Comments on: All Quiet on the Western Front

By: Sergio Méndez

Sergio Méndez — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:27:53 +0000

“I scruple a bit to put it quite this way, but it is astonishing sometimes to think what an extraordinary opportunity the 9/11 attacks presented—an opportunity to rally not just the country but the whole of a sympathetic liberal West (and anyone else who was game) in affirmation of the shared values that distinguish us from fanatical theocrats: pluralism, freedom of speech, secular government, democracy, reason, the rule of law”

Well, with all due respect, but is hard to me to think of George Bush and his neoconservative ideologues chearing things like pluralism, freedom os speech, secular goverment and reason…you know, they are the same people who attack pluralism as some post modernist evil, think freedom of speech should have limits (when it touches sensitive issues like patriotism -flag burning- or religion), secular goverment (at least one thinks Bush religious right friends and neoconservative supporters do care for the idea when they rail against “secularism” and separation of church and state in endless tirades) and the same people who want evolution thrown out of schools and deny the scientific consensus on global warming for their own misguised economic interests and religious beliefs….

By: Klein's Tiny Left Nut

Klein's Tiny Left Nut — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:42:45 +0000

The difference between the comments of Camus and those of Hitchens is that Camus and his comrades put their asses on the line against the most vicious tyranny the world has known rather than say, sit around and drink another scotch.

The notion that Rove was not a policy maker seems to be completely untrue. Indeed, one of the many reprehensible aspects of this administration is that a Mayberry Machiavvellian like Rove had so much input into policy decisions.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:45:11 +0000

As I get older, I’m less and less ipressed by curmodgeonness. Most of the time, it’s merely somebody being an *sshole. It has little value in and of itself, and should only be consumed (or dished out) in small amounts.

By: Sam McManus

Sam McManus — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:14:39 +0000

I’m with you, Wilson. Hitchens’s curmudgeounry never fails to make me crack a smile.

By: Wilson

Wilson — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:13:17 +0000

Heh. I still think Hitchens has an acid wit, an intellect and style.

The fact that he’s gone fucking crazy hasn’t changed any of that for me.

By: Gene

Gene — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:45:57 +0000

I think Hitchens’ sentiments quoted above amount to Stu Bykovsky in prissier prose. Actually, I might prefer Bykovsky, because he’s less self-referential, self-congratulatory, and self-absorbed.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:15:02 +0000

Also, quite independently, there is more than a whiff of “just following orders” in that defense.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:59:58 +0000

Bill-
Wait, that’s not right. He held the title of deputy chief of staff for policy, and it’s widely understood that he had significant policy input even before that.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:37:24 +0000

I do have to think that the hatred of Rove on the blogosphere is a bit naive and fails to take account of Rove’s function and job within the White House. He was not a political leader or a policy maker. He was just the marketing guy and shouldn’t be universally despised because he helped George W. Bush get elected, which was his job.

http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/2007/08/rove-cont.html

By: AemJeff

AemJeff — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:33:30 +0000

“Part of what him?” Oops.

I think he let it kill part of what made him, or at least his writing, vital and interesting.