Many reputations have been destroyed in past four years, none more so than that of Christopher Hitchens. Given him credit for pretending to confront this fact here, but not, alas, much else. A few examples:
Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?
A majority of the member states thought he was right and had to admit that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. It was scandalous that such a regime could for more than a decade have violated the spirit and the letter of the resolutions that had allowed a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.
Yes, well, all of the above is true of Israel, vis-à-vis the U.N. Does Hitchens think the U.S. and Britain should invade Israel and execute its leaders? And are we at war in any of the other nations -- say, Sudan -- whose actions are unarguably worse? If violation of the will of the Security Council were a reason to go to war, then, need I add, the rest of the world would have good reason to invade the U.S. too.
Read the whole Altercation here.