Hitchens Vs. Alterman Debate: 'Is Hitchens Wrong About Everything?'

Christopher Hitchens makes his Bloggingheads debut in an entertaining, ego-intensive debate with Eric Alterman.

At the onset, Alterman explains that he was asked to choose a topic for the affair and decided upon: "Why Christopher has been wrong about virtually everything he's said and done since he became a conservative."

Hitchens responds, "Though It's a high price to pay, since the subject is how wrong I am, at least the subject is me, so that's something I guess."

The two discuss the Iraq war, liberalism, and Hitchens' support for Ralph Nader in 2000.

Comments

[larry278]

Typo: ...the Hitchens exists... should read ...that Hitchens...exists...

[larry278]

Mr Hitchens knows enough about America to make a living writing & speaking about America & Americans. It is said that there are Americans who pay attention to the words of Hitchins. There are a number of Americans who disagree with everything Hitchens has said or written. There are an even larger number, maybe a majority, of Americans who don't know the Hitchens exists & don't know of any of his words. Only members of the chattering classes know of Hitchens or his words. Hitchens makes a comforatble living.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

The fundamental Achilles heel of Hitchens' argument, and I'm frankly surprised that Alterman didn't press this point, is the issue of timing.

Even if Hitchens' thinks his case for action against Iraq can be defended, why, from a purely strategic standpoint, would one choose to wage a war against a tyrant that by all accounts (through sanctions, embargoes, etc.) was not posing an immediate threat? Iraq, although not improving, was at least contained; Hitchens never disputed that. If, as Hitchens averred, Democrats such as Clinton and Gore were also sounding the Iraq alarm, wouldn't it have been just a matter of time before we went in anyway, regardless of party affiliation?

Isn't the point, then, (momentarily stipulating to Hitchens argument that an Iraq invasion was necessary) a question of strategic timing? Why would you weaken the U.S. military by purposely overreaching on two different fronts, not completing the original task of destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and then launching into the predicted quagmire that was Iraq?

I wish that Alterman had challenged Hitchens to defend those actions AS THEY WERE TAKEN, not the overall validity of whether or not the Iraq regime was, in the long term, a threat. Hitchens spent the entire time defending the IDEA of ending the Hussein regime and never addressed the specific actions taken by this administration which by all accounts were incompetent, disasterous and actually compounded, not alleviated, the very threats that Hitchens is so keen to erase.

[jillbryant]

I find Hitchens as annoying here as I did in the lead up to the war. He is obviously an extremely intelligent man but he can never be wrong. When you are very smart and take that tack, you lose the ability to learn from those you disagree with, you fall on disingenous and cherry-picked arguments in order to count your coup and you become somewhat of a bore. I could listen to his melodious voice anytime but there were many points that didn't come up that were relevant to the judgment call. And I almost choked when he said Bush had to be talked into going to war with Iraq: Paul O'Neill said it came up on day 10 of his reign; Richard Clarke said it came up immediately after 9/11; his advisors were all the neocons ready to charge - what is he talking about?

[matthewhusseinsmith]

Hitchens, an Englishman, does not understand American culture and politics.

[JScott]

Pundits & Talking Heads.

[saltpeter]

If Hitchens had been as familiar with the M.O. of the Republican Party as he claims to be, he should have known that that would have been the goal all along. Alterman was right to be highly suspect of the Bush Administration's motives for going to with Iraq as I was. Anyone who has paid dutiful attention to American involvement in the Middle East over the last 50+ years knows that at NO TIME has a GOP leader saw Muslim countries as anything but potential pawns to be used in their geo-political game of chess. NO Republican President has sat down with an Arab leader with the express intent of FAIRLY bringing about an end to ANY HOSTILITIES EVER. The GOP bank on that constant chaos to do their bidding in the region. This time that bidding was done exclusively for war profiteers.

We know that a great reckoning will one day occur between the Shi'a and he Sunnis (just as it occured 5 centuries ago between the Protestants and the Catholics during the Reformation). There's many ways that reckoning can go (and most none too pretty). Still for the regime that oversees that reckoning to be at all successful of reaching the most optimum outcome possible will require a highly politically sophisticated mind. NO ONE in the BUSH ADMINISTRATION possess that level of sophistication. AND anyone with eyes to so knew in 2002 what 70% of Americans finally realise now--they're clueless. AND so is McCain.

[saltpeter]

The most striking metaphor that Hitchens makes is "you're trying to build the bridge in the middle of the river". But the neo-con Iraq war plan was halting the building of the bridge in the middle of the river. Very early on in the war when Jay Garner was running the show, he was making great strides in doing what was absolutely necessary to get Iraq back into some semblance of working order as quickly as possible. Garner and his group of experts on Iraq were attempting to get Iraqi policemen and soldiers trained so that they could help bring order to their country and get teachers and engineers back into their areas of expertise so that some sort of stability can begin to take root. Instead, in short order, Paul Bremer rears his ugly head, dismisses Garner and his dedicated team, institutes a de-baathification policy, brings in no bid contractors to do what the average Iraqi could easily do, and "legalizes" systematic torture tactics. This led to potential security forces turning into insurgents and teachers and engineers from the Middle Class leang all together. THESE are the indefensible acts that has lost us the war.

[boogiewoman]

The Brits always want to invade, it's in the bloody genes.

[SeventhLevelRecords]

Hitchens is certainly not wrong about everything, I agree with him in many aspects of his main thesis in his books, specifically concerning Mother Teresa and atheism. Eric Alterman does have important things to say, but I'm afraid that his rabid attacks against Nader (both here and in the documentary "An Unreasonable Man") are so malicious and laughable, I have a hard time taking anything he says with even a note of intellect being behind it.

The simple fact of the 2000 election is that while the GOP did steal the votes they needed to win, it was Gore who lost Gore the election, not Nader. Had Gore been one tenth as engaging and honest as he is now, rather than playing it safe, riding the 50% margin, he would have won handily. Gore moved so far to the middle in 2000 it was unreal, offering virtually no main platform differences from the mild, compassionate conservative image that was put forth by the Bush campaign.

When it comes to the issue of the 2000 election, and his support for a version of Gore that simply didn't exist at the time, Alterman hasn't just drank the Kool-Aid, he's swimming in it.

[huzzah]

I agree to an extent regarding Nader. Hell, I voted for him in 2000. But then, I'm in Georgia, and a vote for Gore would've meant nothing. Had I lived in Florida, I'd have voted Gore in a heartbeat.

I'd love to have a viable third (or even fourth) party in the U.S. But Nader? I dunno...Did he not renege on a promise NOT to campaign in swing states like FL? What has he done since except pop up every 4 years to run for President? If he believes the two parties (and their candidates) are so similar, why doesn't he just go ahead and announce his 2012 campaign? Why doesn't he run a Nader Trader site himself to organize more support in the solidly partisan states, possibly increasing his chances of getting the votes required for Federal funding next cycle?

Would it kill him to say, "Look, I have major disagreements with many of Obama's policies, but if it's gonna be close in your state you gotta be sure to vote for him so we won't be in WWIII and under martial law when it's time for the 2012 election."

Lastly, if he's the big "Third Party" name, and the Greens are the big "Third Party", (other than the Libertarians, of course) then why the hell isn't he the Green candidate?

[slobone]

Absolutely fascinating, everybody should watch the whole clip. Hitchens out-debated Alterman, as you'd expect, but that still doesn't mean he's right.

He won't give up on his obsession with Saddam's possession of WMD before the war, the yellowcake, etc. even though not even the hardcore neocons are trying to claim that anymore.

He's also leaning heavily on the argument that things would be even worse in Iraq if we hadn't invaded. As if the collapse of the Saddam regime would have meant instant invasion by the three countries he named, and as if the other countries of the world would have been helpless to prevent it.

We have no influence over Saudi Arabia and Turkey? Even Iran might have had enough sense to avoid a situation that would have given us a readymade excuse to invade them. As it is, obviously, they've benefited enormously from the war. Alterman makes that point, but misses a lot of other things he should have said.

Saddam may not have been "in the box" in the sense of being completely under control, but obviously he was no longer a threat to his neighbors or to the US.

[vegas9999]

This Eric guy is the same guy who wanted Rush to lose his hearing for ever. Real nice.

[Kencleanersystem]

He's nicer than me. When Rush was having hearing problems, I was hoping it was a large, malignant tumor on his brain. I'm still hoping.

[RepugsOut08]

I try not to wish bad things on people, but if a little bad karma comes Rush's way, well, let's just say I wouldn't feel sorry for him. ; )

[begabug]

It was Eric who first directed me to the Huffington Post site. For that, he has my lasting gratitude.

[sposton]

I disagree with most what Hitchens says on Iraq but must admit he is a persuasive debater. Alterman is eager to argue the pragmatic reasonableness of mainstream liberals but I think he is too hasty to throw everything overboard that is to the left of him. I disagree with the notion that the military escalation will solve the problem in Afghanistan. Any talk of unilateral military action in Pakistan is outright crazy. Hitchens/Bush/Cheney - crazy neocon; Alterman/Obama/Biden - neocon lite. ;-)

I don't understand how anyone can talk about any military action abroad that does not pose an existential threat to the US. When are we going to realize that we are broke and are borrowing money to fight our wars? How reasonable is that?

[GuyFawkes]

A classic battle of wits between two unarmed opponents.