UK: Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley (2/5)

[tsilairett]

I'd like to see this after 2001

[newsradiohead]

This is the Hitchens I want to remember. I want to pretend that the malignant neo-conservative beating the war drums for Iraq is a fiction.

[evenstrength]

this moderator is such a bitch

[evenstrength]

Hitch changed my life for the better. On the other hand, I am a fan of Buckley's, and I wish modern republicans would model themselves after him. He's a thoughtful man, and I do not think the repubs are thoughtful anymore.

[StevenThePhilosopher]

I don't see how you can run a discussion with an interviewer who clearly favors one guest over the other, and even goes so far as to interrupt one of them when he disagrees with what they are saying. Talk about conflict of interest... People need to learn how do their jobs with impartiality. 

[joecairo1]

This is the problem with "Time"... Hitchens is sharper than both Buckley and this tool interviewer but of course Buckley is how old?! If we could get every great thinker of recorded history together at their sharpest point what would happen... the world would explode I imagine!

[austenbosten]

I love it when these liberal losers come on here and bash Uncommon Knowledge and Peter Robinson....as if there are no liberal biased interview shows with liberally biased interviewers...You have your biased shows...let us have ours...or are you liberals revealing your true colors to be fascists who support no other points of view other than your own?

[PierreBayle1697]

@austenbosten Politics and school girl insults a side; the guy is a fairly inept interviewer who constantly interrupts those he is interviewing with utterly fatuous and inane questions.

[austenbosten]

@PierreBayle1697 yes and Charlie Rose, David Gregory and Christine Amanahamanahamana-pour are polished and superb interviewers, despite their clear bias.

Once again, opinions are like assholes...everyone has one and they are usually full of shit.

[DefeatedElitist]

@austenbosten I don't think anyone is attacking his stance, but rather his behavior as an interviewer. Just because there are poor interviewers on the "left" does not excuse this individual and his actions. Besides, I think everyone, no matter what their stance, respects William F Buckley Jr. - You don't see many people attacking him on here, do you? I'd say your argument is slightly invalid there.

[austenbosten]

@DefeatedElitist I would like to know what about his demeanor is so horrible to those people. I find Peter Robinson better than most of the left-wing Pravda hacks in the media today, because you won't find Peter trying to make his guest get caught in gotcha questions. But anyway my advice to the a-holes ragging on Peter Robinson is simple...go watch the left-wing hacks on TV if PR burns your butts so much. Some people like PR's style of interviewing.

[DefeatedElitist]

@austenbosten Again, I must say: Just because the "left" has some terrible interviewers (which they do) does not excuse this man's behavior. If you enjoy him, fine, that's great. However, there is a certain way an interviewer should act if he is to be considered a decent interviewer, and Peter does not act accordingly.

I'm not attacking his political stance, or yours. I'm merely speaking on his interviewing methods.

[austenbosten]

@DefeatedElitist okay so you are one of those people...fine. Tell me what about Peter Robinson's demeanor do you disapprove? and how should one "act"?

[DefeatedElitist]

@austenbosten He's clearly biased towards Buckley, often cutting Hitchens off in order to get Buckley's opinion on an answer that makes him uncomfortable; you can tell by his body language and almost urgency to hear what Buckley has to say in response. A good interviewer does not consciously, or sub-consciously, pick sides in a debate, like Peter so clearly does.

For the record, I am a big fan of both Buckley, and Christopher. Don't misconstrue this as an attack on either one.

[austenbosten]

@DefeatedElitist I really don't see it that way, I see him trying to avoid Hitchens from taking up all the airtime, I like Hitchen's debating but he tends to ramble on...just a bit. I would say PR is a good interviewer because most interviewers on the Left would just interject with their own views. PR doesn't do that and I'm glad cause he knows that we aren't interested in his views but Hitchens and Buckley. The clear interjection was a tongue-in-cheek...he did let CH finish

[HipPriest]

Peter Robinson is a complete shill. 'Uncommon Knowledge', which you can watch on the National Review website, is clearly nothing but PR for the guests invited on; I've never seen anything close to a critical exchange. Robinson likes to throw in a sarcastic-fatuous straw man every now and then, but a genuine interview show it is not.

[metalshredder09]

What the hell happened to Hitchens after 9/11?

[soccerjones84]

Hitchens displays and rather tendentious view of history. In the minds of Hitchens and Chomsky and many other anti-Americans, it is perfectly acceptable for Red China and the Soviets to fund and promote Marxist ideology in other countries but it is utterly reprehensible for America to promote freedom. The marxist leaders can incite the proletariat to revolt and then assume totalitarian positions and exploit them but when America intervenes we are only doing so for our own economic advantage.

[Mike3303]

@soccerjones84 Have you read any of Hitchens' work today? I've never seen such a polarizing figure. Leftists like to call him a neo-con who supports American imperialism, whereas people such as yourself label him an anti-American Marxist. Hitchens is a perfect display of what happens when a truly independent mind meets the tunnel-visioned branding of ideologues. They fall on their faces trying to find an adequate stereotype.

[toseeornot2see]

I believe Hitchens is quite intelligent and a very eloquent speaker, but his propensity for chasing anything that is counter cultural or outside the norms of conventional thinking is what has brought him so much vilification. Challenging things that we take for granted is good, but doing so just to set yourself apart from others and vociferously expressing one's views isn't the best way to go; it just makes him look pretentious. That being said, some of his interviews are quite insightful.

[Myrkul1029]

@soccerjones84 they're both utterly reprehensible, two global empires battled for supremacy and a lot of people and countries got fucked up in the process

[toseeornot2see]

@soccerjones84 First of all, I wouldn't link China and Soviet Union to socialism and that's for a good reason. Second, if you look at Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, etc. - you'll see just why there is so much "anti-Americanism" going around.

Thirdly, Chomsky has many times criticized Stalin, Lenin and the Soviet union.

Fourthly, America has promoted freedom the same way that the Japanese were bringing "paradise" to China, in the early 20th century.

[soccerjones84]

The moderator is a board member at Dartmouth, MBA from Stanford, BA from Oxford and an acclaimed author. Perhaps you've heard of his writing, perchance. Something to the effect of "...tear down this wall." might ring some bells for you.

So as for being nerdy, I'm sure his level of nerdiness (the dumb word for educated) is probably as high as your level of ignorance.

[HoGraz]

@soccerjones84 Good points dude. I noticed though that McNamara was President of World Bank before Vietnam.

[CacaLauncher23]

everyone trashes the host. while he doesn't look very competent and neutral as a host, he is also a victim of his nerdy gay face. it's hard not to hate him.

it would be better if he wasn't in the room and let the adults talk. he's kinda like a teenager you regret bringing to the dinner table.

[carlrs15]

@CacaLauncher23

"It's not you, it's your nerdy gay face."

[macsm]

OK. I see, I shoudl have known by the interviewer....

[WhenLilacsLast]

Every time Hitchens makes a valid argument against the right, the partisan host is gripped by a swirl of tension and he scrambles desperately towards Buckley like a frightened child.

[lazarus0202]

Robinson seems either confused, constipated, or both.

[mammers11]

2:30 aha Robinson just Can't Believe that Hitchens called the US an empire

[Lukeor]

Gulf of tonkin.

[Vomitonthecross]

Piss off conspiracy theorist.

[Lukeor]

lol

Look it up goon. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, you moron.

[MrPunnoosej]

Hitchens's writing is hardly intellectual and hardly sophisticated.

[wormdrink414]

I hope that you aren't suggesting that Buckley's is.

[coco7010]

Indeed?

That is a charming, if imprecise epithet.

[Cocteau120]

Hitchens is an idiot. His view of Vietnam is profoundly ignorant.

[brian8793]

Shh, you can't say something truthful on this video.....LOL

[MarcusCMarcellus]

I've never voted for a Democratic presidential nominee, but on this issue Hitchens has Buckley completely on the ropes. The US is an empire, obviously, and the war in Vietnam was one long war crime.

[ludachris475]

The United States of America is a smelly old empire.

[ddaly1]

also very typical, & there are numerous such examples all over the world

(guatemalan ex. involved president Arbenz in the 50s)

[ddaly1]

Not going to let him get away with calling the U.S. an empire, REALLY? Direct rule has been seen long ago to be less effective than a proxy ruler, and all over the middle east (ex. the shah, the ba'ath party)and south east asia (ex. diem, suharto) (not to mention all over our 'sphere of influence' latin america) the U.S. has supported and benefited from installing dictators. If you don't think we were a post-WW2 empire you're just plain blind and/or indoctrinated.

[Gregamania69]

That is a very loose definition of "empire", is it not?

And don;'t worry too much about it, for it will have lasted less than 80 years. By 2020, China is our new ruler.

[ddaly1]

I wouldn't say it's "loose" at all. It's the way in which any MODERN empire would operate (any effective one, at least) Simply conquering regions w/ brute force is a thing of the past. If the Guatemalan president makes some minor land reforms that help the vast majority of the country's people (rather than the US's United Fruit Company- which dominates the country's agricultural sector) you simply get rid of him and install a military junta (true story, by the way & imperialism no question)

[ehrengm]

I wish chomsky was in the room.

[drzackari]

Good thing Chomsky WASN'T in the room to hog the discussion with his ceaseless mumbling marxism.

At least Hitchens can make a clear argument on point.

[MattyJames25]

Chomsky and Buckley actually went at it in the 60s - you can find it on youtube; it is pretty interesting.

[truthslap]

@ehrengm when I hear Hitchens I hear the true protige of Chomsky. He is stating everything, as eloquently and accurately, as Chomsky did in his debate against WFB. this is a great upload.

[l33tpwnzord]

@ehrengm

Why is there an abundance of chomsky ball-cuppers on youtube? Chomsky is a joke. This is why he never comes up in any media outlet.

[toseeornot2see]

@l33tpwnzord "Why is there an abundance of chomsky ball-cuppers on youtube? Chomsky is a joke. This is why he never comes up in any media outlet."

Really? or do you mean that the self censoring media does not like interviewing him? Just type his name on youtube and you'll get a list of his talks, interviews, etc. In fact, he did appear on "big media debates" a few times, but then they stopped calling him - you can guess why.

[l33tpwnzord]

@toseeornot2see

"Self censoring media"? Sure thing, glenn beck

[toseeornot2see]

@l33tpwnzord Yeah, no doubt about the fact that the media is self censoring. I say self censoring because unlike some countries, the US media does not face any state censorship - yet it chooses to leave out chunks of information.

There are so many colossal events that haven't even been reported in the US - even if the British media has given it wide coverage. For example - the rising cancer rates in Fallujah since the 2004 assault on the city.

[Stunr99]

@ehrengm Why so Buckley can OWN him

[DankWin]

@ehrengm so Buckley could humiliate him, as usual?

[hugoegbert79]

@DankWin Buckley can't win in debates against the left-which is why he resorts to threats of physical violence, as he did against Chomsky and Gore Vidal (who he called a "queer" at the same time).

[Alexdurrant7]

@hugoegbert79 His comment to Chomsky was just Buckley taking the piss out of himself, parodying his comment to Vidal.

[hugoegbert79]

@Alexdurrant7 And his comment to Vidal was what? He still lost the debate with Chomsky.

[Alexdurrant7]

@hugoegbert79 I agree, he did lose the debate with Chomsky. And I agree, his comment to Vidal was a threat of violence. I wasn't contesting those points, I was contesting your claim that Buckley threatened violence against Chomsky, which clearly isn't true.

[kipconlon]

Interesting conversation. But the host is a plate glass assh*le.

[jxxybxxy2002]

It is good to see Hitchens face off with Buckley. More interesting to watch that on the mainstream media.

[henrythesteinberg]

Buckley looks very blunt in comparison with say, his Chomsky interview.

[DaHonestAbe]

Buckley sounds like Mr. Bigtooth from Family Guy. He's still a good man. R.I.P WFB jr.

[phillyyork]

@DaHonestAbe its Mr. BottomTooth lol

[DaHonestAbe]

My bad, lol.

[thettruest]

that guy asking him questions at the start is a fuckin sickening douchebag

[johnnycon]

Buckley's view of history is incredibly simplistic.

[TheBestBand6]

probably because it IS simplistic

[johnnycon]

Tell me, what was the simplicity behind the US invasion of Vietnam?

[docmoriarti]

Don't confuse abstract arguments with oversimplifications. Without ability to consider certain issues alone, human thought would never progress.

[znotty]

I wonder what would have happened in Vietnam if the US took the money spend on weapons & paid them to stop fighting

......like Sadr city for example.

[amet1980]

they did exacly the same.

the americans handed over the power to the"enemy"..

sadr ist army now openly patrol the south of iraq, place an islamic emirate in the south and control the army , the oil and the goverment..

[dazzagazza6969]

Do Americans really believe they don't have a world empire?

The USA military budget is almost the same as the rest of the world combined. Is that just for defense?

How many dictatorships have been installed by the USA ? How many assasinations? How many invasions? They control the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN (well maybe not so much nowadays).

[longerdaysdyings]

The US believes itself to be above such distinctions. Whatever they choose to do is "right" by virtue of the fact that they are incapable of doing wrong. The word "empire" has negative implications.

A more deluded, dishonest & devious nation we have yet to see. The US are skilled in giving other nations a bad name by stealth...rather like a carrier infects others with a disease & remains healthy. They piss on others shoes then tell them when it's raining.

[docmoriarti]

US tolerates UN. We don't need to be members. We just haven't had a strong enough president to leave it yet. It's mostly a soap box for small-time dictators.

[dazzagazza6969]

I agree, that why I said "well maybe not so much nowadays".

The UN was set up to help the USA to become the one world superpower. Now that the USA has a huge empire with military spending at 50% of the worlds total, it finds it a hinderance.

You mention that it is a soap-box for small-time dictators. That is true which is why the world's biggest dictator (the USA) would like to dismantle it. The UN is a pain for the USA and tries to stop its Empire building like invading Iraq.

[docmoriarti]

> The UN was set up to help the USA to

> become the one world superpower

Not at all. It was set up so that 5 nations with nuclear weapons would have a permanent forum to have a constant dialogue. The rest of the nations were sort of allowed in to sit at the "children' table". UN never had any power to make any nation any superpower. It never had any power at all. Sometimes the big 5 pretended otherwise, but only when it was good showbusiness for them.

[docmoriarti]

> That is true which is why the world's

> biggest dictator (the USA) would like

> to dismantle it.

If only. Our life would be much easier if all the things we are accused of were true. As it stands, US is forced to conduct arguments as silly as the arguments on YouTube just to show obvious.

> UN is a pain for the USA and tries to stop

> its Empire building like invading Iraq.

UN authorized the invasion of Iraq in 93(ish?). That war never legally ended. Everything else is excuses.

[ludachris475]

I want to drown in a pool of my own blood and feces.

[ludachris475]

This interviewer's questions are shallow and pedantic.

[lpavluke]

Peter Robinson is an incredibly unprofessional interviewer.

[AlephNine]

Robinson, you suck as a moderator.

[ludachris475]

Hitchens, the effete drunkard.

[TheSpiritOfTheTimes]

The interviewer is a biased loser.

[mrzipdisk]

He was just trying to antagonize Buckley for the purpose of conversation, i.e. play devil's advocate.

[searcherboy]

@TheSpiritOfTheTimes You're right. He's a preppy, slightly more polite version of Hannity and O'Reilly. He pretends to moderate a discussion which he blatantly steers - and the conversation is then edited, with the "moderator's" voice over papering over the cut-out bits with leading questions. I'd like to see the unedited version of this discussion - especially given how good a debater Hitchens is. I'd also like to know how many members of Peter Robinson's family served in Vietnam.

[HoGraz]

@TheSpiritOfTheTimes Well that's what you need to run a great propaganda machine. You need to use strengths and intimidation to get your point across.

[jerryhello100]

@TheSpiritOfTheTimes I know, double-u- tee- eff.

[Lion117]

wow look at Hitchens today.

[SmokiSounds]

yea hes messed up xD coke :S

[Lion117]

and its the same fucking anchor too. exept buckley's gone. =\

[Lion117]

Coke? :o

[ludachris475]

Indeed some of the greatest playwrights in history were fags

Such as Sophocles, foremost among the Athenian tregedian gaywrights of late antiquity. His magnum opus of the Prodigal Fag Tyrant, Oedipus at Colonus was a crowning tragedy on bestiality and incest. It inquires of the tragic fag ego of Oedipus Rex. The protagonist, Oedipus slays his fag oppressor, King Laius for sodomy, humps his mother, and seals his last humble plea of incest with a righteous kiss.

[ludachris475]

May Allah reward him handsomely in His Heavenly Burlesque House.

[garvess]

Mash allah akhbah hakh hakh holla at ya dog!

[ludachris475]

Hitchens is an infidel.

[mrktwn]

Thank God!

[corporalclegg07]

i'm sure he knows it, and i'm sure he doesent necessarily care.

[ludachris475]

Monica Lewinsky...

Was an Inside Blowjob.

[BTC141]

blol

[ludachris475]

According to Tacitus the Jews worship Saturn.

On the Seventh day they end their toils, on the 7th year as a mark of respect to Saturn, the 7 stars that rule mankind, of multiples of sevens.

The other practices of Jews are filthy and revolting.

[ludachris475]

Homosexual or not his justification for the Iraq War was purely fabricated drivel.

[ludachris475]

Perhaps this is merely his English accent that gives a homo impression and mien.

[garvess]

Thats untrue but hilarious!

[McTavishBear]

Robinson flagrantly abuses his position of moderator. How sickening that a supposedly intellectual discussion is debased with such an ugly display.

[Politic007]

Only the most simple minds view conflicts between countries, as "good guys vs bad guys".

Robinson is the "Mayor of Douchebagistan"

[mainsqueeze1977]

As Hitchens does!

[woodrowss]

are you really going to criticize others for simplifying the abstract concept of good and bad in a tv interview? Hitchens is not a "simple mind"...i sincerley doubt that you could level up with Hitchens on any intellectual plain.

[SwizzleStickMcGee]

You'll have to excuse me, this is very ungentleman like of me, but Robinson is a fucking bias douche bag.

[BTC141]

Fuck yea, Robinson is the Mason's doormat.

[mammers11]

Ok Robinson's a weasel. Consider how he pathetically tried to make it look like Hitchens was lauding the Soviet Union and China for their involvement in Vietnam. He's cheapening his own program here. Classic conservative punditry. And Robinson's an idiot if he thinks the United States isn't an empire. Alright he's an idiot.

[warmjets]

Man Peter Robinson really comes off as a homosexual in this video.

[TrumanBarkley]

Hitchens, this time at least, appears somewhat muted and cowered. Is it perhaps because he senses the lion Buckley can , at a moment's notice, reach out and slice him to bits. Hitchens is a great mind and polemic but in this series he is certainly not the aggressor. I very much respect him but Buckley, even in death, remains supreme. One need not agree with all of his views (I certainly do not) but no one can so steadfastly advance an argument with such precision, skill and clarity as WFB.

[dionusos2]

WFB fooled people into thinking he was more insighful than he really was by using heavy language. Hitchens is concise and to the point. He doesn't have to couch his views in prolonged language to hide his vulnerability on the issues.

[jeremyshambles]

i agree but i enjoy those who master a language and wfb's elocutionary skill is quite impressive. Hitchens and stephen fry are my 2 favorite contemporary writers and they have brilliant command of the language as well, cheers

[SuperJesus316]

It's probably because at around this time he was moving more to the right, where as before he was on the left. He's not a great mind.. he's mediocre. Even when it comes to atheism, I prefer Dawkins and Harris over Hitchens.

[JohnR22926]

I guess the key is what did we know at the time? Kennan's containment policy was our guiding principle in the Cold War, and I'm sure, at the start, Vietnam looked similar to Korea. It was only logical for us to try to contain the spread of communism from North Vietnam to South.

Where we made our fundamental mistake, was not realizing the South Vietnamese weren't committed to the struggle, and that the issue wasn't the spread of internation communism, but vietnamese unification.

[tokotokotoko3]

The discussion is a bit sad. Amazing to me is that Buckley still believed the old lies - but also Hitchens doesn't really argue well. He could have easily owned Buckley and the obviously not neutral interviewer, just by pointing out that not North Vietnam was attacked first, but actually South Vietnam. Which destroys the lies of "we had to defend the South" or "we had to prevent a communistic North Vietnam".

[2eelShmeal]

love his atheism..... not a fan of his politics.

[Albyiscool]

it's often hard to seperate atheism from left wing politics

[eirefrance]

I'd like to hear this Hitchens debate todays Hitchens on the 'post-colonial' nature of the Iraq War.

[jacobins3000]

I'd be more interrested in seeing what the Hitchens of 68' would think about the unkempt alcoholic bourgeous sack of shit that he's become. I just read his May 26th article for Slate, in which he spends three pages bitching about the service at some restorant and whining about how the waiter poured everyone at his table a glass of wine from a bottle that he had planed on finishing himself.

[KenshinSephiroth666]

Ah, my nipples they HURT. THEY HURT WHEN I TWIST THEM!

[NefeshChaim]

I actually really prefer the current Hitchens to the pose he presented in olden' days. I would like to know how he justifies being such good friends with Prof. Chomsky, who regardless of his ideology (it doesnt matter), is a poor historical scholar. He seemed far more willing to fight against war when it was directed at Soviet totalitarianism but the Jihadists strike him the wrong way.

[alienmoonbase]

Excellent point. Why do English people like Chomsky? To an American intellectual (me) he is a complete halfwit. He's not just a poor historical scholar, but he doesn't know his ass from hot rocks when it comes to basic logic. He is a rhetorical master who mixes logical fallacies by slight of hand. If you listen to Chomsky talk he mesmorizes, slowly covering you in shit.

Maybe the cadence of Chomsky's voice goes well with JW Black.

A great communicator with some facts and a lot of

[NefeshChaim]

He's an Iconic figure. According to what i've read a brilliant Linguist (I don't know that field at all) and he gives off a deep sense of intellectual rigor (which i do believe he has.) His viewpoints are so deeply ideological that he prefers to subdue facts to gain victories for his ideals. Hitchens in recent years has claimed that the left has drifted to support of totalitarianism, but i see no drift at all. Hitchens to me seems to be a person driven to the left by his disgust of the right.

[TomStrong08]

I have left the left as well for the same reason. Regularly hearing left-wing defense of leaders from Saddam Hussein to Fidel Castro has made me seperate ties from the ideology I was raised with. There is no defense or legitimacy for any leader that steals power from his or her people. NONE.

[Bellator656]

You obvioulsy haven't been a leftist ever. Fidel Castro and Saddam were not leftists, and any leftist that praises them should be ashamed.

[SuperJesus316]

Fidel is a leftist, but also authoritarian. There's no shame in supporting Fidel's resistance against foreign aggression, doesn't mean you have to support his internal politics. Many supported the Soviets against the Nazis, doesn't mean they were all Stalinists.

[thegreatestbak]

Hitchens regularly defends the Iraq War on the grounds that it was necessary to remove him from power..the leftists don't defend castro and they never defended saddam as a legitimate ruler; they simply questioned the true intentions behind the war. Not deposing Saddam in the first gulf war gave the neo-cons a convenient alibi.

[AllenbysEyes]

Lots of leftists, even American liberals, stand up for Castro all the time.

[SuperJesus316]

Lots of leftists defend Castro, but most importantly, the Cuban's right to defend themselves from American imperialism. You can't forget that the Cuban revolution was a popular revolution which overthrew the US backed dictator. So while leftists may disagree with Castro's internal politics, they definitely agree with his action to prevent US imperialism in Cuba which ran deep before the revolution.

It's very simple, support those who resist aggression.

[splugg2]

Hmmmm...a few assertions mixed with ad hominem attacks...

You are obviously an "intellectual."

[eirefrance]

I prefer his contemporary commentary on issues of this day.  He uses historical parallels to do that, I admit.

[NefeshChaim]

Maybe if he continued to rant on about socialist unrealities and quoted Howard Zinn every seven seconds his old friends on the left would still accept him. I admire Hitchens because his viewpoint seems to be based on principles not ideology. The same answer doesnt work for every question

[Steven2480]

Nevermind -- I revoke my previous comment. Hitch calls us an imperial power in Vietnam but flips shit when anyone says the same of the US in Iraq.

[Steven2480]

I don't think Hitchens changed that much either. His current position on humanitarian interventionism is largely an extreme liberal one, but is not a neo-con one too, one of imperialism.

He's aligning himself with an corrupt philosophy, but he's not a neo-con himself.

He wants democracy-by-gunpoint because he wants to see an end to radical religious belief, in this case, Islam.

I don't agree with him at all on this, but I feel his position should be defended.

[NefeshChaim]

Some would argue that Neoconservatism (a word that is often misused) is originally from the left. I'm pretty sure many of the proponents of Neo-conservatism are former leftwingers or have views on socials issues and economic issues that line more closely with Liberals. I don't think its corrupt its just wrong. You can't base Foreign Policy on Ideological principles.

[amazingjames311]

old neo-con ideals did originate from the left.

the modern meaning of neo-con is a movement born out of the right.

it is used to discribe the hardline anti-communist agenda of the 50-early 90's, and solidified its self in the right due to their mutual dislike of the counter culture.

the "leftist" aspects of their beliefs are derived from the marxist concept of perminent revolution.

they also thought well of european facism prior to ww2 as it was obviously a bad promotion post war.

[NefeshChaim]

everybody argues that hitchens has changed so massively. I cannot see a difference. His ideology changes his principles don't. You don't have to be a socialist or anti-war proponent to truly be for liberty and peace.

[Gerkinstock]

Isn't Socialism in direct opposition to personal liberty more often than not?

[Salment]

I miss the old Hitch

[mythcrusher]

This is the kind of reasoned and thoughtful discourse that is SO sadly missing in the political realm today. Thanks so much for posting, and letting the viewers draw their own conclusions.

[lifter1204]

Hitchens: "The official reason given... There were several... They kept changing it"

God! Exactly the same situation with the Iraqi war! Amazing the complete spin Hitchens has taken, don't you agree?

[saintkamus14]

No, Hitchens argues that this war is nothing like the Iraq War, and that these "opressed" muslims are NOT opressed.

He makes it very clear, that the things those people dislike about our culture, are the things that we like about it:

Women that dress like normal persons and aren't opressed for example.

[lifter1204]

"Women that dress like normal persons and aren't opressed for example." Wow! So if a muslim woman decides to wear the clothes their culture has taught them they are "abnormal"? Wow! So, are Muslims "opressed" or not? You seem to be taking both positions. Anyway that was not one of the many reasons the Neocons gave for this immoral, unjust war-. Seems to me Hitchens is turning more and more to the right in his old age.

[Coruscator]

Many thanks.

[kat1989]

great, thanks. ive always wanted to see hitch and buckley together ever since hitch talked about his formidable nature in his eulogy. they seem wary of each other, or perhaps just respectful.

[CognosSquare]

This is good stuff, but I dont like Robinson fawning like a schoolgirl whenever buckley speaks, while interrupting Hitchens.

Buckley would not have done this to his guests.

[thinkforjoy]

Priceless, thanks for posting this.

[sirrobpeel]

Excellent.