[pttttt]

Hard to say where Hitchens is coming from these days. I haven't liked everything he's written, but have to note that he actually (albeit grudgingly) supports President Bush on the intervention in Iraq. In a recent interview, Charlie Rose asked if he was now a neocon.

He does have an interesting approach to analyzing politically motivated text, as well as some interesting observations of his own. It would work well on the recent SEED Magazine article on Steven Hatfill, which is written very much in Woodwardian style.

[hole_n_one]

Hard to say where Hitchens is coming from these days.

I'm guessing the nearest bar.

[ladyinred]

He has very much supported Bush in the war on terror, much to the unhappiness of his editors in fact. I have almost learned to respect the guy, but I am sure he will mess that up soon! :-)

[MJY1288]

This is a hard article to follow, Hitchens did do a good job of exposing Woodwards slant in "Bush at War"

I too thought Woodwards book was more about trying to expose a wishful split between Powell and Bush

[MJY1288]

A Hitchens Ping :-)

[Cicero]

What Hitchens will do next, who knows? But this is an excellent article and a devastating critique of Woodward.

The one point I'm none too sure about is his approval of deposing the Shah of Iran. It doesn't seem to me that that improved matter for Iran, for the U.S., or for the world.

[VaBthang4]

I read Bush@War and it is nothing short of a amateur attempt to paint Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as sinister power/money hungry White Men. Who are bent on destroying all that is decent and good.

It highlights the State Department and CIA, Skips over the entire Executive Branch [past it's dealing with the former] and grudgingly includes the Defense Department...because after all...the book was supposed to be about War. It doesnt hold the CIA's feet to the fire over it's 9/11 failures nor does it tackle the State Department's milktoast diplomacy leading up to 9/11.

The Book is a joke.

But Man, Hitchens is seriously long winded.

[TomB]

I read "Bush at War" and I found it fairly even-handed. But that may be because I was expecting it to be so much worse.

"to liberate not to conquer"