16 thoughts on “Bloggingheads: Hitchens and Wright

  1. It’s mentioned that this is the first of two diavlogues they recorded together. The second (which hasn’t been posted yet) is apparently going to be about Wright’s faitheist whinings about the New Atheists.

    1. To me, that discussion would be far more interesting. This one was pretty much solely centered around foreign policy discussion and while I think Hitch does a much better job arguing his viewpoint than Wright does, I’m not altogether fond of Hitch’s outlook on the issue.

      1. As you don’t much care for Hitchens’ argument on the Iraq debacle, why don’t you look up his comments (can be found on YouTube) from the first time around. You’ll be pleased to know that, though the circumstances and consequences were exatly the same as now, he had the EXACT opposite view then.

        What else would you expect from the oleaginous windbag?

  2. I’m listening now and, as usual, I am enjoying listening to/reading Hitchens.

    I’m not sure I’d want Hitchens over for dinner — for one thing, he’d rapidly deplete our meagre wine supply, and probably make me feel like a dumbass in conversation — but I like the way he goes after nonsense.

    1. I think Hitchens is completed wrong on the supposed justifications for invading Iraq. I guess this goes to show that everyone has their dumb ideas.

      On this, I think Wright is right.

      1. Hitchens became a major Bush cheerleader in the run up to and following the invasion of Iraq. And he honestly didn’t care that the WMD would never be found (and I’m quite certain Hitchens knew they didn’t exist) as he was only interested in the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein because of his persecution of the Kurds.

        He’s since piled on a few more justifications, but that was the only one that really mattered to him in 2002-2003.

        Sadly, he embraced what he knew to be lies in order to get his war on. I’ve had real difficulty being interested in anything else he’s had to say since, which is unfortunate as he is a brilliant writer and speaker.

    2. Actually, Hitchens is charming in person. Along with about five other volunteers from the Richard Dawkins Foundation at the 2007 Atheist Alliance conference, I spent two hours with him before his scheduled presentation.

      He is completely gracious, and just as interested in hearing what “ordinary” people think as he is in describing his point of view. There wasn’t a hint of pretentiousness or celebrity about him, and he’s very easy to talk to.

      Contrary to popular perception, too, he limits how much he drinks before going onstage. In this instance, anyway. He refused my offer to buy him a second glass of scotch, noting he needed to be on his toes for his talk.

    1. Actually, on bloggingheads the discussants can’t see each other. (I know this because it’s been mentioned in the past when one person holds up a book or some other prop.)

  3. The problem for Hitchens when trying to justify little Bush’s invasion of Iraq was that it was undertaken at the worst possible time and was done under false pretenses. Manufacturing evidence for a war that would without doubt kill very many innocent people is not acceptable. Most supporters of little Bush’s war have admitted their error, Hitchens would do well to join them. He also has to justify torture and I don’t think he can to that either. Little Bush committed war crimes and many innocent people died.

  4. It interests me that Hitchens has in the past argued persuasively that Henry Kissinger needs prosecution as a war criminal for, among other things, his role in the illegal invasion of Cambodia by the United States. I have never understood how he can square this view of the Cambodian invasion with his support for the invasion of Iraq.

Leave a Reply