| Gov. Times | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| CNN | Dead wrong: Man attends own funeral after mix-up over body’s ID |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| McClatchy | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Hitchens vs. Ritter
Another smackdown delivered by Chris Hitchens is in the making:
Scott Ritter vs Cristopher Hitchens on the Iraq War – 12/20/2005, 7:00 pm
The debate to end all debates: the brash and controversial Scott Ritter against the legendary Christopher Hitchens on the War that divides America and the World.
After 30 months of fighting, estimates range from 30,000 to 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and upwards of 2,100 dead American troops. Many questions linger. Saddam’s reign is history, but is Iraq better off? Why did we go, and why are we still there? When should we pull out?
Come ponder our country’s foremost foreign policy issues, moderated by Air America’s brilliant Laura Flanders!
THE CONTESTANTS:
Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair columnist and America’s favorite British contrarian, wields a crowded kebob skewer displaying the charred likes of Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, and Bill Clinton. He was recently voted the world’s 5th Top Public Intellectual by Prospect Magazine. Hitchens has written over 60 books and is a proud enemy of all Religions. Abandoning most of his former comrades on the Left, Hitchens vehemently supports Bush’s war on Iraq.
Scott Ritter is the straight-talking former marine officer who the CIA wants to silence. During Desert Storm, he served as a ballistic missile advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf. In the mid 1990’s, Ritter helped lead the UN weapons inspections of Iraq and found himself at the center of a dangerous game between the Iraqi and US regimes. In 2000, Ritter wrote that Iraq had no militarily significant stocks of prohibited weapons. He strongly opposes Bush’s war on Iraq.
The debate will be held at the Tarrytown Music Hall in Tarrytown, NY. If any of ya’ll go, please let us know how the debate goes 
Hopefully it’ll be broadcast on CSPAN.
(Thanks for the heads up, FT)
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
17 Responses to “Hitchens vs. Ritter”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Hitchens is a drunk who’s gray matter seems to have suffered negatively from his continuous inebriation. Peace
Scott Ritter is proof, along with Murtha, that when a Marine goes “bad” they really really go bad. Not just a little off, but screaming moonbat out in left field off their rockers bad. Well, the Marines are never ones to do anything halfway I guess, so when one decides, as Ritter did, to become a lying, POS, bought and paid for with Saddam’s money shill, he does it all the way.
Sooo Steve you are saying if Hitchens didn’t drink he would of been voted “World’s 1st top public intellectual” by Prospect Magazine??
Steve,
Lotta fightin’ words for a guy who claims to want peace.
I’ll second that Severian:shock:
I am a huge fan of Hitchens. I may not always agree with what he says, but damn, that man has a way with conversing. He doesn’t raise his voice or change his tone.
Pam,like Larry Flint does with the female form. Peace
“Pam,like Larry Flint does with the female form. Peace ”
Ya’ beat me to it, ST, but for emphasis…
Funny how the writeup does not mention Ritter’s half million dollar payoff from Iraq before he changed his tune. In fact, it does not mention him changing his tune, either… what he says now is 180 out from what he said in the late ’90s, when he was in the intel loop and performing inspections on the ground.
Oh, and steve, way to go in completely devaluing the word “peace.” Whenever I see it now I inevitably translate it as “you have just read something nonsensical and irrelevant.”
Smackdown? Hitchens ability to smack anyone down has diminished in direct propoportion to his rising fealty to neocon quackery. But I can’t wait to see and hear this “smackdown.” It’ll be fun to watch another episode in Hitchens long, slow slide into rightwing moonbattiness. Where’s the popcorn?
Ron wrote, neocon quackery. But I can’t wait to see and hear this “smackdown.” It’ll be fun to watch another episode in Hitchens long, slow slide into rightwing moonbattiness.
Calling names doesn’t deal with the substance. I got nothing from what you wrote. Nobody was conviced or pursuaded of anything.
Baklava speaks for everyone? Maybe B. is right that “[n]obody was convinced or pursuaded [sic] of anything”, but then I wasn’t aiming towards either. I just thought it was funny that Hitchens is going to do a “smackdown.” Moonbat is, of course, a favorite fallacious term of the rightwing meant to do just that, call names without dealing substantially with something. I thought it’d be fun to toss it back at the side much more definitively moonbatty. If you want substance, you can read my piece, The Trial of Christopher Hitchens, a play on words referring to a work of the once-great Hitchens called ‘The Trial of Henry Kissinger’ (not something Hitchens’ new rightist friends are likely to read). For more substance you can also peruse .
Ron, first things first: if you see an error in grammar or spelling here in the comments, don’t take it upon yourself to correct it. That ends up being the focus of the argument because it’s done in a way to belittle the argument of the person to who you respond. Second, I looked at your blog entry – big whoop. You primarily used Wikipedia and opinion pieces as your main debunking sources. Not a good sign. Wiki is easily editable and opinion pieces are just that: opinion pieces. Methinks you could use a lesson or two in smacking down arguments from Hitch himself.
Ron wrote, “but then I wasn’t aiming towards either“.
I could tell.
Steve what are you smoking in that “peace” pipe?
And to Ron Leighton- Hitchens is not a right-winger by any stretch of the imagination. If you followed his work and actually take the time to listen to what the man says, you will see that he spends about 90% of his time correcting fallicies made by the opposition to him on any given panel. He is not supporting GWB, but mearly correcting erroneous arguements about what GWB did or didn’t do.
Pam – FYI, you might want to check the URL of your blog (the way you have it spelled) – I can edit prior posts to reflect the right addy, if you want me to.
Thank-you very much SisterT:smile: