Saturday, August 27, 2005

Hitchens Slimes Wilson and Clarke

In the Weekly Standard, Christopher Hitchens defends his view that the war in Iraq is "A War to Be Proud Of." Citizen Cain doesn't agree with this perspective, but will concede that Hitchens makes some valid points. However, Hitchens goes off the deep end with this attack on war opponents:
There are an astounding number of plain frauds and charlatans (to phrase it at its highest) in charge of the propaganda of the other side. Just to tell off the names is to frighten children more than Saki ever could: Michael Moore, George Galloway, Jacques Chirac, Tim Robbins, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson . . . a roster of gargoyles that would send Ripley himself into early retirement. Some of these characters are flippant, and make heavy jokes about Halliburton, and some disdain to conceal their sympathy for the opposite side.

Citizen Cain has no desire to defend George Galloway or Jacques Chiraq, and doesn't know well enough the views of Michael Moore or Tim Robbins to comment. But Richard Clarke? Joseph Wilson? These are both men who have proven rather better than Hitchens their commitment to defending the United States against terrorism. Could Hitchens bother to defend the charge that they are "plain frauds and charlatans?" Can he support the charge than they each "disdain to conceal their sympathy for the opposite side?" Maybe Hitchens doesn't accuse them of that crime-- in his sleazy phrasing he might be accusing them of the rather less troublesome error of being "flippant" and making "heavy jokes about Halliburton."

This is cheap and slimy.