Hitchens on Chomsky & Moore

Hitchens' response to Chomsky's remarks (posted earlier) can be found here. Therein Hitchens calls the likes of Chomsky and Moore the "paranoid anti-war left," and that their  "unstated but self-evident premise...is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society." This reveals far more about his own right-wing worldview, since it can only frame legitimate criticism in such stark, anti-American terms. This "reasoning" is strikingly similar to what happened in the case of Mary Surratt being discussed in "the conspirator" thread, the reactionary response of conservatives to defending the alleged conspirator in Lincoln's death. If we don't buy their limited view wholesale we want the destruction of the US, all under the evil guise of asking that our governmental leaders, like everyone else, be held accountable to the rule of American, and international, law. Including, and especially, in times of war.


As far as Moore thinking the American public deserves harm and even death for its government's crimes--an atrocious and heinous accusation--Moore says of bin Laden in his CNN interview:

"I'm pleased the he'll no longer be around to do any harm to anybody."

He goes on to note that celebrating someone's death is another thing. And that it was his religious upbringing that leads him to his conclusions. Not quite the paranoid boogeyman Hitchens' own paranoid brand of "patriotism" sees.

 Quick point on labels, as in labeling Hitchens conservative. I actually agree with Hitchens on some points and issues, and he is not a strict, die-hard conservative on all issues. I don't subscribe to the one-size-fits-all altitude labels popular in kennilingus, instead knowing that all of us can differ over a wide range of levels (if that's even an adequate measure, not so sure anymore) on a variety of issues. See Fischer on this, and L&J on bi-conceptualism, in the "real and false reason" thread.