By Christopher Orlet on 9.9.05 @ 12:06AM
Christopher Hitchens still makes the case for Saddam's removal better than anyone.
Suppose a brilliant physicist were asked onto a popular comedy
TV show to explain the theory of quantum physics in less than a
minute while constantly being interrupted by gibes and hornblasts
from the wise guy host.
For the past two months the columnist Christopher Hitchens has
endured similar ordeals in guest appearances on Jon Stewart's
The Daily Show, Al Franken's Air America show, and other
leftist political-comedy shows. Granted, defending the Iraq War
policy is not as complex and tedious as explaining quantum physics,
and granted Hitchens brings it on himself. No one is forcing him
onto The Daily Show, but the lure of a national audience
(Jon Stewart's audience: 1.4 million. Charlie Rose's audience: an
insomniac in Fargo and his cat) is irresistible and Hitchens's real
purpose is, after all, to hawk his latest book.
Nothing wrong with that. A freelance journalist, even the best,
still makes beans.
But more than any Bush administration official, more than any
Republican talking head, more than W. himself, Christopher Hitchens
has been making a credible, practical, and important case for
taking out Saddam. And the odds are stacked in the anti-war left's
favor. The Cindy Sheehans and Jane Fondas have only to scream and
chant a few vacuous platitudes or nursery rhymes for the evening
news ("Wrong war, wrong time!"), then sit back and snicker as the
regime-changers fumble to present the facts, explain the reasoning,
the history, the threat, and the benefits to world peace and global
stability of a democratic Iraq.
For the left, it is literally that easy. One does not need
logic, facts, or an encyclopedic knowledge of world history to get
his message out -- only shallow emotions, simplistic arguments and
puerile chants like "Bush lied, people died!" (The irony is that
many of these anti-war protesters are underclassmen or graduates of
the supposedly elite universities where students were once taught
to eschew simplistic arguments.)
Another scenario: You are a scientist and proponent of
Intelligent Design invited onto a comedy show to hawk your new
book. The minute you plop down on the sofa the host wags a finger
in your face and says, "Tell me why I'm wrong [about Evolution]!"
You begin with the fact that evolution too is only a theory, the
same as ID, but the host cuts you off. "Gravity is just a theory
too! You're going to compare that to Intelligent Design?" The
audience applauds and hoots. You have 20 seconds left. You shrug.
What's the point? "Can we get to my book?" "Not yet," says the
host. "You still have 15 seconds to convince the world that you're
not a complete and total fraud."
I'VE NOW SEEN THE video of Hitchens's appearance on The Daily
Show several times, and the former Trotskyite turned
neo-conservative actually did himself proud in the beginning. "Tell
me why I'm wrong?" said the host. So the mumbly Hitchens laid out
the Four Criteria which must be met before the International
Community is Morally Obligated to Remove a Dictator from Power --
call it the "Hitchens Doctrine:"
* Iraq had invaded its neighbors
* Iraq had committed genocide on its own soil
* Iraq had harbored and nurtured international thugs and
killers
* And Iraq had flouted every provision of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
So we went in and removed a fascist dictator with nuclear
ambitions from power. Bad, Bad, America!
That, however, wasn't enough for America's favorite late-night
jester. That's all? Pfaw! That's nothing. North Korea is worse.
Why don't we invade them? And Saudi Arabia? And, and Iran...
Would anyone be surprised to hear that that was Stewart's reaction
to the Rwandan genocide and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia?
If Hitchens is going to be the comedy shows' go-to guy when it
comes to making the case for the removal of Saddam Hussein he will
need an all-purpose 30-second retort. One that will not presume to
make the real case for war (that would take hours to be done
effectively, along with an audience possessing a combined
three-digit IQ), but one that shows Bush at least believes in a few
permanent moral values in a society based more and more on moral
relativism.
Hitchens might pick up the old interviewing dodge of never
answering a loaded question except with another loaded question.
Sadly that's the only way to come out of these comedy interviews
not smelling like a wet dog. Hitchens might begin by throwing the
question back at the host: Why are we in Iraq? It seems to me we
should be asking why aren't all the Western democracies in Iraq?
Before the invasion the West had a simple choice to make: an Iraq
under a dictator who attacked Israel in 1973, Iran in 1980, and
Kuwait a decade later, while simultaneously gassing his own Kurdish
population and butchering Iraqi Shiites, then tried to get his
grubby hands on nuclear weapons while promoting terrorism across
the region. The alternative was an Iraq with a freely elected
democratic government that will no longer be a danger to anyone but
the Democrats in the 2008 primary.
"Now, then, about my book."
Given time and a serious setting, Hitchens still makes the case
for Saddam's removal better than anyone. It is not a task he has
sought out, but since he still carries some cachet with the media
from his days as a Trotskyite, and since the Bush team seems not up
to the task, Hitchens takes on the cause with relish. On Sept. 14,
Hitchens will appear in a debate with British MP and Islamo-fascist
apologist George Galloway. The smart money is on Hitchens giving
Gorgeous George a good spanking.
topics:
Islam, Iraq, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Oil