Drink Scotch Whisky All Night Long and Die Digging Up Irony So You Can Kill It Again
By The first requirement of anyone engaging in an intellectual or academic debate is that he or she be able to give a proper account of the opposing position(s), and Fukuyama simply fails this test.
Yes, Christopher “there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today’s Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq” “So you’re saying, sir, that you can be bought?” Hitchens is accusing somebody else of not stating the opposing viewpoint in its strongest form. What can you say? And how would Hitchens like his position characterized?
And it wasn’t any illusion about the speed and ease of a transition so much as the conviction that any change would be an improvement.
Yeah, I’m sure you can remember all of those neocons going around before the war saying that “we should invade Iraq in order to create a regime that while not likely to be democratic anytime soon will be a marginal improvement.” Ah, Hitch–nothing like accusing your opponents of being unfair because they don’t use your retrospectively cooked-up strawmen to debate with…