35 posts tagged “iraq”

This time the James Taranto weighs in - with style!

Cut and Run and Then Run Back
With Hillary Clinton being written off (perhaps prematurely), the eight-month general election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama seems to be getting under way. Obama, apparently moving to the right, is now threatening military intervention in Iraq after years of demanding America's immediate surrender. As the Associated Press reports:

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq,' " McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable."

Quips Glenn Reynolds: "In Obama's defense, he probably reads the New York Times, which always calls it 'Al Qaida in Mesopotamia.' That may have confused him."

Obama's response to McCain, described in the same AP dispatch, makes even less sense:

"I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.

"But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. . . . They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place."

So let's see if we have this straight. Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't worth fighting because it wouldn't be there if it weren't for Bush and McCain. Obama is going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he will send them back to Iraq if al Qaeda are there, even though he now wants to withdraw notwithstanding al Qaeda's presence.

Yes, we can!

Let's Get Metaphysical
Mystified by the Obama phenomenon? Let Susan Neiman of the Einstein Forum, writing in the Boston Globe, explain it all to you:

Strange as it sounds, this is an election where metaphysics may count more than demographics, and focusing on the latter misses the point. Metaphysics determines what you hold to be self-evident and what you hold to be possible; what you think has substance and what you can afford to ignore. Hope is based on, or undermined by, your metaphysical standpoint. . . .

If it's a message so catchy that it has now made the rounds of cyberspace as a star-studded video, it's also one with roots as deep as Immanuel Kant. The "Critique of Pure Reason" is not easy reading, but it makes some startling claims. Kant tells us that Plato's ideal of a perfectly just state was always dismissed as a utopian dream; but if everyone had worked to realize those ideals, they would be true today. . . .

Obama's is a message to demand more--and not just for the young. His idealism is unsettling to many not because it's naive, but because it poses a challenge. If you assume that things cannot get better you have nothing to do but sit back and watch them get worse.

Yes, we Kant!

The last paragraph of Ms Neiman's comment is both perplexing and revealing in that the conclusions she draws have nothing to do with the pop philosophy she extruded in her first two paragraphs, and those conclusions themselves are merely imputed without evidence.  First, she makes an assumption as to why Obama's "message" is 'unsettling," then she makes an assumption as to the number of people affected, unless, of course, she knows firsthand. And if she's right,  Obama may have a bigger task ahead than he imagines, since he'll have to overcome the law of inertia..

Furthermore, it's illogical to assume, as Madam Philosopheress has, that people are challenged because they've grown lazy in the comfort of abandoned hope, and her comment shows the clear distinction between philosophy and logic. Everyone should hope Neiman sticks to the former and avoids logic entirely. Otherwise,  you assume that things cannot get better, and you have nothing to do but sit back and watch them get worse.

I normally don't have the patience, but Billy was just askin' for it.

And if you missed it, there are at least two reasons why: 1) It all took place elsewhere, and 2) It went by faster than even I expected.

It all started because I'm sick of liberal garbage and decided to see if I could bait Billy into making a fool of himself. I know, normally you don't have to trap liberals into doing that, but Billy was trying really hard to appear to be reasonable.

But I knew he wasn't. In commenting that he was appalled and opposed to the Times recent smear of our service personnel, Billy couldn't resist saying he was opposed to the war.

That wouldn't have enticed me into an exchange with a liberal, it was what followed that begged for a response: Billy said he opposed the war because it was "unnecessary."

The problem with that is, it's a lie. And Billy added to my suspicions a short time later when he said that he opposed war because he's a "human being."

For the record, the real reason he opposes the war is because it was entered into by a Republican, and most specifically, George Bush.

Of course, Billy felt he couldn't admit that because that's no reason, much less a noble one.

So now before I get to particulars, I want to announce that I'm abandoning my quest to find a rational liberal. It's not because in thirteen years of searching, I could not find a single one, it's that Billy has forced a reassessment.

Why is it that on a few occasions liberals appear reasonable and even borderline rational but it never lasts? See, I've been on the wrong quest. I need to broaden the scope.

So I'm now looking for the first -sane- liberal.

I mean, I've debated hyenas who advanced better arguments than most liberals, and I'd always felt it was because they were undisciplined or had ADD. I mean the liberals, not the hyenas which are clearly more disciplined.

It's now crystal clear: liberals are just nuts.

You can't believe what they believe and not be nuts.

I don't know if their beliefs made them crazy or they were crazy and naturally gravitated to wacko ideas, but does it matter, they're still insane.

Criminally so.

So while Billy appeared to be fairly rational at first glance, I thought it would be fun to try to provoke him into displaying his straightjacket-worthy self.

But I couldn't. And it had nothing to do with Billy possibly being that rational liberal we've all heard of from folklore. He took the bait all right - and quickly faded into the sunset after just a few simple questions - literally. It was an awesome sight.

Which prompts me to ask, do liberals turn to gas at lower temperatures than you or I?

Billy never even knew I'd perused his blog and seen he was completely different in his native habitat - frothingly obsessed with impeaching Bush and Cheney.

That may not be an absurd idea, but not for any of the reasons Billy thinks. In fact, Billy doesn't think, and he proved that when, in an attempt to mock me for employing a famous Monty Python debate technique, he said that liberals, unlike conservatives, are interested in "facts."

I know you're as dumbfounded as I was, but see for yourself, he said it.

So here's how it all unfolded...

After Billy said the war was "unnecessary," I responded with the perfect counter-argument: "It was absolutely necessary." I knew he'd find that preposterous even as he regarded his own "unnecessary" assessment as perfectly legitimate as a standalone argument.

Anyway, my exquisite refutation caused Billy to issue the standard absurd demand for links and documentation, to which I responded that those sorts of trivialities were unnecessary since he'd seen them all before and ignored them.

But then I added what I thought was too tempting for Billy to ignore: I said I could prove the war was necessary without having to send him anywhere else.

That was neither an idle boast nor a bluff, but I knew Billy would feel confident I couldn't do it.

And I was right. Billy bit.

I quickly got him to concede that he didn't oppose war because he was "human" (a debate in itself which I was willing to ignore for the moment) and that he only opposed wars he was opposed to. All I had to do was mention Darfur, which he was all in favor of.

But I'll never forget his response: "I see you have a plan."

Clearly, Billy wasn't used to that sort of thing. I can only imagine the shock he must have felt. But I could, because, you know... I was a human being.

Then I turned to Afghanistan. Billy was in favor of that too, but he hastened to add that he differed from his friends. It must have been gut-wrenching and so very lonely... if that mattered.

Because it's "just the facts, ma'am," and the fact was, Billy felt Afghanistan was "necessary."

I thought it important to toss Billy a bone so I mentioned that those precious "facts" he so cherished should certainly play a part in determining the necessity of any action, but that "necessary" itself is a value judgment... it's subjective... unless there's a checklist I don't know about?

But I never got to pointing out that if liberals really cared about facts, Clinton would have been convicted, they would admit Bush won Florida, and no one would know or care who Valerie Plame was..

And that's just three molecules off the tip of the iceberg of examples.

After getting Billy to admit that he was in favor of intervening in Darfur and Afghanistan, I asked if he was in favor of our involvement in Somalia and Kosovo, and if he'd also wished the other Billy had been a "human being" and sent troops to Rwanda?

I had intended to demonstrate to Billy that reasonable men can differ on what's necessary, and then we'd move on to Iraq after I pointed out that he favored intervention everywhere - except Iraq.

Now I've debated long and hard whether to present the rest of my "plan" here... because I never got to present it there. See, Billy bolted.

Apparently even he could see where it was leading, but in case he didn't, I've decided to save the rest of my argument. I will provide some hints though, since we can presume that Billy would have responded affirmatively for military force in Somalia, Kosovo, and Rwanda.

So of all the countries in which he favored our intervening, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Serbia/Kosovo, and Rwanda, which ones posed an actual threat to America and its interests?

Now compare any one of them to Iraq: which is strategically more important?

By the time we actually got to "Necessary or Unnecessary," we would already have extracted a long string of concessions from Mr. Goat.

And there was even another trap Billy had fallen into. He asked with an implied certainty like all good liberals do if I thought the Iraqi people were better off now.

Of course.

But I only think that because they are. And Billy doesn't think they are because his poor powers of thought and reason don't allow him to see the obvious - and his bias guarantees that.

Unless... say, you don't you think Billy would try to argue that Iraqis were not an oppressed people or that Sadie was "contained," do you?

Actually, i wouldn't put it past him, because it's not just that liberals are that stupid and they don't know the meaning of shame, they also never learn... or admit they were wrong.

But now don't think that Billy high-tailed it for the hills because he was about to be busted and he could read the writing on the wall. I mean, that's probably all true, but the real reason he left is far more elementary... we'd reached the third level of our little reasoning exercise, and he's never been beyond the second before. I'm sure he simply became disoriented and that he'll wander back in someday... probably completely by accident.

Which reminds me, anybody here seen my favorite little anti-Semite, Lenny?

They did it. They not only held their ground as every attempt was being made to undermine them, but they pushed forward. And in the process, they degraded the enemy to the point that critics can no longer cite attacks as evidence of failure.

Most of us already knew that the people who make up the American military are America's finest, but in a country whose culture and values have been corrupted, "finest" might not mean what it used to.

On the contrary, American military personnel are not just America's best, they are our best ever. They stand so far apart from and so far above the average citizen that the rest of us should only look up in amazement - or look down in shame. 

Thanks to you, the men and women who have humiliated al-Qaeda as you were building trust and credibility with the Iraqis, and may all your future Thanksgivings be better than this one.

Now for the rest of the story:

"Contrary to the myths of the left, peace can only be built over the corpses of evil men."

Petraeus for President!

Peters for Veep!

A very sincere gentleman by the name of Kevin just called into Rush Limbaugh, and identified himself as a veteran who served in Lebanon.

From the beginning and throughout the course of the conversation, Kevin expressed his contempt and disgust for the Democrats but the whole thing really started to build to a crescendo when he said that by his own private poll which he made up because that's what the major media do and he is, at least, close to the people he's "polling," he said that by his estimate, 99% of veterans support Republicans.

But Kevin's grand finale had just started. Rush then asked him what he thought of Harry Reid, and Kevin said that Reid was "the dirtiest of the dirty" and that he couldn't understand how such a great city and a great State like Nevada could elect such a dirty person.

Then Limbaugh asked Kevin what he thought of Nancy Pelosi...

Kevin (approximate): "She's the dirtiest of the dirty too. She and Dirty Harry ought to get married and have a dirty baby!"

Rush then thanked Kevin for his passionate comments, and this wonderful veteran left after one final plea to Rush not to let Hillary, whom he called the anti-Christ, be elected, and Rush assured him he would see that she wasn't.

Now you and I know that Rush can't really make that guarantee, but I wish you could have heard Kevin speak. He was intensely earnest, but not nasty. He was forceful, but he sounded gentle. He was, in short, what you picture one of America's finest to be.

The Top Ten Results If America Became An Islamic State

• National Anthem changed to that noise Islamic women make with their tongues when they celebrate
• Supreme Court upholds separation of church and state, orders lawyers who brought separation of mosque and state case be executed
• All space rockets and ships must face Mecca at all times
• No vulgarity on TV (unless you consider stonings to be vulgar?)
• Lower corn prices because - no pigs!
• No more technology races, instead, camel races!
• Global warming is Allah punishing infidels. Watch the world cool now that we control America 
• We issue a formal apology to Saddam Hussein
• Liberals discover Muslim word for them doesn't exist, and neither will they
• We bomb Iran's nuclear weapons facilities immediately because we're Sunni!
• For image reasons, we urge Taliban to change their name to "TaliCAN!"
• We join OPEC, but we're considered an "outlier"
• We blow up Mount Rushmore
• Snail mail's out, camel mail's in! They're faster, carry more letters and don't shrivel in the sun
• Society becomes gay free - in more ways than one

And the number one result of an American Islamic State:

• The Beheading Channel!

From the magnificent James Taranto:

Oh, the Humanity!
A report from the Integrated Regional Information Networks of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs brings what sounds like good news from Baghdad:

Iraqis are breathing a sigh of relief as violence in their war-torn country is ebbing and the number of violence-related victims has dropped sharply since the beginning of this year, according to statistics compiled by the country's interior, defence and health ministries.

"Violence-related deaths in September dropped remarkably to levels not seen in more than a year as the number [of violence-related deaths] stood at 290 while in September 2006 the number was about 1,400," Adel Muhsin, the health ministry's inspector-general, told IRIN in a phone interview.

But relief from violence is not without cost, IRIN notes:

Taxi driver Ahmed Khalil Baqir used to station himself outside Baghdad's main morgue, waiting for grieving families who went there to claim their relatives' dead bodies.

"I was totally dependent on them for my living," Baqir, a 44-year-old father of four, said." I never thought about picking up people in the street as I was being hired five to eight times a day by these families. But now it is a waste of time to wait there and these days I wait only for about three hours in the morning and I continue my work picking up passengers in the street."

And to make matters worse, he has to face competition from all those out-of-work hearse drivers.

I've said before he won't be elected if only because no one would want to see America led by a President with the name of Huckabee, but now there's a real reason.

But first, yesterday, Rep. Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. decided to vault right to the top of the list of the Filthiest Democrats in Congress. Sure it's a seemingly impossible feat for an unknown, but Stark, it turns out, is an extraordinary piece of scum that couldn't be kept hidden.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark said on the floor of the House*.

James Taranto picks up the story from there...

When Minority Leader John Bohener demanded an apology, Stark "responded only by calling those who voted to deny children health care 'chicken hawks'"

Stark, whose district covers much of Alameda County, Calif., south of Oakland, is--not to put too fine a point on it--a bit of a nut. When he has appeared in this column in the past, it has generally been for his outlying votes, such as these:

October 2004: In favor of Charlie Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft (a proposal so preposterous that Rangel himself voted against it.)

July 2006: Against a nonbinding resolution condemning terrorist attacks against Israel.

December 2006: Against a nonbinding resolution criticizing a French city for naming a street in honor of the man who murdered Philadelphia policeman Danny Faulkner.

The votes on these measures were 402-2, 410-8 and 368-31 respectively, so Stark is well outside the mainstream even of his own party.

So what does this have to do with one Mike Huckabee?

Here's the email I sent to Taranto:

Interestingly, in a segment which must have been taped before Stark said what he said, Mike Huckabee, appearing on the Glenn Beck show on CNN Headline News today, specifically and singularly cited Stark as a man he respected because, even though Stark was an atheist, he was a man who meant what he said.

Here's hoping you can catch the replay, which besides today, may even be repeated over the weekend.

And I must add that the fact that Huckabee respects Stark is not even the worst part. The absolute disqualifier is that he not only respects a liberal, he has the audacity to think he can say that with impunity.

I mean, I'm sure we'd all agree we'd much prefer to see Huckabee praising an Islamic terrorist.

* No Democrat has even demanded his resignation much less moved to oust him.

OK, so now at least we all agree that George Bush is the worst President there will ever be, but I still don't trust him.

And that's about the nicest thing I have to say, only because I don't even believe that his motives for going to war are entirely principled, although that doesn't matter much as long as there's some sort of conclusion that is beneficial to us, the Iraqis, and the world besides those benefits that accrue to his cronies, sponsors and benefactors.

And yes, I'll be the one to decide that.

So did you know amnesty's back? Yes, and this time it's in stealthy, incremental form. If you can't get it all at once, bury it in pieces and deep within other bills, and Jorge will sign it

Of course, Bush will sign virtually everything, so I'm not merely speculating.

And by the way, we've all seen snippets of the many times in his Presidency that George Bush has looked as stupid as John Kerry actually is, but I know we all agree that Mr. Bush has never looked stupider that at every single excruciating moment of his speech last week. It was so like a cartoon character that had been inserted in a live-action scene that I missed most of what he actually said owing to the fact that I kept wanting to throw up.

The Prez previously claimed that the surge didn't reach full strength until July. Now he wants to bring 5700 home by Christmas if I understand him right. If Petraeus had said that, I'd believe it was a good move... When Bush says it, it just sounds stupid.

Who Says War Can't Be Fun?

I heard from another lefty columnist. I mean, I wrote her first, she didn't just write to me spontaneously, no. "Spontaneous" better describes the column she wrote that prompted my email.

Trudy is another in the long line of liberals who felt compelled to take issue with Bush for having compared Iraq to Vietnam, and she got right to her point - the comparison "doesn't work."

I was tempted to write, "Does too" in keeping with the general level of these attempts to refute the President, and also because there's always a big choice to be made, at least for me - am I willing to deal with the inevitable burgeoning stupidity that my response might elicit?

Today, I was.

That's because Trudy's column appeared in the Sacramento Bee which, only a few days before, had published the most insipid editorial I have seen on this same subject. And if you decide to have a look, you'll be able to see that mine is the first comment about said editorial.

So I wrote the following to our faceless, and (I came to find) brainless columnist:

Rather than point out the obfuscation and untruths in a pointless effort to show you the error of your ways (that only works with people who are willing to recognize such errors, and besides, I have a
strong suspicion that you already know where you've erred), I'll simply ask how it is you feel that the Iraqi factions cannot be brought together to govern themselves in some suitable time frame (for you), yet you think "a serious U.S. diplomatic initiative" with Iraq's "neighbors" that includes our sworn and intractable enemies could bring about a satisfactory result (faster and more comprehensively), for us as well as for those same Iraqi factions that can't agree amongst themselves?

And regarding your title, have you been saying the same thing for years to those on the left who have been trying to tie Iraq to Vietnam in their never ending effort to embrace defeat, and who are now feeling a bit co-opted?

In the opening chapter of Trudy's book of shotgun responses, she included the following:

"I have repeatedly opposed Democratic calls for a swift pullout or a timeline, and have written repeatedly that an ill-considered pullout, without regional diplomacy, would lead to a situation worse than Vietnam"

I was subsequently treated to a tour of Trudy's mind, and I invite you to enjoy some of the highlights, as well as how I answered her... uh... visions:

First Trudy wondered, because I felt it perfectly justifiable if we were to attack Iran for supplying weapons to terrorists who are killing our troops and for developing nuclear weapons which it appears fully intent on using, if I would also want to attack Saudi Arabia because, as she put it, "wealthy Saudis' were funding the Sunnis?

Me: "Do you see what you did there? You equated arms funneled by a hostile government with (possibly) arms supplied by "wealthy Saudis...Not to mention that you offer no proof of your assertion. But if the Saudi government was developing nuclear weapons with the intent of
using them, I might think an attack was in order..."

The it became "Trudy in Wonderland"...

Trudy: "If a faction of the Revolutionary guards did do so, I find this comparable to the widespread transfer of funds by Saudis"

Me: "I'm sure you do. How convenient."

Trudy: "whose details (the wealthy Saudis), I'm sure, are often well known to Saudi and US intelligence."

Me: "I see. So you don't have those details, but somebody does, and they're just not saying?"

Trudy: "the Bush administration has repeatedly talked of "regime change" in Iran, so why would we expect Iran to co-operate inside Iraq."

Me: "Or outside it, say, in 'a serious diplomatic initiative?'" Not to mention that it isn't a case of Iran failing to "co-operate," it's an act of war."

Trudy: "There is no surer way to guarantee failure of our Iraq venture than to bomb Iran, which would doom our mission in Iraq (as Iraqi Shiite militias turn against US troops)"

Me: "Objection, your honor, witness is engaging in gross speculation both in terms of what form of action we might take and in the reaction to it from Shiite -Arabs- vis-a-vis Shiite Persians."

Trudy: "(and) probably send oil prices through the roof."

Me: "And although there is nothing whatsoever to support that assertion, you think that's sufficient reason to allow Iran to continue killing our troops and developing nuclear weapons?"

Trudy: "And, oh yes, it won't end Iran's nuclear program, nor will it lead to regime change."

Me" "Objection again, your honor, defendant has created a straw man (bombing Iran) and then employs more speculation in an effort to knock it down."

-- Intermission --

Remember, this began with Trudy's assertion that Mr. Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison didn't work, and look how far we've come...!?!

Trudy: "U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq, and in the Pentagon think that such a course would be disastrous."

Me: "Your honor, please direct the witness to focus on her original assertion that we should engage Iran in a diplomatic effort. All she's doing now is presenting reasons why her original idea wouldn't be a good idea for either side."

Trudy: "Only an administration that botched Iraq so badly could dream up such a lose-lose proposition."

Me: "I've already said that I had no love for this Administration, and I would completely agree that the operation was badly botched for years... as would Col. Ralph Peters (whom you should be reading this week in the Post, and no, not that Post), but this isn't about righting a course with you. As I suspected, you are merely one of the few on the left who has some semblance of a conscience and understands that what the wacko left wants would be, to use your word, "disastrous" in the true sense, not disastrous in the sense of a scenario you've made up in great detail and seem to believe is imminent.

Your original column was about the feasibility of engaging Iran and Syria in some nebulous effort to stabilize Iraq, and now we, together, have demonstrated that your idea is absurd. Although I must say, once you got started, you really didn't need my help. So I guess in that sense, you're to be congratulated.

Well, I figured I wouldn't hear from Ole Trud after that, and I haven't so I thought I should send her a short wrap-up note because I felt the above might have overwhelmed her already frazzled... what would you call them... thought processes?

Trudy,
 
I figured you wouldn't reply to my last response, so I'd like to simplify it.
 
Your headline was: "Tying Iraq to Vietnam doesn't work"
 
Now I know that you may not have written that headline, but it was, nevertheless, your point. However, Mr. Bush compared Iraq to Vietnam in a very narrow way - he said that a pullout from Iraq now would cause worse suffering in its aftermath than we saw in the aftermath of our Vietnam involvement.
 
And in your first response to me, you said this:
 
"I have repeatedly opposed Democratic calls for a swift pullout or a timeline, and have written repeatedly that an ill-considered pullout, without regional diplomacy, would lead to a situation worse than Vietnam."
 
So there you have it. You and Mr. Bush agree and you have, in your own words, said that -his- Vietnam comparison... does work.
 
Happy to be of assistance, as I remain,
 
Ted

--------

I'm sure it's just that Trudy had left for the day, and I look forward to her response after she's had plenty of rest.

There's one Christopher Hitchens who is as brilliant a thinker as there is. The other Hitchens is a raving lunatic. The problem is, they occupy the same body. 

I saw the latter Hitch on Joe Scarborough a year or so ago, and Scar said at the time he'd never have the hard-drinking Englishman back. I don't know if Joe kept his word, but after what I witnessed, I couldn't blame him for not wanting to worry about whether the thinker or the nut was going to appear each time.

I mention this because Hitchens has just shown his nuttier side in print, although I concede that it might be intentional this time since it involves George Bush's comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, and Hitchens may have seen that as an opportunity. But even if it was intentional on Hitchens part, it does him no good,

And of course, there are those who would argue that Hitchens can't be all that smart in the first place if he's a liberal. In my defense, I had never read one of his liberal arguments - that is until the one contained in this latest column in which he expresses disgust that Bush could have signed so many execution orders as Governor of Texas.... so now I join others in their skepticism - the "there" ain't there, at least some of the time.

But turning to Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison, it's not that it wasn't apt, it's that liberals feel they own that comparison and how dare a Republican turn the tables on them?!?

Since Hitchens has, for a decade, been severely out of touch with his ultra-liberal associates, first about Clinton's behavior (he was against it) and now about Bush's Iraq stance (he's for it), and with Bush's term coming to a close, Mr. Hitchens, somewhat understandably (if you excuse the preposterous ideology), might like to re-endear himself to his former compadres. And what better way to do it than to take a stand against Bush over something that's almost irrelevant, but which is very significant to those Mr. Hitchens would like to impress again?

In his commentary, Hitchens had to know that he was guilty of gross obfuscation if for no other reason than most of his points about why Vietnam differed from Iraq are ones in which he and the President would be in firm agreement. That's why Bush eschewed past Vietnam comparisons.

But Mr. Bush's recent comparison was very narrow and Hitchens had to know that - because he dismissed it in the course of his blusterous "refutation:"

"It is true that the collapse of the doomed American adventure in Indochina was followed by massive repression and reprisal, especially in Cambodia, and by the exile of huge numbers of talented Vietnamese. But even this grim total was small compared to the huge losses exacted by the war itself"

At least he characterized the aftermath properly, "massive repression and reprisal."

I know from personal experience how hard it is to be a man without a side, but Hitchens is smarter than I am, and he has to know that intellectual integrity is supremely important. If he doesn't, then he's not the man I thought he was.

And if he doesn't see how disingenuous his column is, Mr. Hitchens is not the man I thought he was.

And since it's already out there, he's, in fact, not the man I thought he was, and he's definitely not as smart as I thought he was. His column is disgraceful on several levels, and it conclusively and forever tarnishes his integrity and credibility across the board.

I just had a second look at the column, and the most interesting thing is that Hitchens has apparently failed to win back any support from those to whom his attempt at reconciliation was directed.