--If you mean that he wasn't crude or downright nasty, sure I got his 'good' civilized side, then again I would expect little different on NPR. If he wants to behave differently, all power to him, would have made him look foolish in any event.
Well, I don't think he really buys into the Bush rhetoric -- he certainly doesn't regarding Iran, as he pointed out to you.
--yeah, that could change tomorrow under the right conditions, should Bush suddenly declare Iran a threat...I was waiting for Hitch to attack the ILWU for threatening the war on terror...kinda disappointed with him for not getting on that bandwagon..."Leftist criticises Union friends for supporting OBL"...
He has his own reasons for supporting Saddam's ouster, and he makes a much better case than does Bush, who relies on bluff and bluster.
--actually hitch uses the same arguments and even claims to know more about atta's meeting than the czechs know...maybe hitch could lead us to the incubator babies or the satellite photos from gulf war 1 too...
As for his attacks on the "left," well, I know from my experience here that many lefties don't like to hear about their shortcomings from those on the same side, or at least generally in the same area.
--not true, but you have to do better than accusing Noam Chomsky of claiming that OBL is a modern day anti-imperialist hero...
We're supposed to "be in this together" and link arms with those who, if they had any power at all, would jail us or simply shoot us, all in the grand quest of progressivism, or some such.
--nope, but by Hitch's logic we're supposed to ignore the immense contradictions in the war marketing campaign, the lies, manipulation of the media, etc...and just go along...bombs away...liberate the people of Iraq...those poor women who are terribly oppressed by Saddam, or is OBL, or who is it we're supposed to hate this month? Ah yes, anyone but Lockheed Martin...
And as he replied, there are half-truths and distortions in both cases, even though the situations are completely different.
--no, during Vietnam he would take apart the lies...During this war he reproduces them or ignores them...a point he simply could not address on NPR without entirely undercutting his support for this war.
There were those in the anti-war movement of the '60s who did support Ho and the NLF, waving the flag and chanting "The NLF is gonna win!" So rightwing attacks on those protesters were accurate in that regard, even though the protesters were on the right side.
--I guess so, who cares what the Vietnamese wanted...that the Pentagon Papers revealed quite clearly that the US gov't knew Ho and the NLF had popular support....the rightwingers were right to attack anyone who supported Ho or the NLF...grand...
The same holds true here, though this "peace" movement isn't anything like the old, but there are those (and I won't mention their name lest I rile the sensitive among us) who are indeed soft on Saddam
--no problem, we've heard it all before, anyone who doesn't support Bush's war plans in their entirety (and ironically this would include now even you or Gitlin) is with the enemy...is, as it were, a traitor...You are right about one thing, this movement is different from the 60's, it didn't take a draft to get it to take off and develop and it is composed of a lot of new people who are not aware of the relevance of the internecine conflicts within the movement that Hitch wishes to promote....