Chomsky shreds Hitchens twice:
zmag.org
zmag.org
Also, Hitchens is caught in this little trap:
<< In his two recent articles Hitchens is indignant at Sam Husseini and others for the "thought" (Hitchens puts it in quote marks to indicate its absurdity) that the attack on the WTC and Pentagon was rooted in U.S. policy. He quotes Sam's language that "The fascists like bin Laden could not get volunteers to stuff envelops if Israel had withdrawn from Jerusalem and...and the US stopped the sanctions and bombing of Iraq." This, Hitchens says, is not only "utterly rotten" but "rationalization" for the Islamic fascists.
Actually, in an article written for the London Guardian in the immediate aftermath of the bombing (Sept. 13), and reprinted in In These Times, Hitchens himself wrote "It probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo" ("So This Is War," ITT, Oct. 15). In other words, asking such questions was not indecent and should not be taboo. But in the time between writing his Guardian/ITT piece and his Nation articles, Hitchens advanced to the view that even discussing such matters WAS "indecent," "taboo," and "utterly rotten." >>
zmag.org
Tom |
