Road to Surfdom on Hitchens v. Hitchens.
D.J. says in comments:
What Chomsky said then is what Hitchens is admitting now. The US has supported repressive Arab dictatorships and it's not surprising that when democracy is crushed, Islamic fundamentalists (some of whom we supported) rise to fill the gap. Chomsky and Hitchens were in complete agreement that bin Laden himself had no interest in the well being of oppressed Arabs or starving Iraqi children and that 9/11 was a crime against humanity. They were in agreement that bin Laden wanted to impose a monstrous Islamic theocracy on the Arab world. And evidently they were in agreement on root causes as well.
Hitchens had every right to disagree with Chomsky about the war in Afghanistan. He had no right to shriek against views he privately held himself. An honest person would have said "Yes, it's true that there is an element of blowback here, and we have to face up to how our policy of supporting dictators and thugs has contributed to the growth of these monsters who just hit America, but nonetheless, right now we have to strike back." But Hitchens isn't honest. He's a publicity hound who knew how much attention he'd draw with his attacks. Orwell on his better days admitted that when he criticized pacifists, he had no right to distort their views. Hitchens is more like Orwell on his worst days, when he used the "objectively pro-fascist" formulation.
People who agree with the Hitchens style of argument post 9/11 are "objectively pro-propaganda" and in favor of distorting their opponent's views rather than fighting fairly. They shouldn't complain when Republicans do it against Democrats, or vice versa. Hey, this is fun. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on poor Hitch.
