Most of CH analysis was on target, IMO, but the application to his two targets was not.
Chomsky made an exceedingly cold remark in the immediate wake of 9-11, but his analyses on the whole are essential reading. Chomsky has written valuable books on foreign policy and is read by movement activists. Hitchens wrote about Mother Teresa. CH is not really fit to carry Chomsky's jockstrap, in the grand intellectual scheme of things. Nor does CH have any noteworthy activist credentials, far as I know. CH lighting on Sam H. is just bullying. Maybe Sam said something stupid, maybe he didn't. It's impossible to tell because CH's attack provides no context for whatever Sam was trying to say. CH should stick to worthy targets his own size, and then only if he has a case to make. As far as the personalizations are concerned, CH is merely joining the national campaign to make targets of rhetorical opportunity out of anyone who raises questions about U.S. policy in the wake of 9-11.
mbs
Ah yes, "garbage" and "cracked"- stirring analysis. Don't agree with every word of Hitch but the basic point is sound -- to the extent that any action issued from the Taliban-based world of oppression, the discussions of US crimes "causing" the mass murder of Sept 11 is ridiculous. Hitch clearly notes the tragedy of blowback from the US's own crimes in supportin the Taliban in the first place, but to give any moral status or even link of mass murder as connected to legitimate struggles against injustice is an obscenity.
The Germans suffered serious injustice following World War I; so should be just "explain" the Holocaust as a misguided overreaction to justified grievances?
Nathan nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org ----- Original Message ----- From: <ppillai at sprint.ca> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:04 AM Subject: Re: Hitchens responds to critics
>
> -Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: dave dorkin <ddorkin1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Hitchens responds to critics
>
> A truly breathtaking piece of garbage. The swipes at
> Chomsky remind one more of Horowitz than anything else.
>
Shite! -- what a rant He finally cracked. I cant say its completely surpising though. I suppose the signs were there for a couple of years now, but its still kind of a shock to see him breakdown like this in public. The comparison with his buddy Horowitz is apt.
-Pradeep