July 9, 2005
I am not quite sure it is a good idea to have a [once liberal now] conservative Englishman on your show to defend terrorism, Ronny boy.
Also I am not quite sure why Ron said something along the lines of “Saddam wasn’t a terrorist before we entered his country”. Saddam was only a terrorist for weeks .. hmm.
Read the transcript over at Radio Blogger.
During the segment Ron Reagan cut off Hitchens when he was saying this:
CH: How can you know so little about…
You really couldn’t make out what Hitchens said after that, but I am pretty sure he said “so little about this when you’re running a show”. Ouch.
Download and view the video here.
Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media linked with Nancy boy's defenders protesteth too much
Decision ‘08 linked with Miscellanea: What About Wilson? Edition
Neolibertarian linked with Hitchens Kicks Ass
NIF linked with All your title are belong to us
Right to the End linked with Hitchens Scores a 1st Round TKO Against Reagan
File it Under linked with Carnival of Crazy
Ghost of a flea linked with The root cause
The Palmetto Pundit linked with Coast-to-Toast
The Indepundit linked with In Case You Missed It...
In the Bullpen linked with Al-Ittihad Al-Islamiya; Somalia-Based Terror Group Linked with Al Qaida
Friends of Micronesia linked with Give the man his own TV SHOW!!!!
NIF linked with I survived NC
Save The GOP linked with Pure Pwnage
Fresh Politics - Politics from the Student Perspective linked with Fresh Politics - Politics from the Student Perspective
Hitchens Trounces Ron Reagan [ Tempus Fugit | TxFx.net ] linked with Hitchens Trounces Ron Reagan [ Tempus Fugit | TxFx.net ]
Iowa Voice linked with Ron Reagan Proves Intelligence Not Hereditary
The Strata-Sphere linked with Hitchen’s Educating Ronnie Boy
Decision '08 linked with Miscellanea: What About Wilson? Edition
Say Anything linked with Hitchens Smacks Down Reagan
Peat Bog linked with Hitchens Smacks Down Reagan
Little Miss Attila linked with Via Everybody
Secular Blasphemy linked with Is the war on terror the root cause of terrorism?
Ed Driscoll.com linked with Surgical Precision Part Deux
Dinocrat linked with Question: how do you redress grievances like these?
A Dusty Life linked with Hitchens Destroys Non Reagan; U.S. is Justified
Isaac Schrödinger linked with Hitchens Smacks Ron
INDC Journal linked with Very Satisfying
Pejmanesque linked with REAGAN GETS WHIPPED IN DEBATE
smegmaster.com linked with Hitch’ Takes a Big Old British Crap on Ron Reagan
baldilocks linked with Not Just Flesh and Blood (UPDATED)
Three Sources linked with Don't Read This
QuickRob linked with Muslim Outrage Over Bombings? Newsday Found Some!
68 Responses to “Ron Reagan Mowed Over by Chris Hitchens (VIDEO)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
2:06 pm [ Quote ]
I love seeing these types of mismatches. It’s like watching Tony Blair drub George Galloway.
I followed Young Mr. Reagan’s dad & Young Mr. Reagan’s no Ronald W. Reagan.
That said, it’s obvious that Mr. Hitchens is a supreme debater because he’s got such an incredible depth of knowledge on the subjects that he speaks about.
2:19 pm [ Quote ]
[...] gested Ahmad’s friend Alix Mohamad, 29, of Egypt. Oh, boy, here we go again! Maybe Ronnie Reagan and Mohammad Ahmad should have a talk and they can nod their heads in agreement like b [...]
2:39 pm [ Quote ]
That was awesome. Christopher Hitchens is good even when he’s wrong, but he’s great when he’s right.
2:40 pm [ Quote ]
Hey did Tony Blair and Galloway have some kind of debate? Anybody got the transcript or video of that?
2:59 pm [ Quote ]
The only reason why the “young” (He’s about 50 btw) has a job is because of his father.
3:10 pm [ Quote ]
Don’t Read This
Unless you can handle verbal violence and a serious metaphorical beating of one of the squirreliest figures in American politics, don’t read this interchange between Christopher Hitchens and Ronnie Reagan. CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu N…
4:00 pm [ Quote ]
Whenever I think of Ron Jr I immediately think back to his late 80’s Ricki Lake-style talk show. I can’t take the man seriously and, judging by this clip, he’s basically a MSM mem-bot. “No Connection! No Connection” Uh huh
4:17 pm [ Quote ]
Not Just Flesh and Blood (UPDATED)
Christopher Hitchens knows why they hate
4:43 pm [ Quote ]
Yeah – the only reason he is even on TV is because (a) his name and (b) his opinion differs from his family and MSNBC is “cashing” in on this (well I really don’t think they are anymore) and possibly© Even Chris Matthews was tired of having him as a guest on Hardball.
5:29 pm [ Quote ]
They really should show some guts, and let Ms. Crowley have her own show…
Mr. Reagan Jr. is often uniformed and lacks serious ability.
His presence is weak, but these days it is no surprise. So many of these Democrat Partisan libs seem sophomoric, unethical, wimpy…
5:50 pm [ Quote ]
I agree he’s certainly got no on-screen presence, mind you, the right has people like Tucker Carlson, so they can’t exactly point the finger.
6:07 pm [ Quote ]
Great post…”Non Reagan,” as Laura Ingraham calls him, is a fool.
BTW, Hitchens is no conservative, just a periodically intellectually honest Marxist. Here’s a bit from Tim Russert when Hitchens was on with Andrew Sullivan…
TR: You used the term “old leftist”. I’m always curious about your journey and your journey. You used to write for The Nation magazine, considered to be a liberal intellectual, tell us about—
CH: When I was actually neither. (Russert laughs) Certainly not a liberal anyway. No, I was a Marxist.
TR: A Marxist.
CH: Oh, well, I still think like a Marxist. I believe in the materialist conception of history, certainly. I still use those categories of analysis. They work, too. They’ve never been improved upon. But I’m no longer a Socialist.
TR: What has happened to some of the friendships that you used to have?
CH: A lot of people think that I’m a sellout (Sullivan laughs) would be one very crude way of putting it. Some people think I may have become slightly unhinged. I just say to them, “Look, I think the United States is worth fighting for, and I think it needs to be defended unapologetically against the forces of jihad.” There is no possibility of having a moral equivalence discussion here. I won’t listen to a bar of that song. And no one’s yet pointed out to me where the flaw in this very simple-minded reasoning of mine is.
You can read the rest of it here:
http://hwinker.home.att.net/TR.htm
6:31 pm [ Quote ]
Ron should go and put his tutu back on.
He doesn’t know jack about this subject.
7:43 pm [ Quote ]
Don’t be fooled by HItchens. I’m glad he’s on our side with this issue, but he is NOT NOW a conservative! He had some really scathing comments to make about Ronald Reagan shortly after Dutch died that made me really angry.
He is still a liberal, but just happens to have some sense when it comes to understanding the threat coming from the Muslim world.
7:48 pm [ Quote ]
That is, PRESIDENT Ronald Reagan, not this effete ballet dancer.
7:50 pm [ Quote ]
Here is the link on Hitchen’s essay about President Reagan. Not only is it awful, but it was extremely insensitive given that it came while the family was grieving. F&*k Christohper Hitchens, I don’t care if he wins arguments against homosexual ballet dancers by interrupting them.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/
7:57 pm [ Quote ]
Excellent point Wilson. Clearly beyond the pale on President Reagan, as well as Kissenger and Mother Teresa come to think about it. That said, here’s a link to a strong showing by Hitchens:
http://cactus-road.blogspot.com/2004/10/hitchens-marxist-leftist-neocon.html
9:51 pm [ Quote ]
Hitch: word, re Marx: “The devil gave me this sword.” Why it never works.
9:56 pm [ Quote ]
[...] you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do? Update: Video here. I love Hitchens. He’s like a drunk George Orwell.
[...]
9:58 pm [ Quote ]
REAGAN GETS WHIPPED IN DEBATE
It wouldn’t happen to the father. It happens all too often to the son. And in the event that it needs repeating—apparently it does—just because al Qaeda and Ba’athist Iraq did not collaborate in planning the September 11th attacks does…
10:07 pm [ Quote ]
Very Satisfying
Video of Hitch smacking around Ron Reagan….
10:30 pm [ Quote ]
Classic. More of this is all I want for Christmas.
11:12 pm [ Quote ]
Hitchens Smacks Ron
He is not his father’s son. RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…CH: Have you ever
11:40 pm [ Quote ]
Hitchens Destroys Non Reagan; U.S. is Justified
Read the transcript at Radio Blogger or watch the video at The Political Teen. Anyone who can act like they think the root cause of terrorism is fighting against it, well, they’re simply ignorant of the world. We might be…
12:57 am [ Quote ]
[...] ng governments that endorse it? Here’s the video of a man and a nincompoop, via the Political Teen. This entry was posted on Friday, July 8th, 20 [...]
2:51 am [ Quote ]
Surgical Precision Part Deux
Roger L. Simon writes:What is most surprising about Christopher Hitchens’ decimation of semi-literate talk show host Ron Reagan on Reagan’s show the other day is finally how unsurprising it is. It was like observing an expert sniper shoot a deaf-and-...
6:33 am [ Quote ]
In the movie “In Harms Way” Kirt Douglas is talking to John Wayne’s son in the movie and questions wether he’s his real son and says “somebody got there before him”. Hate to say this but maybe somebody got there before President Reagan.
7:09 am [ Quote ]
Is the war on terror the root cause of terrorism?
Christopher Hitchens destroys Ron Reagan in this debate about terrorism and the Iraq war.
11:42 am [ Quote ]
Via Everybody
. . . the video (at Political Teen) of Christopher Hitchens hitting Ron Reagan, Jr., with a rolled-up newspaper. It was the finest of guilty pleasures; Hitchens is a lefty I love to love….
1:37 pm [ Quote ]
I don’t know what the big deal is. Chris Hitchens and Ron Reagan Jr? Give me a break. If Ron Reagan Jr. weren’t such an intellectual lightweight he could have destroyed Hitchens in that argument. I know that it’s hard to reason with a rambling, alcholic, interrupting British leftist, but still….
Saddam Hussein’s regime, evil and leftist and atheist that it was, was still not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is lying to himself. Hitchens mentioned that Iraq harbored Abu Nidal, the mastermind terrorist of the Achile Lauro boatjacking. Abu Nidal was a secularist, Arafatist, not an Islamic Jihadist.
Did Saddam’s Iraq periodically harbor, aid, and make contact with Islamic fascists? I don’t doubt it at all. But that doesn’t mean that Saddam was responsible for the terror attacks in the US. If you make that tenuous connection, then you can just as easily point to the aid the US gave the Afghani and Arab jihadists in the guerrilla war vs. the USSR, the switch back-and-forth help the US gave both Iraq and Iran between ‘80 and ‘88, and even whip out the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand. And don’t forget that the CIA and Pentagon were pro-Taliban back in 1997 because they were fighting against the pro-Iran Hektmatyar faction. There are many weird alliances between strange bedfellows in the bizarre world of Middle Eastern affairs, but this doesn’t mean that temporary allies are responsible for the actions of those who they briefly hitch their wagons to.
9/11 happened because:
– The US stayed in Saudi Arabia after the first Persian Gulf war – The US continues to prop up that corrupt-beyond-rotten regime
Anyone who claims anything else is lying to themselves. Now, of course, the Islamic fascists have a whole new set of reaasons to hate the west, thanks to the neo-liberal adventures of this administration which were supported by John Kerry, John McCain and other leftists. Are you going to keep lying to yourselves and watch our war expenditures hit $200 billion before too long and keep watching fine young American lads come home dead or disfigured?
Christopher Hitchens. Sheesh.
1:42 pm [ Quote ]
Ronald Reagan was a piece of shit.
Half you folks don’t even remember all the “brilliant” things he said like “trees cause pollution”...
All you guys should enlist to fight in this war.
2:57 pm [ Quote ]
Good points Real Con, it’s also interesting to see how quick we forget little things like most of the funding for the IRA came from these shores – something I’m sure the Brits would like to thank us for, or the recent case surrounding Luis Posada Carriles, a convicted terrorist who the American’s employed in the CIA.
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
3:43 pm [ Quote ]
[...] about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do? Now go read… UPDATE: The Political Teen has video of the event! Great!
[...]
3:50 pm [ Quote ]
[...] about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do? Now go read… UPDATE: The Political Teen has video of the event! Great! Notice how Ronnie keeps coming back to talking [...]
5:38 pm [ Quote ]
Miscellanea: What About Wilson? Edition
The Political Teen has the video of the Hitch tearing Ron Reagan a new one…
7:33 pm [ Quote ]
[...] show a positive, proud face because he is pragmatic before a partisan zealot. So here is the video of a know-nothing liberal getting smacked down by truly masterful liberal – who may soon f [...]
12:57 am [ Quote ]
Hey Politcal Teen (and others),
Are you going to try to refute my points? if not, I’ll assume that you agree with me.
2:05 am [ Quote ]
Ron Reagan Proves Intelligence Not Hereditary
Yikes! I wish I could have seen this live and on the air!
I am not quite sure it is a good idea to have a [once liberal now] conservative Englishman on your show to defend terrorism, Ronny boy.
Also I am not quite sure why Ron said something along
3:35 am [ Quote ]
[...] gesting that the root cause of terrorism is the fighting of terrorism. The Political Teen has the video. Transcript follows (I cleaned up a transcript I found here).
[...]
4:38 am [ Quote ]
[...] shpolitics.us/?p=700” rel=”bookmark” title=”Ron Reagan Gets Railed” border:0px; > Via The Political Teen, Ron Reagan gets mowed over on the topic of the London attacks on his show Coast [...]
9:58 am [ Quote ]
[...] ly more intelligent than he could ever hope to be? Well, just watch the video courtesy of The Political Teen. Or read the transcript at Radio Blogger. From Discarded Lies: RR: Christopher [...]
9:58 am [ Quote ]
I survived NC
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … first day back to work!
11:00 am [ Quote ]
It is simply pathetic that you guys should see hitchens as your ally because he supports the war in Iraq. Its for fundamentally different, and might I add liberal principles that he does so. I suggest you read what he had to say about Ron Reagan’s dad. Maybe the title will give you a hint “Not Even a Hedgehog”. I guess you couldnt expect better from a ‘political teen’
11:17 am [ Quote ]
Give the man his own TV SHOW
!
Ron Jr., your time is up. If MSNBC wanted to stay alive they would give Hitchens his own hour and I would buy TIVO just for that. Watch as Ron jumps the shark and is reduced to a third grader…
3:09 pm [ Quote ]
[...] f such a group in Somalia should come as no shock to anyone with the possible exception to Ron Reagan, however it is nonetheless worth noting. The U.N. monitors said they had pictures and in [...]
6:54 pm [ Quote ]
Hitchens has never been able to explain how a war of aggression that’s caused at least 100,000 unecessary deaths is a war of “necessity”, except by re-peddling the most tawdry lies about Saddam and “terrorism”, WMD etc and so on. He’s been lying about Iraq since before the war started, and he’s still lying. If you want to call turning a country of starving people living under a dictatorship into a country of starving people brutalized by an unending war while still living under a dictatorship (yes, widespread torture, arbitrary detention, military occupation…) “liberation”, then you just like being lied to, I guess.
8:05 pm [ Quote ]
In Case You Missed It…
IAN SCHWARTZ has the video of Christopher Hitchens berating Ron Reagan on MSNBC. Via Radio Blogger, here’s a transcript of the heart of Hitchen’s rant: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in…
9:49 pm [ Quote ]
Absolutely right. Hitchens is an alcoholic nutcase from a leftist upper-class English family.
To link Al Qaeda and pre-US invasion Iraq is utterly absurd. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, bin Laden offered to raise an army to fight Iraq on Saudi Arabia’s behalf. The Saudis, fearful of a large contingent that might ultimately prove to threaten the House of Saud, turned him down and had the Americans come in instead. Al Qaeda hated the secular Saddam, and hate the majority Shiite inhabitants.
You can hardly blame the Political Teen and others for being ignorant to the true roots of terrorism and for being victim of the neocon propaganda machine—we just don’t have much access to the real truth in this country.
10:53 pm [ Quote ]
Coast-to-Toast
I’m not stealing DC’s thunder, so you will need to read the rest of the transcript here. Political Teen has the video here.
8:16 am [ Quote ]
The comments made by “Real Con not Neo Con” demonstrate the backward thinking leftists and isolationist conservatives use in approaching this issue of terrorism and Iraq.
At no point did Hitchens attempt to tie Saddam to 9/11. That is not his point, and he would never try to make it. He was tying the regime to terrorism in general. But there seems to be a surplus of mental midgets who cannot seperate 9/11 from the general movement of Jihad/terrorism.
Our battles in the mideast are not about vengence over 9/11, they are about making sure something like it doesnt occur again. I think the name of our mission alone should make it clear what our goal is: “THE WAR ON TERRORISM”.
If this administration were waging a war that actually fit the mold created by liberals and other dillusional critics, it would be called THE WAR ON ANYONE WHO WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE ATTACKS OF 9/11.
Following their idiotic logic, we would have just hunted down the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor and declared the Second World War over. Meanwhile, fascism would have spread the globe.
Those of us who understand the real stakes of this current war know that Jihad inspired terrorism, like fascism in WWII, must be routed.
4:16 pm [ Quote ]
The root cause
Though I think Ron Reagan has his heart in the right place I wish he would make more use of his head. Christopher Hitchens makes short work of the idea that “cause of terrorism is fighting against it.” Excuse me….
1:35 am [ Quote ]
Kevin P. – bravo – that was brilliantly put.
To add 2 cents: to all those “this was our fault” spouters and to Non Reagan’s “how many more victories like this do we want to endure” comment.
That sentiment is equivalent to blaming the traffic issues in NYC after the towers fell – on the police, firefighters and volunteers that were cleaning up the mess.
The people that planned and murdered 3000 innocents are the ones to blame – we can only do our best to move on and to try prevent it from happening again.
What’s your suggestion Real Con? Close our bases in Saudi Arabia? Peace through weakness – there’s a lot of historical precedent for that being effective.
Also, in the midst of your “logic”, while missing the point altogether, you mention, as if its somehow inconcievable that we have supported regimes and goverments at some point in time, that have since become our enemies. That is an unavoidable function of time and a complicated world. By the way, the British are now our closest ally, is the fact that 200 years ago they used to be our enemy relevant? Had you suggested that we should have somehow known before we aided Iraq that they would become our enemy, and reinforced it with reason, that would have been a substinative point – but you seem to be short on substance.
Your words, are nothing more than the words of a critic; you seem to have a lot to say, but not much in the way of a solution to a complicated problem. You may pride yourself on your self impressing criticisms, but they are not a plan, they are not leadership, they are nothing more than the rantings of a frustrated monday morning quarterback rooting for the wrong team.
1:49 am [ Quote ]
George, interestng points, but you don’t have to go back 200 years to when the British were our enemies. How do you justify the British being our allies in the 70’s and 80’s while American citizens financed the IRA?
Calling this the “War on Terrorism” is media buzz that the political system can use as a generalization. Whatever happened to the “War on Drugs”? Is it still being waged? did we win? Was it really a war?
These aren’t “Wars” in the traditional sense of the word, they are terms used to galvanize the world to a certain political or idealogical point of view, much like the term Jihad.
Sometimes we want our cake and we want to eat it too. What does calling it a “War” do to the status of the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Graib – it makes them POW’s who we can detain indefinitely or for the duration without charging them with anything other than being enemy combatants. This is a “War” more for convenience. We are not at “War” we are engaged in a military conflict with a country that supports the instruments of terrorism. At least lets call it what it is, afterall is it something we are ashamed of?
10:34 am [ Quote ]
Carnival of Crazy
Welcome to the first edition of File it Under’s Carnival of Crazy.
What is the Carnival of Crazy? There’s no play on words here. It’s the craziest stuff we’ve found in the blogosphere and news over the past week.
11:45 am [ Quote ]
James, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make – it sounds like more criticism without a goal. What does it matter what you call it? What is your plan to prevent another 9/11? A semantic argument about what constitutes calling something a War doesn’t really accomplish anything.
If you want to criticize our actions at Gitmo, try to propose a solution to the problem. We have enemies of the state and have bits of information that suggest this and tie them together, but may not be able to yet prove this in a way that our justice system can properly handle – look at OJ - worste case there a murderer is released back into the wild – the stakes here are much greater. Should we release Jose Padilla (google image search for him, and then for John Doe #2 from Oklahoma, then read up on his known associations) if he is intent on killing innocent Americans, because we cannot prosecute him as a criminal and prove in a court what law he has broken?
These are different times that clearly call for different measures. The people at Gitmo are clearly more like enemies in a war, than even the worste criminals. If you try to ignore this fact, you are missing the main point.
Also, if you are concerned with Gitmo and proper terminology, figure out what to call people like Padilla – criminals, murderers? I don’t think those words adequately describe someone who is aligned with forces actively trying to undermine our way of life, economy and government, intent on killing hundreds or thousands of innocents.
Perhaps you are like many people I know, who live in the world of theory, with no real context. The people who are against the death penalty, or believe in early parole for murders and rapists, that is until their family member is raped or murdered. Maybe if your friend or family member was taken by an act of terrorism, you might then see the rational for keeping these people detained. Maybe then you’d call it a war.
I, as many other Americans, don’t have to have it happen to me to understand the stakes.
I’d love to hear what suggestions you have to solve the problems we face – that requires more effort than simply stating what you think is being done incorrectly. Again, monday morning quarterbacking is easy.
1:50 pm [ Quote ]
To #48
Let me guess…you have brown eyes
2:42 pm [ Quote ]
Rick B; what the hell was your last comment supposed to mean? Would you have listened if his eyes were blue? Let ME guess; you didn’t do so well in English class…. can’t express what you want to say in words so you HATE? My eyes ARE blue; and you… sound like an anti-semite….
2:48 pm [ Quote ]
To Marc Rosen whom Rick’s comment was directed at; I agree with you completely.
5:48 am [ Quote ]
Kevin P: what “general movement of jihad/terrorism” do you have in mind exactly? The one embedded in the Pakistani ISI, our great ally in the “war on terror”? Hitchens tells us Saddam was harboring a retired Palestinian terrorist who hadn’t been actively involved in terror, let alone “jihad” for over a decade, and this is supposed to be a casus belli? You may not know this, but Hitchens used to mumble severely about one Abdul Rahman Yasin, a 1993 WTC bombing suspect, who Saddam also allegedly “harbored”. Turns out, Saddam JAILED him after he fled to Iraq and even offered to extradite him to the USA, but the offer was refused. Hitchens just likes to tell stories, so long as they somehow make his war(s) seem urgent and necessary. As for you, you seem to believe we can go to war with whomever we want, so long as we can find a “terrorist” they may have supported. Does this mean the Cubans should start setting off bombs in Washington? Maybe we should pre-emptively attack, just to be sure they don’t.
As for my eyes, they’re not as bloodshot as Chris H’s, but it’s nice to know that there are still some antisemites who support wars conducted for the benefit of Israel.
10:36 am [ Quote ]
Hitchens Scores a 1st Round TKO Against Reagan
On Monday (7/11/05) night on MSNBC’s Connected: Coast to Coast, host Ron Reagan got his rhetorical derriere handed to him by Vanity Fair’s Christopher Hitchens about the reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place. Like all good liberals, Ron Re…
11:01 pm [ Quote ]
Come on now, can’t the media come up with anything better to do? Ron Reagan is not even close to being as politically astute as his father in many respects.
It’s like saying something like “Kiefer Sutherland is as good as his father at acting just because he’s his son.”
Irrelevant interview if you ask me. A total waste.
11:50 am [ Quote ]
All your title are belong to us
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Kerry-180 Tuesday
12:18 am [ Quote ]
I’m a huge fan of Hitch, but didn’t it seem like he just filibustered there and went a little ad-hominus on Ronny-boy?
8:03 pm [ Quote ]
Hitchens can’t get his story straight. In this debate he claims that the 9/11 terrorists “were not envoys of the Saudia Arabian government.” However, in July 2002, in a debate with Tariq Ali, Hitch stated: “The murder victims of New York and Pennsylvania and D.C. were not first gutted with knives like sheep, and then burned alive by subjects of our empire. They were slaughtered by the clones and surrogates of a covert part of this empire, paid for by the Saudis and armed and trained by the Pakistani secret police.” So which is it, Hitch? If it’s the latter, then Reagan is quite right: by Hitchens’ logic we are duty bound to knock off Saudia Arabia and Pakistan.
2:29 am [ Quote ]
Hitchens Kicks Ass
link (tip to LGF)
On the MSNBC show that Ron Reagan, Jr. co-hosts, Hitchens ki…
10:17 am [ Quote ]
[...] The Political Teen has the video of the Hitch tearing Ron Reagan a new one… [...]
10:35 pm [ Quote ]
Nancy boy’s defenders protesteth too much
My post about Ron Reagan, Jr. has left more than a few liberals with their panties in a knot. It’s good that Ronnie is a liberal himself or he probably would find himself the target of a good old-fashioned outing…
5:15 pm [ Quote ]
voegqiw cvye