[xm177e2]

it has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction" or Iraq as a threat to us

Hitch never said that.

The actual subtitle of the article was "The case against the case against "Regime Change" in Iraq," this was meant to be an argument against the anti-war critics.

In any case, just because Hitch justifies this intervention on the moral level doesn't mean hawks in Washington are thinking solely on that level. There are plenty of other reasons to go to war, and WMD is one of them.

[Burkeman1]

However—and here is the clinching and obvious point—Saddam Hussein is not going to survive. His regime is on the verge of implosion. It has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Like the Ceausescu edifice in Romania, it is a pyramid balanced on its apex (its powerbase a minority of the Sunni minority), and when it falls, all the consequences of a post-Saddam Iraq will be with us anyway.

Pretty good argument for containment rather than proactive intervention.

[MHGinTN]

Having just watched the C-Span program to which you alerted us, let me say thanks. It was an interesting program. Did you also get to watch, and do you have comments to share regarding the apparent agreement between Sullivan and Hitchens over war with the Iraqi dictator? (Hitch mentioned that we ought be careful to clarify our war as with Saddam, not the Iraqi people, and Sullivan gareed completely.)