Christopher Hitchens on the crimes of Henry Kissinger 6/6

[truefakeness]

I wish Hitchens would do for Bush and Cheney what he did for Kissinger, and call for their trial as war crimes.

[teameymelli1]

6:35 CIA HQ

[peppermintpaddy]

I thoroughly applaud Hitchens debunking of Kissinger and the machinations of the upper echelons of the american government under Nixon.Why then is he such an apologist for Bush and the neo-con junta that has dragged American foreign policy into such disrepute.?Have thing really changed that much?For Kissinger read Cheney.

[artyfarty2]

Correction I meant to say 'Hitchens believers..'

[drrobotnik999]

his views on nixon and his views on the war against theocratic fascism in the middle east are not incompatible.

are you saying he is a bush apologist simply because he and bush both agreed that saddam needed to be removed from power in iraq?

[spokmage]

well the more i learn about hitchens, the more i see a cosmopolitan liberal viewpoint based on universal human rights and democracy.

in other words, some intervention is justified to promote these values.

i think the difference is that he perceives iraq as an intervention to make the middle east more democratic, while he sees the actions under nixon as in support of unjust regimes.

plus, the way they were conducted violated the principles that the US is supposed to uphold (and int'l law).

[SurelyYewJest]

Mostly correct, but he also includes the attempts by Saddam to eradicate the Kurds, and what he sees as the global struggle against religion, particularly (right now) militant Islam.

[SurelyYewJest]

CH's position on Iraq is not very much in line with Bush's at all. To be sure, he "agreed" with Bush that Saddam one of the most notorious dictators, that Saddam's regime was entirely oppressive but for those who were Baath Sunnis, and that Saddam was well past deserving any sympathy. But CH is far more purer and honest in his position than any neocon. CH is not a neocon; he still sees himself as the classic liberal opposing fascism. Saddam was fascist, ergo he should be opposed...

[SurelyYewJest]

But add to that his insistence that the US follow it's standards, especially with respect to Saddam's genocide. He also does not appear to base his stance on economic arguments per se. He sees that part, but his argument is a mixture of reasons for removal. He supported doing so prior to Gulf War 1. In contrast no neocon has ever voiced anything like CH's stance on the issue. CH has since alluded that while he agreed with removing Saddam, Bush's execution of the war was, um, less than ideal.

[hexag1]

yeah I was surprised to hear that too. Seems like Wolfowitz wasn't quite as 'Realist' as Hitchens had thought.

Hitchens elsewhere tells the story of how he met Wolfowitz: how Wolfowitz pitched himself as the anti-Kissinger, by showing how he had convinced the Reagan administration not to prop up the failing Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines.

[Brantinger]

He counted Wolfowitz as somebody from the Kissinger-Gang??? WtF?