@barryferguson Excelent point, asking Hitchens if he feel a personal responsabilty for Soviet agression was in such bad taste. Even Buckley was stepping up to Hitchens' rescue, if you notice.
Buckley simply owns him. I know that a lot of Hitch fans will always treat him with a certain sense of unction, but Buckley takes Hitch to the woodshed in this video.
Blatantly biased interview. Buckley vs Hitchens: Ideological clap-trap in the face of direct evidence, and what was then & now, common knowledge. Same shit different day folks.
It's refreshing to hear two people with contrasting political views and experiences being patient enough to listen and respond intelligently to each other. It's certainly rare (see below comments). Did this appear on TV? In the UK I can't see any similar intelligent debates happening on either TV commercial stations or the BBC at this moment. Possibly at midnight or on sunday lunchtime; maybe radio? As as a result do we get the politicans we deserve. Is it the broadcasters or us?
What about atrocities the USA empire has brought upon the world! What was the reason for people in cuba to rise up? Corperation manipulation of the governmet. What about the harm it inflicted in central america and south with its banana republics so profit could be maximised!
support of Talibans in soviet-afghanistan war? Support of Saddam hussein? Support of saddam in Iraq - Iran war? Saddams mustard gasing of the kurds with gas from usa that were to be used on iranian soldiers..
Amercians cant se anything for the propganda fog that they have had to live in for years, the black and white world. The 68 generation and the protestors are great thing for people in democratic country to have when the government is doing stupid things.DO americans really believe that their country is most perfect because of their capitalist system. Cap between poor and rich is getting wider and wider but still federal Debt is mount everest.
@ArniP1 Yes. Americans--not all of them mind you--do believe their country is the greatest in the world, partly because of their great capitalist machine. Never mind that capitalism is inherently exploitative. They take for granted that the rich deserve all the money they made and grow angry when the rich are taxed higher; they grow angry because they believe one day they too will be rich, so why should the rich be taxed? Perhaps the current depression will turn that around. Hopefully...
@yoseph89 Then you weren't listening, or you're too stupid to understand what was being said. Buckley was a tin-man. Hollow ideological rhetoric vs. evidence based exposition.
Really, I thought the riots of Mai 68 and the juvenile support for socioeconomic policies which inevitably lead to dictatorship but could work under the 'right' people (different dictators) obviously proved that the student culture was, on the whole, very self-indulgent, immature and ignorant of the true meaning of civilisation and morality.
I respect that you suspect rightist interview bias towards Buckley but Hitchens shows th 'fatal conceit' right?
I hate this interviewer's closed little baby face and twinkly little dolls eyes and the uninterrupted look of impertinence he gives as he ignores the truth and gives free hits to that insufferable old patrician piece of shit Buckley
Hitchens has the investigative journalist's, indeed, a scholar's command of the historical facts, Buckley a pundit's -a grab bag of phlegm stained platitudes. Which, he trots out in pathetic attempts to shore up positions long ago discredited and untenable from the outset.
Buckleigh relies entirely on the theatrics of his pseudo- erudite delivery. Here swallowed whole by the interviewer, a fine Hoover Institution Fellow and Buckley fellator.
What a fucking ridiculous question. So a young Marxist defector in Cuba is personally responsible for the atrocities carried out by self-styled Communist despots half a world away?
@ArtVandalay666 yes and no, what happend was that KGB paid and praised athuithors who spread propaganda. Jan Guiliou here in Sweden was even being paid for writing anti-american and pro communist articles.
@quezcatol If that's true then we should hold Milton Friedman, George Will and Thomas Friedman personally responsible for all the atrocities now being carried out all over the world in the name of free market capitalism.
I respect Hitchens. I disagree about Iraq. He understands that "right" and "left" are just tags. No persons real character ca be expressed as only this or that. He is issue driven in his opinions. He has well thought out reasons for them. If you agree with anyone or any party all the time, you have surrendered your ability to think. Law and its administration should affect our lives, not dogma and parties
You would think that Buckley would eventually learn his lesson about the effectiveness of going to war. He supported Vietnam at the time, but regrets it later. He supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, and then came to regret it. He supported the the latest Iraq war, and then said he would've opposed it.
Buckley regreted going into Vietnam. Having learned his lesson, he opposed going into Iraq. But despite this opposition, he supported Bush. It's a good example of a conservative being liberal with his principles.
All the things that made Ron Paul the only decent candidate in this election are all the things that make it impossible for someone like Ron Paul to ever be president. Some radicalism in the right direction might benefit us. We've already been pretty radical in the other direction for awhile.
Does anyone else note how when the debate is political in nature, Christopher Hitchens can go alongside someone whose views differ quite a lot form his and still have a productive discussion. Yet, now when he goes and does this same thing alongside any religious leader or person, it turns into an angry yelling match filled with personal attacks and such.
I don't think he can. Hitch is a bit of a bully. I think it's only because Viet is a thing of the past, and so now we're not talking policy, we're talking history. There's no urgency to the debate, no immediacy, nothing to be done. So he and Buckley can sit there and reminisce. Sadly, Buckley becomes enlightened about the state of things 30 years after he has any influence to change it. They really thought carpet bombing an entire nation into oblivion was the way to stop the spread of evil...
I concur with the opinions expressed here about the moderator: he is horrible -- obtuse and disputatious. He has two wonderful minds at the table and he is conducting the interview like a 16 year old driving a Ferrari.
The point Mr. Buckley made at 2:07 that "we were told that victory was around the corner" is a statment that hold tremendous pertinence with regard to the Iraq war. The same was said at the beginning of the Iraq war. We were told it would end shortly. Five years later...
I would be interested to know where the President made this statement about the Iraq war ending soon. Can you show me a direct quote that Bush made? As far as I can remember I have heard that it will go on for as long as it takes. Could be years.
If I find a link to a video, I'll post it. If not, try to recall the sentiments around the beginning of the invasion: "everyone" was under the impression it would be over "just about any day." The "We'll be there for as long as we have to be" attitude began showing its face when weeks, then months, then years passed, and we were still neck-deep in shit.
I'd agree there was plenty of insunation that the warfighting (combat ops against Sadaam's armed forces) would be over quickly...and it was.
I'm not aware of any specific statements regarding how long we would be in post-war iraq...although Bush/Cheney definitely implied democracy would take hold quickly and there would be little, if any, killing/insurgency.
None of the experts thought post-war iraq would be easy. Bush should have listened to them.
What has been hard about the occupation? They've secured the oil fields and the pertinent parts of baghdad; they've built their new embassy and military bases; and they have instituted their puppet gov which may or may not secure the country. No matter. Iraq is no threat now to Israel regardless of whether Iraqis are killing each other. Iraq is still a bountiful supply of oil (which may peak in just as few as 25 years - check the US geologic survey of world oil reserves). And it's still a cash
lmb: And of course, part of the reason we went in was for oil and in support of Israel. But I don't think Iraq was ever much of a threat (esp post 1992 Iraq) to Israel: the real threat is islamic fundamentalism.
BTW, your comments about haliburton and israel betray your bias and make your posts sound a bit prissy and snide.
lmb: IMO the Bush administration misled us about their reasons for invading so I can't be sure why they did it. But, I think the reasons were geo-political. The whole islamic fundamentalist thing was moving in the wrong direction....and moving fast. The only way to counter an ideology is with another ideology and I think we went into Iraq to install a legit democracy with the hope it would eventually spread throughout the region. A morally great idea, but with little liklihood of success.
Prissy and snide? Haha! Well, if they must. At this point, I dont think it's actually possible to address these issues without betraying ones bias. Note that to be 'unbias' = being neutral, or having no opinion. The two camps are very polarized on this issue the world round. As for me, I dont believe in the threat of Islamofascism. I think Islamic fundamentalists are only able to recruit from the mass of people because US and Euro policy is so belligerent towards the Muslim world.
lmb: OK, you got me on the definition of bias. I guess I should have qualified he word; "emotional bias" maybe.
Your reference to Haliburton sorta reminded me of a number of Liberals who adopt this prissy/sarcastic tone whenever referring to oil (as though it's something frivolous).
I'm not convinced islamic fundamentalism is much of a threat at this point either. IMO a lot of damage has been done to their ability to finance and coordinate complex operations.
I think you'll be waiting the rest of ur life for that 'reimbursement'. When the oil comes out after Iraq has been divided up by the multinat oil co's, all the profits will just go straight to wall st.
This really gets me. Gov officials dont mind bankrupting the country and leaving the debt load to the taxpayers if it makes mula for them and their ceo friends.
So it's not really 'we' who are stealing the oil, it's 'them'. Unless u are an exxon exec
So i share your idea that the reasons are geo-political, but where you seem to understand that to mean that it is a struggle between ideologies, i see it to mean a struggle for oil. I think the US has decided that the oil under the sands of the mid east is strategically vital to US national interests and so it will be secured for US interests, regardless of what that means for the Arabs above the sand. And sorry in advance for being foppish....
lmb: I'll agree none of this would be happening if it weren't for the oil. IMO Bush's geopolitical outlook and attempt to democratize (and thereby stabilize) the muslim world isn't being done out of the goodness of his heart; it's to ensure a continued flow of oil to the West, and security for Israel.
This is a rather selfish objective, but it doesn't mean the tactic of democratizing the middle east is a bad idea. But, Iraq proves it's very difficult to achieve.
I have to say that I think you have done sth horrible. Do I understand that your position is that one country should invade another if it thinks it can improve that countries gov? That there is such a thing as a 'friendly invasion'? That the thousands who die in the attack die well because a better form of gov is just around the corner? When I hear criticism about the Iraq or Viet wars based on the idea that the mission is noble, just the execution was shoddy, I really have to cringe.
lmb: No, that isn't my position. I think the geopolitical strategy of trying to democratize the arab countries is legitimate and moral. However, that does NOT justify invading anyone; we should only puruse these goals through diplomacy.
And yes, the post-invastion occupation was handled very badly. They should have had 400,000 troops on the ground from the start, retained the Iraqi army, focused on restoring critical services like water/electricity, etc.
I dont think they were ever concerned with nation building in iraq. I really think they just wanted to destroy it's mil capabilities and then start pumping out the oil for exxon. Nation building requires funding. It requires more troops which requires more $. It also requires those troops to stick their necks out to police iraq, which costs lives. The Amer public is concerned about $ and lives, so politically nation building isnt feasible. And i dont think they give a damn about iraq or anyone
else, including the amer people. I really think that since the end of WW2 Amer has been an imperialist country and the more i look into politics the more convinced i become of it. If they really wanted to protect us, wouldnt they focus on things like: expanding the FBI, more customs agents to inspect cargo containers/airports etc, more border guards on mex border. And also change the foreign policy to one based on cooperation rather than domination. Instead they do this:
lmb: The US is an empire, but only because we're the only superpower and led the West during the Cold War. Imperialism is defined as:
"Related to Empire building. The expansion of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political powers in other nations."
I don't think the US is imperialistic. Bush's goal is to democratize nations currently under dictatorships. Allowing President Maliki to kick us out of Iraq doesn't sound very imperialistic to me.
(1992) demolished Iraq's military and it never recovered. When we invaded in 2003 there was virtually no resistance at all. It's why Rumsfeld went in with so few troops.
And they DO care about Iraq. Not because we're "good" and "loving", but because a stable democratic Iraq serves our interests better...and just coincidentally it serves the interests of the Iraqi people better too.
"I don't think the US is imperialistic. Bush's goal is to democratize nations currently under dictatorships. Allowing President Maliki to kick us out of Iraq doesn't sound very imperialistic to me"
I think Amer foreign policy is actively imperialistic; it's not an accident of being the only superpower. Iraq as example. Maliki said we should leave. Neither pres candidate will withdraw all the troops. Obama's plan is to reduce down to about 50k. They have no intention of ending
the US mil presence. And the oil companies have signed 30 year contracts with the Iraqi gov, which im sure they werent given the option of refusing. The US mil will be the dominant force in the country for decades to come, and the resources of the country will be mostly exported and the profits will go largely to wall street. That is effective colonization. The goal is not to democratize. Any stable gov will due, dem or dictator. The key is a subservient gov. The US was happy with the Shah et al
lmb: Either you believe the Iraqi govt is a free democracy or you believe it's a powerless puppet. You cynically believe the latter; I don't.
Every govt trys to leverage their interests with other countries. This doesn't make them "puppets" because we sign agreements.
And forget the "we're stealing their oil" nonsense. I'm still waiting for all those Iraqi oil dollars/benefits to flow to the US. Last I heard, they haven't paid one damn dime in the form of reimbursement.
lmb: We're aggressive at expanding free trade and keeping our access to markets open. If that's your definition of imperialism, then OK.
I'm not buying your argument about leaving Iraq. Maliki has made a few public statements. That's all. If/when they want us out, they'll deliver notification in writing via diplomatic channels. Until they do this, it's just posturing for the upcoming Iraqi elections.
When the Philippine govt ordered us out, we were GONE within 18 months.
By the way, how cheeky is that? Invade a country, overthrow it's gov, destroy its economy - and then stick out ur hand for a 'reimbursement'!!
And its not 2 countries signing agreements. It's one country signing an agreement with another which has just occupied it, whose army is completely dominant. Iraq has no 'leverage' whatever. It's a master-slave relationship. Every other arab country has nationalized their oil, only iraq is to allow foreign companies control of it's fields - and profits.
"We're aggressive at expanding free trade and keeping our access to markets open. If thats your definition of imperialism, then OK"
Free trade, access to markets? Bull... did u read/see the "confessions of an econ hitman?" Look at the US control of the Panama canal, the oil and gas pipeline out of afghanistan, and the current US-Russia fight over georgia, which also has a pipeline from the caspian. And US treatment of 'banana republics' like honduras
lmb: fair enough. We've got a history of heavy handed diplomacy, particularly during the Cold War.
But what's the alternative? If the US retreated into isolationism tomorrow, who would fill the vacuum? Do you think "they" would be more or less benign than the US?
I've always found it funny that people demand perfection from the US but conveniently overlook abuses from totalitarian systems. Perhaps because our system is ammenable to change through public pressure and others are not.
"We've got a history of heavy handed diplomacy, particularly during the Cold War."
The Viet memorial wall in DC has 58,000 names on it. Many feel this to be a symbol of horrific loss of life for an unnecessary war. If the Viet built a wall, it would have 3 mill names, it could probably encircle their entire country, and would probably be seen as a symbol valor in the face of foreign aggression
The US carpet bombed the countryside of viet for years. I think 'heavy handed' is euphemistic.
lmb: I think the vietnam war was the right cause (containment of the spread of communism through military force), at the right time (the height of the cold war), but in the wrong country.
IMO N. Vietnamese communist expansion into the south was more about national unity and kicking foreigners out than it was about communism. In retrospect, we should have stayed out.
But, if this was 1962, I'd support the war...knowing what they thought they knew then.
"But what's the alternative? If the US retreated into isolationism tomorrow, who would fill the vacuum? Do you think "they" would be more or less benign than the US?"
Whats wrong with a 'vacuum'? Why do we need one country dominating world affairs at the expense of all the rest? cooperation instead of competition? or at least non-violent competit?
I'll vote Ron Paul this election. Non-interven F policy, not isolat. Remove the 735 US bases from the 130 countries. Trade, talk, not bully...
lmb: Hah! Got you now! A vacuum doesn't exist in nature. If the US withdrew somebody would fill the vacuum. If not tomorrow, then in the near future.
And don't be naive. For all their US-bashing, the europeans WANT us to take the lead. But they prefer a more Leftist, less bellicose style of leadership.
BTW, I like Ron Paul, but he's a bit too much like Ross Perot was. Comes across as incredibly sensible down-to-earth guy, but when you look under the hood there's not much there.
Haha...Well, i'm not sure that you 'got' me, as what ur talking about is a proposition of physics, not politics. Moreover, i hope ur goal is not to 'get' me. Sth i hate is 'debate'. That is, i have my side, u have urs, and then we just punch each other until sb falls down. That i think describes most of what happens in politics. Im more interested in dialogue which can produce sth new - 2 diff positions come together to produce a 3rd.
Euros want the US to lead? really dont know about that
If anything i think the EU is europe's competitive response to US hegemony. I think they feel under the thumb
And i dont know why u think there isnt much to Ron. I think he's one of the few guys who ran that had any substance. Mcsame and Obam just utter the same old platitudes: change change change, more jobs, better edu, less foreign oil. No real plans though. Just rhetoric. Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. I think those were the real candidates of change. Why do u say there's not much to Ron?
lmb: no, I don't want to get you. It was just the first time in this lengthy string where I saw an opening; your positions are pretty solid.
I don't think there's much to Ron because if you look at all his positions there's some pretty crazy stuff out there; he's too much of a purist. For example, getting rid of social security, withdrawing from NATO and the UN, etc. He's consistent in his positions, but I just don't think they're workable at the end of the day.
Solid? Haha...dont think any Bill O'Reily type would find them solid - "get back to cuba and hate america you commy lib" and what not...
As for Ron, i think he had alot of 'radical' (though good) ideas from his first pres run such as eliminate the CIA and the Fed, etc. But I think he's given up on most of that. Seems now he's really just concentrating on changing the militaristic foreign policy, limiting the money the fed prints to control inflation, and reducing the insane spending in Wash.
I dont see McCain reducing spending much, he talks it up but then the next sent out of his mouth will be sth about the military; any money he saves will probably go straight to the DOD. Obama will break the bank, if it's not already broken. Neither of them will ever mention anything about the Fed or the unchecked power it wields. And as far as the foreign policy, both are sticking to the 'tough on terrorism' line which necessitates constant US mil action around the world.
I think it's the path to disaster. Russia seems to have had enough. They're sending tanks and planes to Venez, they're building a nuke power plant for Iran, and we just had that Georgia conflict. It's looking like Russia and China, Iran, Venez vs NATO and oil is the name of the game.
I think it will take an extreme 'softening' of US foreign policy to avoid it. What do they call it, the "Project for a new Amer Century"? Might sound attractive to Americans, but i doubt to anyone else...
"I've always found it funny that people demand perfec from the US but conven overlook abuses from tot systems"
I think this may be a fundamental point of divergence between cons and libs. Libs make a distinction between the US and the US gov, cons seem unwilling to do this. So any criticism of US policy seems to them bad mouthing the country. I will criticize almost every gov on earth. The world seems ruled by SOBs who treat their citiz as tools. I think we need to recognize the US is no diff
There's a slight discrepency. The North Vietnamese army was still fighting at the end of Vietnam, where as we defeated Saddam's troops in 3 months. All of the killings you hear in Iraq are from sectarian groups coming in from Baghdad and other terrorist headquarters.
With over 4000 US killed,(30 since the inauguration) & over 100,000 wounded its a strange victory you claim & when the first free election is held after the US troops leave there will be an Islamic theocracy running the joint,yeah great stuff!
& dont forget the US is paying Muqtada al-Sadr & the Sadr army not to fight ,you know who Muqtada al-Sadr is?
Please. Quit the pathetic, patronizing tone. Yes, many Iraqis support Sadr, but he is very low as far as the first choice for president. Also, if you had read the Iraqi constitution, you would know about the Council of Representatives which vote for the President of Iraq. Much like the electoral college, it's an effective way to prevent demagogues from procuring power. But you wouldn't understand that because you'll believe anything to feed your defeatist ideologies.
You provide no argument, just some pathetic claims that can't be backed up. You make an erronious assumption that Iraq is doomed to destruction, as if its people are to backwards to live under a democracy. Dare I say I have some faith in the Iraqi people. Sadr has very little to no support as the next president. I've yet to see any opinion poll that even suggests that. But by all means, if it makes you happy, live in your xenophobic, little world.
xenophobic,i dont think so & Iraq doomed to destruction dont believe i said that either & your the one making claims about how you`ve won the war but its ovious that you know nothing about it because its common knowledge Muqtada al-Sadr is the most powerful man in Iraq.its ovious your a complete & utter fuckwit who`s scared of all things that are foriegn to the dimwitted American culture that the entire world finds so disgusting.a classic case of the excremental narcissist.
"its common knowledge Muqtada al-Sadr is the most powerful man in Iraq."
You've yet to give me any empirical evidence that even suggests that Iraqis would pick al-Sadr as their leader. As for your frivolous ad hominems...I'm the one putting faith in the Iraqi's discretion, you're the one claiming they'd elect a demagogue and a sadist. Also, you characterized American culture as "dimwitted," as if it could all be summed up in one fell swoop. And I'm the xenophobe?
The power of Al Sadr is unknown since many of his miltia was stripped of weapons and such in raids by the Iraqi Army .
His movement has also splintered within the last year and his call for reprisals against the US for the Israeli bombing of Gaza was largely ignored. Therefore, his influence may no thave been strong as it once was.
this guy is a fucking shitty moderator
ooorbjoo 1 month ago
I agree with everyone; the host is an absolute moron.
disamjisa 2 months ago
@barryferguson Excelent point, asking Hitchens if he feel a personal responsabilty for Soviet agression was in such bad taste. Even Buckley was stepping up to Hitchens' rescue, if you notice.
ClvrNmsSux 6 months ago
Buckley simply owns him. I know that a lot of Hitch fans will always treat him with a certain sense of unction, but Buckley takes Hitch to the woodshed in this video.
acmna 8 months ago
I think the interviewer is Buckley's son... cause he keeps looking at him like a lil ass boy. "Daddy!?" looool biased bitch.
xMPCxx 8 months ago
To be fair I think Buckleys closing statement on this segment was without a doubt his best point
ColdCypher 1 year ago
Blatantly biased interview. Buckley vs Hitchens: Ideological clap-trap in the face of direct evidence, and what was then & now, common knowledge. Same shit different day folks.
iiwatcher 1 year ago 2
Bad interviewer. Agreed. He's obviously biased. It's palpable.
rickylarch 1 year ago 3
It's refreshing to hear two people with contrasting political views and experiences being patient enough to listen and respond intelligently to each other. It's certainly rare (see below comments). Did this appear on TV? In the UK I can't see any similar intelligent debates happening on either TV commercial stations or the BBC at this moment. Possibly at midnight or on sunday lunchtime; maybe radio? As as a result do we get the politicans we deserve. Is it the broadcasters or us?
benbenking1 1 year ago
What about atrocities the USA empire has brought upon the world! What was the reason for people in cuba to rise up? Corperation manipulation of the governmet. What about the harm it inflicted in central america and south with its banana republics so profit could be maximised!
support of Talibans in soviet-afghanistan war? Support of Saddam hussein? Support of saddam in Iraq - Iran war? Saddams mustard gasing of the kurds with gas from usa that were to be used on iranian soldiers..
ArniP1 1 year ago
Amercians cant se anything for the propganda fog that they have had to live in for years, the black and white world. The 68 generation and the protestors are great thing for people in democratic country to have when the government is doing stupid things.DO americans really believe that their country is most perfect because of their capitalist system. Cap between poor and rich is getting wider and wider but still federal Debt is mount everest.
ArniP1 1 year ago
@ArniP1 Yes. Americans--not all of them mind you--do believe their country is the greatest in the world, partly because of their great capitalist machine. Never mind that capitalism is inherently exploitative. They take for granted that the rich deserve all the money they made and grow angry when the rich are taxed higher; they grow angry because they believe one day they too will be rich, so why should the rich be taxed? Perhaps the current depression will turn that around. Hopefully...
BuddhaBebop 1 year ago
i think theyre both intelligent, both making fairly good points
yoseph89 1 year ago
@yoseph89 Then you weren't listening, or you're too stupid to understand what was being said. Buckley was a tin-man. Hollow ideological rhetoric vs. evidence based exposition.
iiwatcher 1 year ago 2
The interviewer would pay Buckley to let him wipe his ass.
ColdCypher 1 year ago
i'm shocked hitchens didn't rip this guy a new one.
jozza5589 1 year ago
@jozza5589 He did if you were paying attention. Not everything has to be WWE style.
iiwatcher 1 year ago 2
@jozza5589 Is there a stronger word than shocked? Nowadays that guy would cower in the corner.
BuddhaBebop 1 year ago
"There was a hedonistic utopianism around"
Really, I thought the riots of Mai 68 and the juvenile support for socioeconomic policies which inevitably lead to dictatorship but could work under the 'right' people (different dictators) obviously proved that the student culture was, on the whole, very self-indulgent, immature and ignorant of the true meaning of civilisation and morality.
I respect that you suspect rightist interview bias towards Buckley but Hitchens shows th 'fatal conceit' right?
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
I would love to have been there for the cocktails they had afterwards.
RobetPaulG 2 years ago
I hate this interviewer's closed little baby face and twinkly little dolls eyes and the uninterrupted look of impertinence he gives as he ignores the truth and gives free hits to that insufferable old patrician piece of shit Buckley
MassiveJungle 2 years ago
Hitchens has the investigative journalist's, indeed, a scholar's command of the historical facts, Buckley a pundit's -a grab bag of phlegm stained platitudes. Which, he trots out in pathetic attempts to shore up positions long ago discredited and untenable from the outset.
Buckleigh relies entirely on the theatrics of his pseudo- erudite delivery. Here swallowed whole by the interviewer, a fine Hoover Institution Fellow and Buckley fellator.
fctchk 2 years ago
You can see that Hitchens respects Buckley.
krane33 2 years ago
what a douche this interviewer is.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 3
The interviewer is a complete cunt.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
What a fucking ridiculous question. So a young Marxist defector in Cuba is personally responsible for the atrocities carried out by self-styled Communist despots half a world away?
ArtVandalay666 2 years ago 26
@ArtVandalay666 yes and no, what happend was that KGB paid and praised athuithors who spread propaganda. Jan Guiliou here in Sweden was even being paid for writing anti-american and pro communist articles.
So yes, and no.
quezcatol 1 year ago
@quezcatol If that's true then we should hold Milton Friedman, George Will and Thomas Friedman personally responsible for all the atrocities now being carried out all over the world in the name of free market capitalism.
ArtVandalay666 1 year ago
@ArtVandalay666 welcome to the twisted, biased anti-liberal-masquerading-as-anticommunist lunacy that is the right-wing.
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
I respect Hitchens. I disagree about Iraq. He understands that "right" and "left" are just tags. No persons real character ca be expressed as only this or that. He is issue driven in his opinions. He has well thought out reasons for them. If you agree with anyone or any party all the time, you have surrendered your ability to think. Law and its administration should affect our lives, not dogma and parties
finerbiner 2 years ago 4
Yes. The only way to live is as a true moderate. Not a compromising moderate, but a true moderate.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
God I wish Hitchens would come back to the left.
henrythesteinberg 2 years ago
This is a much different Buckley than the one from the Firing Line. He knows he has lived a lie, and it shows in his eyes.
zigzagbigbag 3 years ago
The United States is like a child molester that preys upon smaller nations.
ludachris475 3 years ago
You would think that Buckley would eventually learn his lesson about the effectiveness of going to war. He supported Vietnam at the time, but regrets it later. He supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, and then came to regret it. He supported the the latest Iraq war, and then said he would've opposed it.
How could Bill be blindsided so easily?
Ewilds 3 years ago 3
Why did they cut off the part where they discussed civil rights
mozart20dlubos 3 years ago
Buckley regreted going into Vietnam. Having learned his lesson, he opposed going into Iraq. But despite this opposition, he supported Bush. It's a good example of a conservative being liberal with his principles.
bondurango 3 years ago
All the things that made Ron Paul the only decent candidate in this election are all the things that make it impossible for someone like Ron Paul to ever be president. Some radicalism in the right direction might benefit us. We've already been pretty radical in the other direction for awhile.
FistInTheAir420 3 years ago
Does anyone else note how when the debate is political in nature, Christopher Hitchens can go alongside someone whose views differ quite a lot form his and still have a productive discussion. Yet, now when he goes and does this same thing alongside any religious leader or person, it turns into an angry yelling match filled with personal attacks and such.
jacobssandy 3 years ago
I don't think he can. Hitch is a bit of a bully. I think it's only because Viet is a thing of the past, and so now we're not talking policy, we're talking history. There's no urgency to the debate, no immediacy, nothing to be done. So he and Buckley can sit there and reminisce. Sadly, Buckley becomes enlightened about the state of things 30 years after he has any influence to change it. They really thought carpet bombing an entire nation into oblivion was the way to stop the spread of evil...
lmb193 3 years ago
Peter Robinson just seems more and more homosexual as these videos go on!
Interesting video though!
warmjets 3 years ago
Christopher Hitchens used to be so good. what happen?
freethinker17 3 years ago
This was recorded in 98. Perhaps your opinion is that he got better?
AlastairHeggie 3 years ago
That host looks like Niel Cavuto, minus 50 lbs
Darrrrrrrrren 3 years ago
lol!
urmomma158 3 years ago
I concur with the opinions expressed here about the moderator: he is horrible -- obtuse and disputatious. He has two wonderful minds at the table and he is conducting the interview like a 16 year old driving a Ferrari.
bertinotti 3 years ago
That moderator is really a twit.
crufflerdoug 3 years ago
the interviewer is disgraceful
"soviet domination" and asking hitchens whether he feels personally responsible, unbelievable
barryferguson 3 years ago 25
Hitchens is such a turn coat with his support for the invasion of Iraq.
nicogum 3 years ago
No doubt
Darrrrrrrrren 3 years ago
Buckley at 2:05. Listen up Mr. McCain.
eirefrance 3 years ago
Wow this interviewer is so biased.
overmind25 3 years ago 5
I wouldnt neccessarily say that.
Darrrrrrrrren 3 years ago
fantastic. thanks.
llapole 3 years ago
The point Mr. Buckley made at 2:07 that "we were told that victory was around the corner" is a statment that hold tremendous pertinence with regard to the Iraq war. The same was said at the beginning of the Iraq war. We were told it would end shortly. Five years later...
robtul12 3 years ago
Yeah, I was going to type just this.
Commando303X 3 years ago
I would be interested to know where the President made this statement about the Iraq war ending soon. Can you show me a direct quote that Bush made? As far as I can remember I have heard that it will go on for as long as it takes. Could be years.
Entropy56 3 years ago
If I find a link to a video, I'll post it. If not, try to recall the sentiments around the beginning of the invasion: "everyone" was under the impression it would be over "just about any day." The "We'll be there for as long as we have to be" attitude began showing its face when weeks, then months, then years passed, and we were still neck-deep in shit.
Commando303X 3 years ago
I'd agree there was plenty of insunation that the warfighting (combat ops against Sadaam's armed forces) would be over quickly...and it was.
I'm not aware of any specific statements regarding how long we would be in post-war iraq...although Bush/Cheney definitely implied democracy would take hold quickly and there would be little, if any, killing/insurgency.
None of the experts thought post-war iraq would be easy. Bush should have listened to them.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
What has been hard about the occupation? They've secured the oil fields and the pertinent parts of baghdad; they've built their new embassy and military bases; and they have instituted their puppet gov which may or may not secure the country. No matter. Iraq is no threat now to Israel regardless of whether Iraqis are killing each other. Iraq is still a bountiful supply of oil (which may peak in just as few as 25 years - check the US geologic survey of world oil reserves). And it's still a cash
lmb193 3 years ago
cow for halliburton + company. And Iranian oil is right next door! Lookin good...
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: And of course, part of the reason we went in was for oil and in support of Israel. But I don't think Iraq was ever much of a threat (esp post 1992 Iraq) to Israel: the real threat is islamic fundamentalism.
BTW, your comments about haliburton and israel betray your bias and make your posts sound a bit prissy and snide.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
lmb: IMO the Bush administration misled us about their reasons for invading so I can't be sure why they did it. But, I think the reasons were geo-political. The whole islamic fundamentalist thing was moving in the wrong direction....and moving fast. The only way to counter an ideology is with another ideology and I think we went into Iraq to install a legit democracy with the hope it would eventually spread throughout the region. A morally great idea, but with little liklihood of success.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Prissy and snide? Haha! Well, if they must. At this point, I dont think it's actually possible to address these issues without betraying ones bias. Note that to be 'unbias' = being neutral, or having no opinion. The two camps are very polarized on this issue the world round. As for me, I dont believe in the threat of Islamofascism. I think Islamic fundamentalists are only able to recruit from the mass of people because US and Euro policy is so belligerent towards the Muslim world.
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: OK, you got me on the definition of bias. I guess I should have qualified he word; "emotional bias" maybe.
Your reference to Haliburton sorta reminded me of a number of Liberals who adopt this prissy/sarcastic tone whenever referring to oil (as though it's something frivolous).
I'm not convinced islamic fundamentalism is much of a threat at this point either. IMO a lot of damage has been done to their ability to finance and coordinate complex operations.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
I think you'll be waiting the rest of ur life for that 'reimbursement'. When the oil comes out after Iraq has been divided up by the multinat oil co's, all the profits will just go straight to wall st.
This really gets me. Gov officials dont mind bankrupting the country and leaving the debt load to the taxpayers if it makes mula for them and their ceo friends.
So it's not really 'we' who are stealing the oil, it's 'them'. Unless u are an exxon exec
lmb193 3 years ago
So i share your idea that the reasons are geo-political, but where you seem to understand that to mean that it is a struggle between ideologies, i see it to mean a struggle for oil. I think the US has decided that the oil under the sands of the mid east is strategically vital to US national interests and so it will be secured for US interests, regardless of what that means for the Arabs above the sand. And sorry in advance for being foppish....
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: I'll agree none of this would be happening if it weren't for the oil. IMO Bush's geopolitical outlook and attempt to democratize (and thereby stabilize) the muslim world isn't being done out of the goodness of his heart; it's to ensure a continued flow of oil to the West, and security for Israel.
This is a rather selfish objective, but it doesn't mean the tactic of democratizing the middle east is a bad idea. But, Iraq proves it's very difficult to achieve.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
I have to say that I think you have done sth horrible. Do I understand that your position is that one country should invade another if it thinks it can improve that countries gov? That there is such a thing as a 'friendly invasion'? That the thousands who die in the attack die well because a better form of gov is just around the corner? When I hear criticism about the Iraq or Viet wars based on the idea that the mission is noble, just the execution was shoddy, I really have to cringe.
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: No, that isn't my position. I think the geopolitical strategy of trying to democratize the arab countries is legitimate and moral. However, that does NOT justify invading anyone; we should only puruse these goals through diplomacy.
And yes, the post-invastion occupation was handled very badly. They should have had 400,000 troops on the ground from the start, retained the Iraqi army, focused on restoring critical services like water/electricity, etc.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
I dont think they were ever concerned with nation building in iraq. I really think they just wanted to destroy it's mil capabilities and then start pumping out the oil for exxon. Nation building requires funding. It requires more troops which requires more $. It also requires those troops to stick their necks out to police iraq, which costs lives. The Amer public is concerned about $ and lives, so politically nation building isnt feasible. And i dont think they give a damn about iraq or anyone
lmb193 3 years ago
else, including the amer people. I really think that since the end of WW2 Amer has been an imperialist country and the more i look into politics the more convinced i become of it. If they really wanted to protect us, wouldnt they focus on things like: expanding the FBI, more customs agents to inspect cargo containers/airports etc, more border guards on mex border. And also change the foreign policy to one based on cooperation rather than domination. Instead they do this:
watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: The US is an empire, but only because we're the only superpower and led the West during the Cold War. Imperialism is defined as:
"Related to Empire building. The expansion of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political powers in other nations."
I don't think the US is imperialistic. Bush's goal is to democratize nations currently under dictatorships. Allowing President Maliki to kick us out of Iraq doesn't sound very imperialistic to me.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
lmb: I can't agree. The first Gulf War
(1992) demolished Iraq's military and it never recovered. When we invaded in 2003 there was virtually no resistance at all. It's why Rumsfeld went in with so few troops.
And they DO care about Iraq. Not because we're "good" and "loving", but because a stable democratic Iraq serves our interests better...and just coincidentally it serves the interests of the Iraqi people better too.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Whoa! What??
"I don't think the US is imperialistic. Bush's goal is to democratize nations currently under dictatorships. Allowing President Maliki to kick us out of Iraq doesn't sound very imperialistic to me"
I think Amer foreign policy is actively imperialistic; it's not an accident of being the only superpower. Iraq as example. Maliki said we should leave. Neither pres candidate will withdraw all the troops. Obama's plan is to reduce down to about 50k. They have no intention of ending
lmb193 3 years ago
the US mil presence. And the oil companies have signed 30 year contracts with the Iraqi gov, which im sure they werent given the option of refusing. The US mil will be the dominant force in the country for decades to come, and the resources of the country will be mostly exported and the profits will go largely to wall street. That is effective colonization. The goal is not to democratize. Any stable gov will due, dem or dictator. The key is a subservient gov. The US was happy with the Shah et al
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: Either you believe the Iraqi govt is a free democracy or you believe it's a powerless puppet. You cynically believe the latter; I don't.
Every govt trys to leverage their interests with other countries. This doesn't make them "puppets" because we sign agreements.
And forget the "we're stealing their oil" nonsense. I'm still waiting for all those Iraqi oil dollars/benefits to flow to the US. Last I heard, they haven't paid one damn dime in the form of reimbursement.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
why won't it let me post this!!!!!!
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: We're aggressive at expanding free trade and keeping our access to markets open. If that's your definition of imperialism, then OK.
I'm not buying your argument about leaving Iraq. Maliki has made a few public statements. That's all. If/when they want us out, they'll deliver notification in writing via diplomatic channels. Until they do this, it's just posturing for the upcoming Iraqi elections.
When the Philippine govt ordered us out, we were GONE within 18 months.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
By the way, how cheeky is that? Invade a country, overthrow it's gov, destroy its economy - and then stick out ur hand for a 'reimbursement'!!
And its not 2 countries signing agreements. It's one country signing an agreement with another which has just occupied it, whose army is completely dominant. Iraq has no 'leverage' whatever. It's a master-slave relationship. Every other arab country has nationalized their oil, only iraq is to allow foreign companies control of it's fields - and profits.
lmb193 3 years ago
And i really need to take issue with this:
"We're aggressive at expanding free trade and keeping our access to markets open. If thats your definition of imperialism, then OK"
Free trade, access to markets? Bull... did u read/see the "confessions of an econ hitman?" Look at the US control of the Panama canal, the oil and gas pipeline out of afghanistan, and the current US-Russia fight over georgia, which also has a pipeline from the caspian. And US treatment of 'banana republics' like honduras
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: fair enough. We've got a history of heavy handed diplomacy, particularly during the Cold War.
But what's the alternative? If the US retreated into isolationism tomorrow, who would fill the vacuum? Do you think "they" would be more or less benign than the US?
I've always found it funny that people demand perfection from the US but conveniently overlook abuses from totalitarian systems. Perhaps because our system is ammenable to change through public pressure and others are not.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
"We've got a history of heavy handed diplomacy, particularly during the Cold War."
The Viet memorial wall in DC has 58,000 names on it. Many feel this to be a symbol of horrific loss of life for an unnecessary war. If the Viet built a wall, it would have 3 mill names, it could probably encircle their entire country, and would probably be seen as a symbol valor in the face of foreign aggression
The US carpet bombed the countryside of viet for years. I think 'heavy handed' is euphemistic.
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: I think the vietnam war was the right cause (containment of the spread of communism through military force), at the right time (the height of the cold war), but in the wrong country.
IMO N. Vietnamese communist expansion into the south was more about national unity and kicking foreigners out than it was about communism. In retrospect, we should have stayed out.
But, if this was 1962, I'd support the war...knowing what they thought they knew then.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
"But what's the alternative? If the US retreated into isolationism tomorrow, who would fill the vacuum? Do you think "they" would be more or less benign than the US?"
Whats wrong with a 'vacuum'? Why do we need one country dominating world affairs at the expense of all the rest? cooperation instead of competition? or at least non-violent competit?
I'll vote Ron Paul this election. Non-interven F policy, not isolat. Remove the 735 US bases from the 130 countries. Trade, talk, not bully...
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: Hah! Got you now! A vacuum doesn't exist in nature. If the US withdrew somebody would fill the vacuum. If not tomorrow, then in the near future.
And don't be naive. For all their US-bashing, the europeans WANT us to take the lead. But they prefer a more Leftist, less bellicose style of leadership.
BTW, I like Ron Paul, but he's a bit too much like Ross Perot was. Comes across as incredibly sensible down-to-earth guy, but when you look under the hood there's not much there.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Haha...Well, i'm not sure that you 'got' me, as what ur talking about is a proposition of physics, not politics. Moreover, i hope ur goal is not to 'get' me. Sth i hate is 'debate'. That is, i have my side, u have urs, and then we just punch each other until sb falls down. That i think describes most of what happens in politics. Im more interested in dialogue which can produce sth new - 2 diff positions come together to produce a 3rd.
Euros want the US to lead? really dont know about that
lmb193 3 years ago
If anything i think the EU is europe's competitive response to US hegemony. I think they feel under the thumb
And i dont know why u think there isnt much to Ron. I think he's one of the few guys who ran that had any substance. Mcsame and Obam just utter the same old platitudes: change change change, more jobs, better edu, less foreign oil. No real plans though. Just rhetoric. Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. I think those were the real candidates of change. Why do u say there's not much to Ron?
lmb193 3 years ago
lmb: no, I don't want to get you. It was just the first time in this lengthy string where I saw an opening; your positions are pretty solid.
I don't think there's much to Ron because if you look at all his positions there's some pretty crazy stuff out there; he's too much of a purist. For example, getting rid of social security, withdrawing from NATO and the UN, etc. He's consistent in his positions, but I just don't think they're workable at the end of the day.
JohnR22926 3 years ago 2
Solid? Haha...dont think any Bill O'Reily type would find them solid - "get back to cuba and hate america you commy lib" and what not...
As for Ron, i think he had alot of 'radical' (though good) ideas from his first pres run such as eliminate the CIA and the Fed, etc. But I think he's given up on most of that. Seems now he's really just concentrating on changing the militaristic foreign policy, limiting the money the fed prints to control inflation, and reducing the insane spending in Wash.
lmb193 3 years ago
I dont see McCain reducing spending much, he talks it up but then the next sent out of his mouth will be sth about the military; any money he saves will probably go straight to the DOD. Obama will break the bank, if it's not already broken. Neither of them will ever mention anything about the Fed or the unchecked power it wields. And as far as the foreign policy, both are sticking to the 'tough on terrorism' line which necessitates constant US mil action around the world.
lmb193 3 years ago
I think it's the path to disaster. Russia seems to have had enough. They're sending tanks and planes to Venez, they're building a nuke power plant for Iran, and we just had that Georgia conflict. It's looking like Russia and China, Iran, Venez vs NATO and oil is the name of the game.
I think it will take an extreme 'softening' of US foreign policy to avoid it. What do they call it, the "Project for a new Amer Century"? Might sound attractive to Americans, but i doubt to anyone else...
lmb193 3 years ago
"I've always found it funny that people demand perfec from the US but conven overlook abuses from tot systems"
I think this may be a fundamental point of divergence between cons and libs. Libs make a distinction between the US and the US gov, cons seem unwilling to do this. So any criticism of US policy seems to them bad mouthing the country. I will criticize almost every gov on earth. The world seems ruled by SOBs who treat their citiz as tools. I think we need to recognize the US is no diff
lmb193 3 years ago
I guess I should have scrolled down before I wrote what I did.
eirefrance 3 years ago
There's a slight discrepency. The North Vietnamese army was still fighting at the end of Vietnam, where as we defeated Saddam's troops in 3 months. All of the killings you hear in Iraq are from sectarian groups coming in from Baghdad and other terrorist headquarters.
Mike3303 3 years ago
With over 4000 US killed,(30 since the inauguration) & over 100,000 wounded its a strange victory you claim & when the first free election is held after the US troops leave there will be an Islamic theocracy running the joint,yeah great stuff!
& dont forget the US is paying Muqtada al-Sadr & the Sadr army not to fight ,you know who Muqtada al-Sadr is?
he`s the next dictator of Iraq.
znotty 3 years ago
Please. Quit the pathetic, patronizing tone. Yes, many Iraqis support Sadr, but he is very low as far as the first choice for president. Also, if you had read the Iraqi constitution, you would know about the Council of Representatives which vote for the President of Iraq. Much like the electoral college, it's an effective way to prevent demagogues from procuring power. But you wouldn't understand that because you'll believe anything to feed your defeatist ideologies.
Mike3303 3 years ago
the Council of Representatives has about as much future as your argument but you wouldn`t understand because your a condescending bore.
the US has won nothing in Iraq & in 18 months will be gone leaving Muqtada al-Sadr to asume formal control.
the USA can then set about getting totalled in Afghanistan.
Iraqi constitution you cant be serious.
znotty 3 years ago
You provide no argument, just some pathetic claims that can't be backed up. You make an erronious assumption that Iraq is doomed to destruction, as if its people are to backwards to live under a democracy. Dare I say I have some faith in the Iraqi people. Sadr has very little to no support as the next president. I've yet to see any opinion poll that even suggests that. But by all means, if it makes you happy, live in your xenophobic, little world.
Mike3303 3 years ago
xenophobic,i dont think so & Iraq doomed to destruction dont believe i said that either & your the one making claims about how you`ve won the war but its ovious that you know nothing about it because its common knowledge Muqtada al-Sadr is the most powerful man in Iraq.its ovious your a complete & utter fuckwit who`s scared of all things that are foriegn to the dimwitted American culture that the entire world finds so disgusting.a classic case of the excremental narcissist.
znotty 3 years ago
"its common knowledge Muqtada al-Sadr is the most powerful man in Iraq."
You've yet to give me any empirical evidence that even suggests that Iraqis would pick al-Sadr as their leader. As for your frivolous ad hominems...I'm the one putting faith in the Iraqi's discretion, you're the one claiming they'd elect a demagogue and a sadist. Also, you characterized American culture as "dimwitted," as if it could all be summed up in one fell swoop. And I'm the xenophobe?
Mike3303 3 years ago
i wouldn`t give you a bucket of piss if you were on fire.
znotty 3 years ago
The power of Al Sadr is unknown since many of his miltia was stripped of weapons and such in raids by the Iraqi Army .
His movement has also splintered within the last year and his call for reprisals against the US for the Israeli bombing of Gaza was largely ignored. Therefore, his influence may no thave been strong as it once was.
rgman268 2 years ago
You guys are #1.
sirrobpeel 3 years ago