Posted on 07/08/2005 5:15:53 PM PDT by Checkers
On MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair was involved in a complete verbal undressing of Ron Reagan. Reagan, like all the other feel first, hate Bush second, think last lefties, is so intent on re-writing history to make the case that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, got boxed around the ears by Hitchens. Here's the exchange:
RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?
CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?
RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.
CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?
RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.
CH: How can you know so little about...
RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.
CH: Absolutely nonsense.
RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?
CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.
CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?
RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.
CH; Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...
RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.
CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.
Ron Reagan couldn't see fire if the flames turned his shorts black. Hitchens may be wrong on a lot of issues, but he understand the nature of the people we're fighting, and what is necessary to defeat them. Ron Reagan is a sad political hack, trying to trade on his father's name, and doesn't have a clue in the world about the war we are facing. All he knows is what the DNC tip sheet tells him.
Posted at 3:09PM PST
< The Jr. thing bugs the hell out of me too. Some people just don't get that concept. It should be "Ron Reagan, not a Jr" as Monica says it on her Sat. show. >
Laura Ingraham coined the name Ron "not a jr" Reagan.
Laura Ingraham's show is the funniest talk show on the air that can still be serious about politics. My LI plug for the day.
"His given name is Ronald Reagan Jr. He prefers Ron Reagan.
You are wrong. Way wrong. His given name is Ronald Prescott Reagan - his Dad was Ronald Wilson Reagan. Ron P. is not, in any sense, literal, or figurative, a Junior."
Ronette is NOT Reagan Junior by any stretch of the imagination. He isn't even Reagan lite.
He is just Ronette.
Hill - lar-i-us!
Thanks.
Hill - lar-i-us!
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.