the human province

In the title of his latest Slate piece, Hitch rhetorically asks himself, "So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?" And not suprisingly, he answers with a resounding "no!" He tries to come up with several shaky reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea in his latest dialogue with himself, but this Q&A is the icing on the cake that, to my mind, should alert anyone who still listens to him that he is either too intellectually dishonest or too delusional to merit any serious attention whatsoever.

This seriously ups the ante on either idiocy or la mauvaise foi, or perhaps both:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

In the title of his latest Slate piece, Hitch rhetorically asks himself, "So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?" And not suprisingly, he answers with a resounding "no!" He tries to come up with several shaky reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea in his latest dialogue with himself, but this Q&A is the icing on the cake that, to my mind, should alert anyone who still listens to him that he is either too intellectually dishonest or too delusional to merit any serious attention whatsoever.

This seriously ups the ante on either idiocy or la mauvaise foi, or perhaps both:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

In the title of his latest Slate piece, Hitch rhetorically asks himself, "So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?" And not suprisingly, he answers with a resounding "no!" He tries to come up with several shaky reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea in his latest dialogue with himself, but this Q&A is the icing on the cake that, to my mind, should alert anyone who still listens to him that he is either too intellectually dishonest or too delusional to merit any serious attention whatsoever.

This seriously ups the ante on either idiocy or la mauvaise foi, or perhaps both:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

In the title of his latest Slate piece, Hitch rhetorically asks himself, "So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?" And not suprisingly, he answers with a resounding "no!" He tries to come up with several shaky reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea in his latest dialogue with himself, but this Q&A is the icing on the cake that, to my mind, should alert anyone who still listens to him that he is either too intellectually dishonest or too delusional to merit any serious attention whatsoever.

This seriously ups the ante on either idiocy or la mauvaise foi, or perhaps both:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

In the title of his latest Slate piece, Hitch rhetorically asks himself, "So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?" And not suprisingly, he answers with a resounding "no!" He tries to come up with several shaky reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea in his latest dialogue with himself, but this Q&A is the icing on the cake that, to my mind, should alert anyone who still listens to him that he is either too intellectually dishonest or too delusional to merit any serious attention whatsoever.

This seriously ups the ante on either idiocy or la mauvaise foi, or perhaps both:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

In the title of his latest Slate piece, Hitch rhetorically asks himself, "So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?" And not suprisingly, he answers with a resounding "no!" He tries to come up with several shaky reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea in his latest dialogue with himself, but this Q&A is the icing on the cake that, to my mind, should alert anyone who still listens to him that he is either too intellectually dishonest or too delusional to merit any serious attention whatsoever.

This seriously ups the ante on either idiocy or la mauvaise foi, or perhaps both:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.