>>It will be interesting to see what's said when he gets
>>around to it. My bet is on an incredibly serpentine
>>justification that dares to slap, ever so gently, the
>>Bushevik buttocks for not being sufficiently 'bold' or
>>somesuch formulation.
>>
>>
>>Either that, or he'll find some silver lining and will shake it in our
>>faces, regardless of its length. Recall his recent blast from Iraq, where he
>>told the NY Post that Iraqis were waving Old Glory and cheering on US
>>troops. "You can't fake that," he said, echoing imperial journos of
>>yesteryear like the Alsop Bros in Vietnam. In any event, he's in too deep to
>>crawl out now.
>>
I don't know what's sadder; the fact that Hitchens decided on a Grand
Crusade that curdled into another Vietnam so amazingly _rapidly_-- or
that he'd had some early-on arguments decent enough for me to think he
had a good point. (Oh, well. At last I know how liberals felt around
1967 or so.)
Anyone up for a Hitchens betting pool? Which arguments are we most likely to hear?
1. The invasion was right and just, but the antiwar movement scuttled domestic support so badly that the Bush Administration couldn't do it right.
2. The invasion was right and just, and the antiwar movement was so inconsequential and inept and childish that it had no impact whatsoever, but it was fouled up by the halfhearted measures of the Bush administration.
3. The invasion was right and just, and the antiwar movement was so inconsequential and inept and childish that it had no impact whatsoever, but it was fouled up because of the lingering effects of the Clinton admoinistration.
4. The invasion was right and just, and the antiwar movement was so inconsequential and inept and childish that it had no impact whatsoever, but the unwillingness of other countries crippled it.
5. The invasion was a horrible, horrible mistake, that he'd allowed other issues to cloud his judgement, and that he regrets every word he wrote in favor of the war and against its critics.