I know Hitchens has caught a lot of flack for supporting the overall idea of the US participation in the Iraq War.
I think he is a straight shooter in that he tells what he thinks and does not hitch his wagon to a political party.
I think that if it were a Democratic President who had invaded Iraq in 2003 instead of a Republican, Al Gore and Kerry and most Democrats would support it to this day because it was a Democrat doing it, and the Republicans who support Bush on it now would oppose the war.
But Hitchens would still have the same view regardless.
After Buchanan wrote a book that the allied attacks against the Nazis in the 1940s caused the Holocaust, I wonder why he is allowed on any TV stations anymore.
"As the Gerald McRaney character said on this morning's "West Wing", all war is a crime."
And that's the beauty of Buchanan-he just says it, and you know where he stands. No mealy-mouthed, "you're taking my words out of context" evasions. You can disagree, and frankly, he doesn't care.
The episode McRaney was on was one in which the US is about to sign on to the International Court of Human Rights. The Leo McGarry character apparently served under McRaney's character in Vietnam, and the McRaney character is seeing McGarry to argue against signing on to the treaty. They are arguing back and forth, and McRaney's character points out that McGarry, himself, was sent on missions that could be classified as war crimes.
A lot of people loved to complain about how liberal the show was, but I think a fair minded viewer has to admit that the conservatives on there were allowed to make their case-from the Alan Alda character to the ones who are on now during the arguments about Bartlet revealing his MS-the opposing point of view is given its day in court, and the writers are skilled enough to make them give a compelling argument.
"And that's the beauty of Buchanan-he just says it..."
I just think he goes too far with pro-Nazi views. Does presenting both sides, or being "fair-and-balanced", really need the National Socialist perspective?
I know Hitchens has caught a lot of flack for supporting the overall idea of the US participation in the Iraq War.
ReplyDeleteI think he is a straight shooter in that he tells what he thinks and does not hitch his wagon to a political party.
I think that if it were a Democratic President who had invaded Iraq in 2003 instead of a Republican, Al Gore and Kerry and most Democrats would support it to this day because it was a Democrat doing it, and the Republicans who support Bush on it now would oppose the war.
But Hitchens would still have the same view regardless.
Hitchens, like Pat Buchanan, does have the courage of his convictions. Whether you like him or not, he always makes it clear where he stands.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Democrats would support a Democratic war waged incompetently, as the Iraq war was and the Bosnia campaign was not.
As the Gerald McRaney character said on this morning's "West Wing", all war is a crime.
After Buchanan wrote a book that the allied attacks against the Nazis in the 1940s caused the Holocaust, I wonder why he is allowed on any TV stations anymore.
ReplyDelete"As the Gerald McRaney character said on this morning's "West Wing", all war is a crime."
And oddly enoght McRaney is a conservative.
And that's the beauty of Buchanan-he just says it, and you know where he stands. No mealy-mouthed, "you're taking my words out of context" evasions. You can disagree, and frankly, he doesn't care.
ReplyDeleteThe episode McRaney was on was one in which the US is about to sign on to the International Court of Human Rights. The Leo McGarry character apparently served under McRaney's character in Vietnam, and the McRaney character is seeing McGarry to argue against signing on to the treaty. They are arguing back and forth, and McRaney's character points out that McGarry, himself, was sent on missions that could be classified as war crimes.
A lot of people loved to complain about how liberal the show was, but I think a fair minded viewer has to admit that the conservatives on there were allowed to make their case-from the Alan Alda character to the ones who are on now during the arguments about Bartlet revealing his MS-the opposing point of view is given its day in court, and the writers are skilled enough to make them give a compelling argument.
"And that's the beauty of Buchanan-he just says it..."
ReplyDeleteI just think he goes too far with pro-Nazi views. Does presenting both sides, or being "fair-and-balanced", really need the National Socialist perspective?
Certainly. But as Alan Dershowitz says, the remedy for hate speech is simply more and better speech.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly know where Buchanan stands, though, and like Hitchens, he will defend it until the last dog dies.