In his latest piece on Slate, Christopher Hitchens assumes the “mantle of generalship,” and reflects on the war and how he would have won it, or something to that effect. Pure drivel. While you’re giggling to yourself about the newly anointed General Hitchens, have a gawk at General Tanqueray’s concluding paragraph.
Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been living in a different world, and so could the people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.
A different world indeed. Lovely. Anyway, all of you phony pacifists out there should consider yourself warned and be on the lookout for a delusional, gin soaked opinion columnist bearing entrails. The life you save might just be your own. (via The Poor Man)
I’m convinced that Henry Kissinger finally got his revenge on Hitchen’s by offering to pay his bar tab at various ritzy District of Columbia hotels.
Beware of columnists bearing entrails! I’ll remember that.
It’s a life lesson really. Pass it on to next generation. Knowing is half the battle. The other half is probably messy since it involves Hitchens and entrails.
For sure. I guess the only thing messier would be columnists baring entrails.
That would indeed be just a little messier. Bad Sunday morning viewing to say the least. I’m beginning to wonder whether or not I should have written a post on entrails so close to lunch.
I think of Hannibal Lechter.
Anyway, somebody oughta tell him that one does not need to be a pacifist, phony or otherwise, to believe that the US invasion of Iraq was and is a catastrophe.
But that would involve both critical thinking as well as seriously examining preconceived notions. I fear Hitchens may lack, or have lost, the skills for such things. Tell him all you want, but I don’t think even a whole bathtub of gin would satisfy his need to be completely and utterly wrong about everything.
The only camp that can make an internally consistent, albeit utterly selfish and amoral, antiwar argument is the paleocon/isolationist crowd (Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, et al). On the left, it’s all “we used to support Saddam in the ’80s” (yes, true: and that was a bad thing Reagan and Bush pere did, so why is it not conversely a good thing to do the opposite?) and “Saddam was no threat to us” (true, but since when are progressives supposed to be so selfish?).
-Alan
Are you even with him on the strangling phony pacifists with entrails? If so, I may not invite you to my Christmas party. It could get messy. Don’t feel too slighted though, because I don’t actually throw Christmas parties.
I might not put it so graphically as Hitchens, but the pacifists (phony or otherwise) certainly grate on my nerves.
-Alan