a fucking joke RetroLounge Dec 2011 #212

indeed. TZ Dec 2011 #214

Amen...a fucking joke Stuckinthebush Dec 2011 #222

Has Hitchens even been buried yet? sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #215

That's it? That's all you've got? deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #216

Religion and our thirst for oil have done VASTLY more damage ... sarchasm Dec 2011 #217

This post hurts my head Stuckinthebush Dec 2011 #220

He was the #1 cheerleader? Do you not get Fox news where you live? truebrit71 Dec 2011 #221

These threads are handy since we can see the recs. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #224

And a list of those whose own rigid dogma LanternWaste Dec 2011 #232

No one in this thread is rationalizing war. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #233

I imagine we all of us see what we want to... LanternWaste Dec 2011 #234

Welcome to DU. redqueen Dec 2011 #225

Is it opposites day? Chan790 Dec 2011 #226

No one is 100% right all the time... kentuck Dec 2011 #229

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on DU... ingac70 Dec 2011 #230