I am going to read the article right now. Thank you for posting the link. After I've digested Hitch's remarks, I'll tell you if I saw it the same way that you did.

I'll tell you in advance though, that there is a difference between saying the Iranian lunatic "didn't mean it" and saying "he meant it but so what? We can take the punk."

One is an apologia which must be denounced. The other is not.

Which did Hitch do? I'll tell you what I think in a few minutes.

DB

"Look for Liberals to tell us that he really doesn't mean it." Or, look for them to look the other way.

How much coverage will the nightly TV news broadcasts give to this? That tells you how important / unimportant they think it is.

Better yet, compare the coverage of Mel Gibson's recent drunken outburst with the Iranian president's speech. Which is the real threat? And which is treated as if it's the real threat?

Back.

Ok, here are the sentances in question: "Moreover, though it may well be doubted that the Iranian mullahs want to blow away the Dome of the Rock and the Palestinian population in a thermonuclear mist (a consideration invariably ignored in febrile discussions of "the Islamic bomb"), nobody can quite overlook the latent connection between Iran's weapons program and the apocalyptic ravings of its leadership."

As I read it, Hitch is saying that the Iranian lunmatic "didn't mean it" (point to Mr. Avrech) but this falls short of apologia because Hitch gives us a good reason for doubting the mullahs sincerity, ie, the Muslim leader of Iran is unlikely to destory the Muslim holy sites, nor is he likely to commit the mass murder of 1 million Arabs.

However, in the second part of the paragarah, as I see it, Hitch does concede that the creep might, in fact, be serious.

Also, overlooked, is the essay's very first sentance in which Hitch states emphatically that Israeli citizens have the right "to be free of random attacks from Katyusha missiles fired across an internationally recognized border."

That's something Israels friends on both sides of the aisle - liberals and conservatives alike - can agree about, am I right?

DB:

This is not complicated. This is about the Iranian nuke. It's not about anything else. I'm not going to be drawn into complicated arguments that have nothing to do with other than the original point which is: Hitchens flatly denies that Israel has anything to fear from an Iranian Nuclear mist.

I'm not looking to change your mind.

I seek only clarity for my readers and thus we will leave it.

The delusion of the liberal mind is laid bare.

I thank you for exposing it so nakedly.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

See this:

http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2006/08/unter-menschen-left-and-cameras-are.html

I noted re the liberals, the UN, et al, that "Inevitably, there will be some useless votes at the UN, in support of this or in condemnation of that. Some will call it a showdown between Europe and America, but in fact, the upcoming United votes will be about much more than that.

The world will watch as hands will be raised high in support of freedom and morality or outstretched in support of the agenda of the 'unter-menschen' and darkness.

The cameras will be rolling.

Hitchens flatly denies that Israel has anything to fear from an Iranian Nuclear mist.

Not quite so flatly... he did say "nobody can quite overlook the latent connection between Iran's weapons program and the apocalyptic ravings of its leadership."

Let me ask you a related question: Do you think the lunatic in Tehran is crazy enough to kill 1 million Arabs and to destroy Muslim holy sites? I admit that I'm not sure, but what do you think?

Sig:

Well, of course DB and his ilk will say something like: "Well we liberals are quite distinct from the left."

Which is the kind of linguistic rubbish which would make Wittgenstein's head explode.

Wittgenstein? Hardly. Hw had real depth.

These guys like quoting Heidegger- You know, the Zen and pompousity crap that passes for liberal thought.

DB:

Good G-d. The leadership in Tehran used one million of their own children as minesweepers in their war against Iraq. Why wouldn't they murder Arabs they couldn't care less about?

The Palis are merely are pretext.

DB-

"Like the Nazis before them, the left sees the victims in Darfur, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Algeria and a host of other places, as no more than the sad but necessary elimination of 'undesirables,' the mentally ill, the physically handicapped and other 'anomalies.' There can be no other explanation. If the left cared, they would have moved heaven and earth, to come to the aid of those victims as they do for the Palestinian and Arab world, causes that represent nowhere the tragedies mentioned. Instead, the left gave those issues a bit of lip service, but no more. The left cannot be bothered with the victims of [real] genocide.

That the left are not even ashamed of their open disregard for the victims of some of the greatest genocides of our times, is proof positive of the moral decay that is the hallmark of the 'unter-mensch.' That the left have openly come to view the same kind of open and visceral hate that has become the defining ideology of the Arab world, as an appropriate expression of their ideologies, speaks louder than their deceit. They have come to support the morals and values of the 'unter-mensch'- and do so with pride."

You can run, DB, even live in dysfuctional denial.

That doesn't change reality.

Well, of course DB and his ilk will say something like: "Well we liberals are quite distinct from the left."

I'm as distinct from the hard left as I imagine you are from Pat Buchanan, antiwar.com, David Duke and all the other nasties who vote GOP.

The leadership in Tehran used one million of their own children as minesweepers in their war against Iraq. Why wouldn't they murder Arabs they couldn't care less about?

I suppose you're right. But its harder to imagine them doing damage to their own holy sites.

C'mon, DovBear. If they killed a million Palis, destroyed the mosques, and wiped out Israel in the process - is Hitlerijad hailed as a hero in the Arab street or viewed as a traitor for blowing up a mosque that can be rebuilt in a few years with Saudi money? Hmm?

If they killed a million Palis, destroyed the mosques, and wiped out Israel in the process - is Hitlerijad hailed as a hero in the Arab street or viewed as a traitor for blowing up a mosque that can be rebuilt in a few years with Saudi money?

I don't know. My gut tells me it will be easier for him to kill 1 million Arabs then it would be for him to destroy the mosques. I don't think he'd ever dare do that. But what do I know?

DB:

Strongly suggest you get educated in the eschatology of the whacky and wonderful ways of the 12th Imam and then the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, the Palis, The Jews, whomever, will seem like, well, gee-willikers, fun!

Seeing Hitchens denounced as a liberal is mildly amusing.

Really, this is the link you were looking for.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Gary:

Thanks so much. And I suppose we must file these creatures under, um, crypto uber-National Socialists, Special Eva Braun Branch.

Hitchens has been drummed out of the left for supporting the Iraq War, and he has been very eloquently making the Bush admin's case in debate after debate since the war began. At the same time he calls himself a Trotskyist and some of his defense of the Iraq War is in solidarity with Iraqi trade unionists.

He wrote a biography of George Orwell and considers himself in Orwell's tradition of a "fighting Left" which rejects totalitarianism and upholds individual rights.

He had a public spat with lefty Middle East studies prof. Juan Cole, who claimed that Amadinejad's Farsi didn't translate into "wipe Israel off the map" and Hitchens claimed it did. (Neither knows Farsi.)

So I wouldn't call Hitch a "liberal." He's sui generis.

However, he has avoided examining his Leftist preconceptions about Israel, so whenever he writes about anything relating to Israel he throws all his rigor and pronciples out the window and gets very confused.

Hitch is a Brit with their prejudices about Jews, then he found out after his mother died that she had been Jewish and had never told him. On top of that his position on Israel is all that remains of his Leftism, aside from working-"noble proletariat" nostalgia.

Most of the Jewish neocons I know think he's a good guy who is definitely on our side, except for this one issue.

"On top of that his position on Israel is all that remains of his Leftism, aside from working-"noble proletariat" nostalgia."

Meant to add: therefore he is loath to get rid of it and go all the way to being a neocon on foreign policy.