Hitch Goes Down the Rabbit Hole
(To Take a Cheap Shot at Kerry)
First, let me stipulate that I have read the Slate piece linked above twice, and I still can't figure out what Christopher Hitchens is driving at. Hitch has had that effect on me lately. Ever since 9/11, he has been slowly but inexorably going insane. If you don't believe me, read the piece and try to put it in some moral and logical context recognized by adults of sound mind.
Although, as I said, I am not certain what Hitch is saying, I will make some guesses. First of all, he seems to be saying that Bush lied about the WMD, that Kerry believed him, and that believing a lie is worse than telling a lie. I hope that all of us sane people can agree that this is a morally reprehensible position. If we were to apply this principle generally, people who were deluded by Hitler are worse than Hitler.
A slightly different interpretation is that lying is OK (compared to believing) as long as it's a transparent lie, or at least transparent to people as clever as Christopher Hitchens. I hope we can agree that this is also a reprehensible position.
Another interpretation is that Bush lied and that Kerry didn't believe him, but pretended to believe him. In other words, Kerry is lying about being deceived. The problem with this argument, from Hitch's point of view, is that he already established that lying is not a big deal. If it is OK for Bush to lie in order to instigate a war, it must be OK for Kerry to lie about being lied to.
It is also possible that Hitch is saying that Bush told the truth about WMD. In that case, we can't fault Kerry for believing him, can we? After all, he would have believed something that was true, and even Kerry's worst enemy can't blame him for that. While we are cataloging the possibilities, it is also possible that Bush is telling the truth, and that Kerry believes him (in the present as well as the past) but is pretending not to believe him. While this would be somewhat reprehensible of Kerry, it wouldn't make him "gullible" as the title of the piece says. It would make Kerry pretty clever, while Hitchens seems to be saying that he is too much of a sap to be the President.
Well then, it appears that there is a logically and morally coherent argument that Hitch could have made against Kerry, and it goes as follows: Bush is telling the truth. Kerry believes him, but pretends not to believe him. Kerry is a liar, and lying is bad.
Alas for Hitch, this is clearly not the argument he is making. Of course, he would have to be sane to come up with it, but he is nuts. Got that? 
Woody
8:15:40 PM 
|
|
