Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Steady Progress | Main | Wookies Gone Wild »

That's Rich

Christopher Hitchens isn't very impressed with the New York Times theater critic's latest blast at George Bush:

Now, "truthiness" is a laugh-word invented by Steven Colbert who (along with his friend Jon Stewart and the other heroes of Comedy Central) is the beau ideal of what Rich considers to be the ironic. In this book and in his regular column, he gives "truthiness" a workout whenever he can. He clearly wishes he had coined it himself, and he has kept it going for perhaps a touch longer—may I hint?—than even Colbert might wish. Let us examine it in the present case. The administration did not, in point of fact and as Rich concedes, ever make the case that Saddam Hussein had sponsored the assault of 9/11. It did, however, strongly imply that he might have an interest in, or enthusiasm for, this kind of activity. And many Americans when polled were found to suspect him of an even more direct connection. Well, Saddam Hussein had sheltered the Iraqi-American fugitive who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He had allowed the internationally-wanted criminal Abu Nidal to use Baghdad as his headquarters. He had boasted of paying a bounty to the suicide-murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The man who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, a certain Abu Abbas, who was responsible for rolling Leon Klinghoffer in his wheelchair off the vessel's deck and into the Mediterranean, had to be released when apprehended because he was traveling on an Iraqi passport. A diplomatic passport. The Baghdad state-run press had exulted at the revenge taken on America on 9/11. This does not exhaust the "truthiness" of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein might have to be taken seriously as a sponsor of nihilistic violence. Could one even suggest that those who thought so might be intuitively and even objectively wiser than those who thought it crass to mention Saddam Hussein and "terrorism" in the same breath? Not without being jeered at by Rich, who either does not know any of the above facts or who chooses not to include any of them in his proudly truth-centered narrative.

It would be good to have a demotic word for the way in which journalism, commentary, "spin," and official propaganda converge, though I think "truthiness" would be too feeble to cover it. All that the term does is to condense what we already "know," which is that perception trumps reality as often as not. Rich himself gives a fine illustration of the point when he idly says that Michael Moore's entirely mendacious film Fahrenheit 9/11, which mobilized Democrats and liberals behind a completely fictitious account of events, was both a "movie eviscerating Bush" and "an instant media sensation." His stale phrasing comprises one very smelly value-judgment—the president was not in fact "eviscerated" by this contemptible movie, which surely cannot be praised even faintly by anyone with the smallest regard for veracity—as well as one statement of near-fact which is almost true by definition. As Peter Jennings might have put it, if the New York Times describes something as "an instant media sensation," then an instant media sensation is what it becomes. But who's the "truthy" one here?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 03, 2007 10:20 AM

Comments

In before the "Rand can't post unless he goes to Iraq" bigots.

I too read the Hitchens piece this morning. Very articulate and quite focusing. I am glad you chose to link to it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 3, 2007 10:31 AM

Very articulate and quite focusing.

You must have read some other Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens is a well-known defector from hyperintellectual leftist circles. He and Noam Chom.sky were once birds of a feather. Now that this Hitchens is on the other side, he hasn't really changed. He could make alphabet blocks sound complicated --- not to mention dangerous and venal.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 10:48 AM

Christopher Hitchens is a well-known defector from hyperintellectual leftist circles. He and Noam Chom.sky were once birds of a feather.

i.e., he came to his senses.

So, do you have any actual critique of what he wrote, or is ad hominem your first and last resort?

You can consider that a rhetorical question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 10:55 AM

Do you have any actual critique of what he wrote

Yeah. Frank Rich is right. He says that the war in Iraq was a victory of public relations, until they accomplished the mission and victory turned to failure. That's the plain truth. Predictably Christopher Hitchens doesn't like it, so he splits hairs in complicated ways.

I have to say that George Bush comes across better in some ways than Christopher Hitchens. Granted, the invasion of Iraq is Bush's fault and not Hitchens' fault. On the other hand, Bush admitted that the US is not winning the war in Iraq. He also strives for simple English. Bush's admission was full of self-serving distortions, but it was better than the nothing that comes from Hitchens.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 11:38 AM

Sorry, I meant a useful critique, that actually addresses Hitchens' (valid) points about Rich's obfuscation.

Guess I was asking too much.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 11:40 AM

Sorry, I meant a useful critique, that actually addresses Hitchens' (valid) points about Rich's obfuscation.

Yes, you are asking too much, because there is no need to address Hitchens' obfuscation about Rich's valid points.

This debate needs to get back to basics. For the US, the war in Iraq is altruism at its worst. It could hardly be less libertarian. In your war commentary posts, you would stake your ground better if you wrote under the name Mao Simberg. Unlike Ayn Rand, Mao Zedong deeply believed in the hero soldier of liberation.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 11:53 AM

...there is no need to address Hitchens' obfuscation about Rich's valid points.

[laughing]

Hint: Not all libertarians are Objectivists. And I consider being compared to Mao a deep insult. No less than what I've come to expect from you, though. I guess you're only capable of thinking in extremes. If I'm not an Objectivist, I must be a murderous collectivist.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 11:58 AM

Not all libertarians are Objectivists.

I was speculating that you were named after Ayn Rand --- although it would be very interesting if your namesake is actually Ivan Rand.

But since you raise this point, most libertarians and Objectivists oppose the war in Iraq, for the same good reasons.

I consider being compared to Mao a deep insult.

That's perfectly fair on your part, but I was really comparing Maoism to the war in Iraq, not toyou personally. I heard on the radio last week that Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader and Iraqi President, is a Maoist. It's an important indication of the real direction of the war in Iraq.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 01:36 PM

I was speculating that you were named after Ayn Rand

If that's the case, it's news to me. Are you in the habit of making dumb comments on blogs based on blind speculation?

Again, that's a rhetorical question.

I heard on the radio last week that Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader and Iraqi President, is a Maoist.

Hey, I heard on the radio last week that the moon landings were faked.

Funny, the things you hear on the radio.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 01:40 PM

If that's the case, it's news to me.

I don't know who you were really named after, but if it had been Ayn Rand, it would have made sense. That's why I said "speculate".

I heard on the radio last week that the moon landings were faked.

No, really, Jalal Talabani regards Mao Zedong as his political role model.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/press/070205pr_press_releases

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 02:06 PM

Well, absent elaboration on just what aspects of Mao he admires (his charisma), and just when he plans a Cultural Revolution, I'm not sure what to say about that. It could simply be naivety.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 02:16 PM

Well, absent elaboration on just what aspects of Mao he admires (his charisma), and just when he plans a Cultural Revolution, I'm not sure what to say about that.

You can listen to the NPR interview with the journalist yourself:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7085624

It could simply be naivete.

Suppose that I told you that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki said that Saddam Hussein's execution is not worth one drop of the blood of Muqtada al-Sadr's father. Would you credit Maliki's statement to gentle naivete?

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 02:37 PM

,em>Suppose that I told you that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki said that Saddam Hussein's execution is not worth one drop of the blood of Muqtada al-Sadr's father. Would you credit Maliki's statement to gentle naivete?

Assuming what you told me is true, no. I would expect al-Maliki to know much more about Saddam and al-Sadr's father than Talabani knows about Mao. This actually seems like quite a non sequitur to me. But then, I'll consider the source.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 02:41 PM

Assuming what you told me is true, no.

Well it is true. Father and uncle, I should have said.

“The sentence against Saddam does not mean much to us. His execution does not equal a drop of the blood of the martyr Sayyid Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr, the martyr Sayyid Mohammed Sadiq Al-Sadr, or the martyrs of the Al-Hakim family, the martyrs of the Islamic Da’wa [Party], the martyred clerics Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Badri, Sheikh Nadhum Al-Asi, or any other martyr from the Iraqi people, Kurds, Turkomen and Chaldo-Assyrians.”

http://healingiraq.blog spot.com/archives/2006_11_01_healingiraq_archive.html

It's not a non sequitur to the case of Talabani (who is one of the least naive world leaders). It's part of a pattern of dressing up Maoists, Islamists, thieves, and warlords as allies of America. It's part of what I meant when I said that the war in Iraq is altruism at its worst.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 02:49 PM

Jim, Rand, your arguments are entertaining and all, but what does this discussion have to do with the article to which Rand linked?

Posted by Ed Minchau at February 3, 2007 04:15 PM

What does this discussion have to do with the article to which Rand linked?

Frank Rich argues in his book that both the rationale for the war in Iraq and its victory parade were constructs of public relations, and that in reality the war is a disaster for American interests. Christopher Hitchens' rebuttal is too convoluted for a simple summary. In the part that Rand quoted, Hitchens says that the link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism is real, not American government propaganda.

But Rich is right and my previous comments are half of the argument for it. In reality, Hussein had weaker ties to Islamic terrorism than many other Middle Eastern countries: the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. As I explained, the invasion of Iraq turned out to be an Islamist revolution, and for the Kurds a Maoist military revolution. Hussein supported some terrorism; the new leaders of Iraq support it a lot more.

Hitchens harps on ties between Hussein and terrorism without proportionate comparisons, repeating White House talk from before the invasion. That is indeed a construct of public relations, just as Frank Rich describes.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 05:51 PM

Rich is right and my previous comments are half of the argument for it.

Sorry, but your continued repetition of nonsense doesn't render it non-nonsense. You've made no arguments at all in that regard.

We still await an actual rebuttal to Hitchens' facts. I suspect we'll wait a long, long time. "Proportionate comparisons" (nonsensical as they are) aside, of course.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 05:55 PM

Rand, you should write a play based on the back and forth on this blog; today in particular. I don't even care who is right; I love to see the two of you go at it all guns firing. Good solid American democracy in action. Whoopee...and thanks to you Rand for providing this good theater ;-)

Posted by Offside at February 3, 2007 08:33 PM

It's interesting how the goal posts have been moved again. First, Saddam Hussein didn't have any ties with terrorists, and that was a complete fiction made up by Bushitler to fight an illegal war.

Now "Hussein had weaker ties to Islamic terrorism than many other Middle Eastern countries...". Oh, you mean he did have ties to Islamic terrorism? So, you were lieing about Bush's lies?

Whoops.

Go get'm Rand. He'll just keep tying himself into pretzel knots, much to our entertainment.

Posted by nukemhill at February 4, 2007 08:34 AM

> I don't know who you were really named after, but if it had been Ayn Rand, it would have made sense.

How would it have "made sense"? I suspect that Rand was named before he put a lot of thought into his politics. Or, did the causality run the other way?

Okay, so maybe asking about mechanism is a bit tough - how about why it would have made sense?

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 5, 2007 10:00 AM

Andy:

B/c the sins of the parents are inevitably visited upon the children.

Thus, Barack Obama is, by definition, inappropriate as a Presidential candidate, because I'll bet his middle name, "Hussein," is from "Saddam Hussein."

Doesn't make sense? It doesn't have to---it's anonymoron!

Posted by Lurking Observer at February 5, 2007 02:11 PM

Actually, it's Jim Harris, making as much sense as anonymoron.

Coincidence?

Posted by Lurking Observer at February 5, 2007 02:12 PM

Frank Rich argues in his book that both the rationale for the war in Iraq and its victory parade were constructs of public relations,

Even if true, this says nothing about whether the war was a good idea or not. The fact that things are undertaken for public relations reasons says nothing about whether or not they're good ideas. If GE cleans up a toxic dump mostly (or even only) because it's bad PR not to, does that mean their clean-up is a bad idea?

and that in reality the war is a disaster for American interests.

Because...? See, this would be where we'd need some kind of facts 'n' evidence. Proof, for example, that Islamic terrorism against American interests abroad had increased since the accomodatin' Clinton feel-yer-pain 90s, instead of (alas) decreased, as it has. (And please spare me the results of surveys that say 89% of Egyptians, up from 82% in 1992, hate the US. Who gives a hoot about the opinion of a million Islamic couch-potatoes? Actions are what matter. Folks strapping on bombs and blowin' themselves up in American cities, on American planes, in front of American embassies. Which hasn't happened, lately.)

Christopher Hitchens' rebuttal is too convoluted for a simple summary.

I think not. His argument is quite simple: Iraq was an evil pesthole and the world (of which the US is a part) is better off for it being cleaned up, violent and costly as that action may turn out to be. The argument is essentially the same as the argument for helping the police clean out a crackhouse in your neighborhood, even if you have not (yet) been mugged by a crackhead. That doesn't seem too hard to understand. (As I mentioned elsewhere, you certainly sound like an intellectual elitist -- like this stuff is just too hard for us reg'lar folks to wrap our pointy little heads around.)

The opportunity-cost argument -- that is, whether cleaning out the Iraq snakepit is what the US should be doing now with our resources -- is an interesting question. Hitchens himself doesn't address it, he takes it as a given that snakepits should always be cleaned out if at all possible, and that presumably reflects his underlying absolutist moralizing perspective on life (the same one that led him to be a flaming leftist in his youth, when he no doubt thought the path to Paradise led through the Third International.)

Posted by Carl Pham at February 5, 2007 07:06 PM

The neo-cons grab the slimmest reeds to claim
Saddam Hussein was tied to 9-11.

I once read that every person is only 6 degrees of separation
from anyone in the world. This means that by neo-con
logic Rand Simberg is only 6 connections away from
Osama and therefore Simberg has been conclusively
connected to Islamic Terrorism.

Posted by anonymous at February 5, 2007 08:34 PM

The neo-cons grab the slimmest reeds to claim
Saddam Hussein was tied to 9-11.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Oh, wait. There is none.

I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls....

Posted by nukemhill at February 6, 2007 09:45 AM

He had allowed the internationally-wanted criminal Abu Nidal to use Baghdad as his headquarters. He had boasted of paying a bounty to the suicide-murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad

-----

And?

how does this tie to 9/11

Posted by anonymous at February 6, 2007 07:28 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?