The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Tariq Ali on Christopher Hitchens and the First Gulf War

Tariq Ali on Christopher Hitchens and the First Gulf War
Posted by Marcello (Guest) - Sunday, January 11 2015, 9:15:02 (UTC)
from 71.107.52.66 - pool-71-107-52-66.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net Network - Windows NT - Safari
Website: http://www.us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand
Website title: Document Has Moved

Bush in Babylon: The Recolonisation of Iraq
by Tariq Ali (2003)

-- An excellent book chronicling the 20th century history from the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, to the rise and fall of Iraq... into a failed state.


Appendix:

Tariq Ali on Christopher Hitchens and the First Gulf War


Once upon a time there was a radical English journalist. Despite harbouring a crush on Margaret Thatcher (his little secret), he tired of life on the sceptred isle. Who can blame him? His huge talents, not to mention a watermelon-sized ego, could not be confined to an increasingly provincial medium-sized country in Northern Europe. He decided to shift continents. When he arrived in New York in the 1980s, my old friend and comrade, Alexander Cockburn, already established there as a writer and columnist, introduced the new arrival to New York society. Cockburn has barred me from writing of those early years. The more delicious morsels are being saved for his own memoirs. The crumbs offered me are too tasteless for a book of this sort, which I hope will be read by many old people. So I fast-forward.
Soon afterwards, Christopher H. began to write a regular column, 'Minority Report', for The Nation, a radical New York weekly. It appeared every fortnight and was a good column, even when one disagreed with its contents. It was often witty and unpredictable, except when the author adopted an unpleasant tone (shades of the future) towards anyone even mildly critical of George Orwell or Salman Rushdie, or anyone else Hitchens had positioned on his own private pedestal. Pity the columnist who needs heroes.

Ten years ago, however, bullying outbursts were rare. The battle for Christopher H.'s soul - fought over by two veterans of, respectively, Greek mythology and the Old Testament - had not yet begun in earnest. Occasionally in his writing, one could detect the friendly sparring between Narcissus and Onan, but in the main, it must be admitted, radical politics were in command. He had something to say. And he said it well.

During the First Gulf War, Hitchens posed some searching and pertinent questions. Since they are even more relevant today, it's worth alerting a younger generation to their value given that most see the journalist as he is now — a permanently flushed, reactionary bruiser, a 'warmonger who sells war, like a fishmonger sells fish', to quote Sir Rodric Braithwaite's description of Tony Blair. It was not always thus.

Early on in the crisis, the anti-imperialist Hitchens questioned the Wests obsession with Kuwait and declared his sympathy for the Iraqi position:

It is certainly possible for the United States to reconquer the whole of Kuwait if it chooses to do so, but such an outcome would only restore an untenable status quo. When the British drew the borders they did so with the specific intention of denying Iraq access to the sea, and thus of making it more dependent on Britain. Sir Anthony Parsons, former foreign policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, former envoy to the United Nations and hardened veteran of the region, put it like this only last month: 'In the Iraqi subconscious, Kuwait is part of Basra province, and the bloody British took it away from them. We protected our strategic interests rather successfully, but in doing so we didn't worry too much about the people living there. We created a situation where people felt they had been wronged.' (The Nation, 2 October 1990)
Hitchens goes on to denounce those who talk of 'appeasement' and to argue that a compromise solution is necessary. Possibly Kuwait could be leased to Iraq — with or without the ruling family — and the West should pressure Kuwait in this direction. But there is a more pressing problem:
The danger at the moment is that President Bush, flush with his triumphs on the international stage, will seek to overthrow Saddam and also to create some permanent nexus of alliances in the region. It would be fascinating to know if he has any idea who ought to run Iraq, and it would also be interesting to know how long he would commit himself to the task.The Israeli Right seems to take the view that no Arab state should be allowed to evolve beyond a certain level of strength and development; thus Carthage needs to be levelled every decade or so. Is this to be Washington's policy also? (The Nation, October 1990)
A fortnight later, Hitchens quoted Albert Einstein denouncing Menachim Begin as 'a fascist' in the 'NewYork Times in 1948' (why didn't the renowned Nation fact-checkers get him the exact date?), and informed his readers of his own distaste for the Israeli winner of a Nobel Peace Prize. He went on to defend Patrick Buchanan ('a solid home-grown McCarthyite with proto-fascist tendencies') who had been labelled a Nazi 'because he doesn't care for the influence ofYitzhak Shamir — the only living politician in the Middle East who actually offered himself as a volunteer for the Hitler side in World War II'. The column ended with a witty denunciation of Martin Peretz of The New Republic. His crime? He had called for Iraq to be captured and dismembered.

Soon it was time for a little general-bashing:

When I saw the low-comedy figure of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. swim onto my screen the other day, talking out of the side of his mouth about 'kicking the butt' of Saddam Hussein and beaming at the puerile appellation 'Stormin' Norman' a rat stirred in the cluttered attic of my memory. I knew of course that the general had covered himself in glory in Vietnam and Grenada. But wasn't there something else familiar about the name? (The Nation, 29 October 1990)
Of course there was, and readers were duly told that Norm's dad had done dirty work in Iran for the CIA and helped topple a democratic regime which had nationalised the country's oil industry in 1952: 'Stormin' Norman clearly is not genetically responsible for his father's role in helping pick a Hitler fan to govern Iran. Yet this father—son gendarmerie for the oil industry is better seen as continuity than coincidence.' And, incidentally, the military intervention in Iraq was a sign of 'imperial decay' because the US could not solve the crisis in any other way. In November 1990, readers of the column were informed of the similarities between the Sabah family in Kuwait and the Bush clan in the US. Both were involved in dodgy deals, and Hitchens quite properly-asked: 'Are the Bushes worth dying for?' His answer: 'Not worth dying for, I'd say. Not worth killing for either.' Why not? Because President Bush and his sons were up to no good. Neil Bush was facing charges of improper conduct; Jeb Bush was being bailed out of trouble with government cash to the tune of $4.6 million; and, yes:

In this delicious world dwells also George Bush Jr., the eldest son of our all-wise Chief Exec and a 'director, large stock-holder, and $120,000-a-year consultant to a Texas oil company whose potentially lucrative drilling rights in the Persian Gulf are being protected by American troops.' I am quoting from the invaluable Pete Brewton of The Houston Post, who broke the initial S&L story ... (The Nation, 12 November 1990)
Three months later, as Operation Desert Storm is about to commence. Hitchens indicts the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, for numerous crimes, including a refusal to take seriously a last-minute bid for peace by several countries and the UN Secretary-General. Hitchens is very stern on the question of Palestine. Bush is accused of using Israeli military and intelligence facilities to plan the war. Later we are told that whereas in the past there was some cosmetic commitment to settling the 'essential, central, defining question of Palestine', now it's 'goodbye to all that'. The very next column is Hitchens at his mocking best, denouncing the crude use of Churchilliana to bolster the resident at the White House and the denunciation of all enemies as being morally equivalent to Hitler. As the US goes to war, The Nation columnist from somewhere on high calmly pours vitriol on the President's head.

On 11 March 1991 there is a tough-minded denunciation of Western racism, the 'coarsening of domestic public opinion', and the 'cretinisation of the media', all of which, like much else in these columns, is even more apposite in 2003, and for that reason, personal pronoun notwithstanding, deserves to be quoted in full:

On December 28 last. I pulled a long face as I cut out and kept a front-page story by the Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles limes, the sagacious and well-connected Jack Nelson. The article concerned the coming war, as it would be fought at home. It reported a conversation with 'two officials involved with Bush in Persian Gulf strategy'. I cut it out because I thought I might be needing it: 'The officials said Bush assumes the American public will be mainly concerned about the number of US casualties, not the tens of thousands of Iraqis who stand to die or be maimed in a massive air assault, and that even the killing of thousands of civilians - including women and children -probably would not undermine American support for the war effort.'
As I write, the opinion polls show that a well-fed public believes there was a mass suicide in a Baghdad bunker, orchestrated with the fell purpose of making George look, and Barbara feel, bad. This filthy plot, which unfolded just a day short of qualifying to call itself the St. Valentine's Day Provocation, was thwarted by American resolve. Three days before it, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell were photographed as they wrote jaunty inscriptions on the casings of about-to-be-used bombs. In the hours after it, Marlin Fitzwalter opined solemnly that certain Iraqis had a different attitude toward death. (Do you notice that this usually means that the speaker has a different attitude towards the death of Iraqis?) ... To possess an empire, it is necessary to be tough and resilient. The public must in principle be ready at all times to display an unflinching stoicism, a stern willingness to endure the suffering of complete strangers. Without this resolute quality, the entire concept of 'peace through strength' would become a hollow thing ...

Two weeks later the war is over. Between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldier have died in vain. Hitchens leaves it to the Iraqis to determine how main of these deaths are due to Saddam Hussein. For him the decision to kill the soldiers of a retreating army, after its offer to withdraw under international supervision and its acceptance of UN Resolution 660 has been rejected, is imperialist immorality at its worst:

I look forward to editions of Sesame Street and other special programming in place of cartoon fare in which American children will have the turkey shoot explained to them. I look forward to more statements from American peaceniks explaining how it is that they support the troops but not the war. I especially look forward to fresh Augustinian tautologies from our churchmen about proportionality in a just war. But perhaps we may be relieved of the necessity for these reassurances. After all, if no misgivings are expressed, where is the need for rationalization? (The Nation, 25 March 1991)
The triumphalism and the gloating that follow the war angers Hitchens. He writes:

Over the past several weeks I have been intrigued by the non-existence of the phrase 'the Mutlaa massacre'. Mutlaa is the site of the funkily named 'Highway of Death' where American pilots caught a convoy of fleeing Iraqis, bombed the vehicles at both ends and then returned to shred and dismember the resulting traffic jam again and again. Everybody sat and watched those pictures. ... If everybody who marvelled at the absence of a protest had protested, there would have been a protest ... Not one voice is being raised to inquire what the United States Army is now doing in Iraq. ... Meanwhile. Palestinian agriculture on the West Bank has been all but destroyed by a curfew that has prevented the tending of fields or animals. ... In an attempt to split the PLO, Saudi and Kuwaiti envoys have met in Damascus with Ahmed Jibril and Abu Musa, two mercenary puppets with rejectionist records. Iran is gloating at the Lebanonisation of Iraq, a process that the US occupation is apparently not designed to retard. All the tactics of divide-and-rule, of the sort that led to the war in the first place, are being pursued with great vigour. And we ... look on. (The Nation. 8 April 1991)
Anger continued to mount. Bush was both 'Desert Stormtrooper' and 'Desert Rat'.The bombing of Iraq was compared to that of Dresden and Hitchens insisted that Western leaders and their local puppets be brought before a war crimes tribunal after the war. His reasons for this were cogent and compelling:

Bear in mind what Bush and his 'people' have done. They have smashed the civilian infrastructure of an entire country, deliberately tearing apart the web of water, electricity and sewage lines that held it together. They have killed at least 100,000 conscripts (neatly sparing the 'elite Republican Guard' in order to conform to Saudi wishes) and a vast, uncounted number of non-combatants. They have prepared the way for the next wave of Apocalyptic horsemen in the form of famine and pestilence, described chillingly in reports from the UN and the International Red Cross. Their forces continue to occupy territory in Iraq ... (The Nation, 6 May 1991)
And in his last column on the war, after accusing General Schwarzkopf of violating the US Constitution by accepting an honour from the English Queen, he turned on the 'many liberals and even leftists who, during the run-up to the conflict, pronounced themselves co-belligerents. A popular formulation was "I prefer imperialism to fascism". Now with a ruined Iraq and a strengthened Saddam — not to mention a strengthened al-Saud and Sabah - we no longer have to choose between imperialism and fascism, we can have both.'

The situation in Iraq and the region (especially Palestine) is much worse in 2003 than it was in 1991. The iron heel of Zionism is firmly embedded on the neck of Palestine. Iraq is occupied by troops under command of a man whose father Hitchens wanted tried for war crimes. British troops are back in Basrah. In 1991 the infrastructure was repaired by the Iraqi regime within two months of the conclusion of hostilities. But at least water and electricity were restored within three weeks. They are still not available at the time of writing, nearly three months after the taking of Baghdad. Had it not been for the sanctions following the First Gulf War, Iraq might have returned to its pre-war condition in terms of health and education.

These days, Christopher Hitchens describes himself as 'a consultant to the White House'. If only the Clintons had done the decent thing and invited him during their tenure, they might have avoided his ferocious attacks on them. What happened to him? On 11 September 2001, a small group of terrorists crashed the planes they had hijacked into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers of New York. It was a terrible tragedy. Among the casualties, though unreported that week, was a middle-aged Nation columnist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. He was never seen again. The vile replica currently on offer is a double.*

*Footnote: Though not according to his old friend and protege, Dennis Perrin, who wrote a long farewell in the Minneapolis City Paper on 9 July 2003. He's sure it's the same guy alright and concludes his essay thus:

I can barely read him anymore. His pieces in the Brit tabloid The Mirror and in Slate are a mishmash of imperial justifications and plain bombast; the old elegant style is dead. His TV appearances show a smug, nasty scold with little tolerance for those who disagree with him. He looks more and more like a Ralph Steadman sketch. And in addition to all this, he's now revising what he said during the buildup to the Iraq war.
In several pieces, including an incredibly condescending blast against Nelson Mandela, Hitch went on and on about WMD, chided readers with 'Just you wait!' and other taunts, fully confident that once the US took control of Iraq, tons of bio/chem weapons and labs would be all over the cable news nets — with him dancing a victory jig in the foreground. Now he says WMD were never a real concern, and that he'd always said so. It's amazing that he'd dare state this while his earlier pieces can be read at his website. But then, when you side with massive state power and the cynical fucks who serve it, you can say pretty much anything and the People Who Matter won't care.

Currently, Hitch is pushing the line, in language that echoes the reactionary Paul Johnson, that the US can be a 'superpower for democracy,' and that Tomas Jefferson and Paine would approve. He's also slammed the 'slut' Dixie Chicks as 'fucking fat slags' for their rather mild critique of our Dear Leader. He favors Bush over Kerry, and doesn't like it that Kerry 'exploits' his Vietnam combat experience (as opposed to, say, re-election campaign stunts on aircraft earners).

Sweet Jesus. What next? I'm afraid my old mentor is not the truth-telling Orwell he fancies himself to be. He's becoming a coarser version of Norman Podhoretz [1].


[1]: Norman Podhoretz -- Political views[edit]
American history[edit]
Podhoretz has downplayed the importance of American history to his political beliefs. When Gore Vidal was writing his play On the March to the Sea, based on General William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the U.S. Civil War, Podhoretz asked him:
"Why are you writing a play about, of all things, the Civil War?" When Vidal explained that this was/is "the great, single tragic event that gives resonance to our Republic", Podhoretz replied, "To me, the Civil War is as remote and irrelevant as the War of the Roses."[14]
Iraq[edit]
In the leadup to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Podhoretz argued strongly for military intervention, claiming that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States.[15] After the 9/11 attack and more than a year before the start of the War in Iraq, Podhoretz wrote in February 2002 that "There is no doubt that Saddam already possesses large stores of chemical and biological weapons, and may ... be 'on the precipice of nuclear power.' ... Some urge that we ... concentrate on easier targets first. Others contend that the longer we wait, the more dangerous Saddam will grow. Yet whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power."[16]
Iran[edit]
In 2007, Podhoretz argued that the United States should attack Iranian nuclear facilities. According to The Sunday Times, Podhoretz believes that "Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are merely different fronts of the same long war."[17] Podhoretz describes diplomatic efforts with Iran as similar to appeasement of Nazi Germany prior to World War II. He also contends that the War on Terror is a war against Islamofascism, and constitutes World War IV (World War III having been the Cold War), and advocates the bombing of Iran to preempt Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.[18] His book on that subject, entitled World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, was published by Doubleday on September 11, 2007.
In a more recent article, Podhoretz explicitly stated his view that Iran should be attacked: "In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force."[19] He then went on to consider the consequences of bombing Iran:
The opponents of bombing – not just the usual suspects but many ... who have no illusions about the nature and intentions and potential capabilities of the Iranian regime – disagree that it might end in the overthrow of the mullahcracy. On the contrary, they are certain that all Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around the flag. And this is only one of the worst-case scenarios they envisage. To wit: Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love-fest.
I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these scenarios. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get the bomb.
[19]
Vietnam[edit]
In an editorial to the Wall Street Journal on the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Podhoretz contends that the retreat from Iraq should not be similar to the retreat from Vietnam. He argues that when the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, it sacrificed its national honor.[20]

In 1982, James Fallows wrote a review of Podhoretz's book, Why We Were in Vietnam, for the New York Times, in which he accuses Podhoretz of "changing his views" and "self-righteousness" on the subject of Vietnam, noting that in 1971 Podhoretz wrote that he would "prefer just such an American defeat to a 'Vietnamization' of the war."[21]

A larger quote from Why We Were in Vietnam which was included in the review is as follows:

As one who has never believed that anything good would ever come for us or for the world from an unambiguous American defeat, I now find myself – and here is the main source of my own embarrassment in writing about Vietnam – unhappily moving to the side of those who would prefer just such an American defeat to a 'Vietnamization' of the war which calls for the indefinite and unlimited bombardment by American pilots in American planes of every country in that already devastated region.

Soviet Union[edit]

In the early 1980s, Podhoretz was extremely sceptical that fundamental reform was possible in the USSR, and sharply criticized those who argued that U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union should be one of détente. In his 1980 book The Present Danger, Podhoretz predicted that the United States was in danger of losing the Cold War and falling behind the Soviet Union as a global power.[22]

Later he would express anger with President Ronald Reagan for "not establishing sufficiently strong policies toward the Soviets."[23]

George W. Bush[edit]

Podhoretz has praised Bush, calling him "a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it." He calls Bush the president who was "battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory."[15] & [19]

Sarah Palin[edit]

In a Wall Street Journal editorial titled "In Defense of Sarah Palin," Podhoretz wrote, "I hereby declare that I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.[24]

Books[edit]
1963: Hannah Arendt on Eichmann: a study in the perversity of brilliance New York: American Jewish Committee

1964: Doings and Undoings; the fifties and after in American writing. New York, Farrar, Straus (collection of essays)

1964: My Negro problem and ours New York: American Jewish Committee

1966: The Commentary reader; two decades of articles and stories, New York, Atheneum[disambiguation needed] editor (collection of essays).

1967: Making It New York, Random House (autobiography) ISBN 0-394-43449-8

1967: Jewishness & the younger intellectuals; a symposium reprinted from Commentary, a journal of significant thought and opinion on Jewish affairs and contemporary issues New York: American Jewish Committee (introduction)

1979: Breaking Ranks: A Political Memoir New York: Harper & Row,

1980: The Present Danger: "Do We Have the Will to Reverse the Decline of American Power?" New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0-671-41395-3

1981: The new defenders of capitalism Washington, D.C. : Ethics and Public Policy Center

1982: Why We Were in Vietnam New York : Simon and Schuster, (history and argument) ISBN 0-671-44578-2

1982: Congressional policy: a guide to American foreign policy and national defense Washington, D.C. : National Center for Legislative Research

1983: The present and future danger: thoughts on Soviet/American foreign policy Washington, D.C.: National Center for Legislative Research

1984: State of world Jewry address, 1983 New York : 92nd Street Y,

1986: Terrorism—Reagan's response Coral Gables, Florida : North-South Center, University of Miami, Working Paper, Soviet and East European Studies Program (transcript of a debate with William Maynes, Jiri Valenta)

1986: The Bloody Crossroads: Where Literature and Politics Meet New York : Simon and Schuster, (collection of essays) ISBN 0-671-61891-1

1989: Israel, a lamentation from the future Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec; Dawn Pub. Co.,

1999: Ex-Friends: Falling Out With Allen Ginsberg, Lionel & Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer New York,: Free Press, (memoir) ISBN 1-893554-17-1

2000: My Love Affair With America: The Cautionary Tale of a Cheerful Conservative New York: Free Press, (autobiography) ISBN 1-893554-41-4

2002: The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are New York: Free Press, (about the classical Hebrew prophets) ISBN 0-7432-1927-9

2003: The Norman Podhoretz Reader: A Selection of His Writings from the 1950s through the 1990s, New York: Free Press, edited by Thomas L. Jeffers; foreword by Paul Johnson ISBN 0-7432-3661-0

2005: The Bush doctrine: what the President said and what it means Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation

2007: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism New York: Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-52221-5

2009: Why Are Jews Liberals? New York: Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-52919-8
Further reading[edit]
Abrams, Nathan. Norman Podhoretz and Commentary magazine: The rise and fall of the neocons, Continuum, 2010.

Balint, Benjamin. Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish Left Into the Neoconservative Right (PublicAffairs; 2010)

Bloom, Alexander. Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals & Their World, Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 978-0-19-505177-3
Jeffers, Thomas L. Norman Podhoretz: A Biography (Cambridge University Press; 2010) 393 pages

Winchell, Mark Royden . Neoconservative criticism: Norman Podhoretz, Kenneth S. Lynn, and Joseph Epstein, Twayne Publishers, 1991. Twayne's United States authors series

Primary sources[edit]

"Norman Podhoretz" New York : American Jewish Committee, Oral History Library, Transcript of an interview conducted by Jill Levine, Dec 2, 1980 and Jan 8, July 22, 1981.

See also[edit]
Portal icon Conservatism portal
Life Against Death
References[edit]

Jump up ^ Commentary Magazine

Jump up ^ Independent.co.uk

Jump up ^ Norman Podhoretz – NNDB

Jump up ^ Contemporary Literary Criticism | Norman Podhoretz

Jump up ^ Biography of Norman Podhoretz

Jump up ^ http://books.google.com/books?
id=1JcFej2986cC&pg=PA134&dq=norman+podhoretz+harvard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xEKOUoOlFefNsQTEyYLoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=norman%20podhoretz%20harvard&f=false
Jump up ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=1JcFej2986cC&pg=PA13&dq=norman+podhoretz+jewish+theological&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7kKOUqePJsvMsQSytoKADg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=norman%20podhoretz%20jewish%20theological&f=false

Jump up ^ Profile: Norman Podhoretz

Jump up ^ White House Personnel Announcement, Office of the Press Secretary,

June 18, 2004.

Jump up ^ Heritage.org

Jump up ^ Giuliani's War Cabinet The American Prospect, September 25, 2007

Jump up ^ "His Toughness Problem—and Ours", by Ian Buruma

Jump up ^ Norman Podhoretz, Jewish conservative, asks, 'Why are Jews liberals?'

Jump up ^ Pettifer, Ann (December 14, 2002) Zionism Unbound, CounterPunch

^ Jump up to: a b Podhoretz N., "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine," Commentary Magazine, Sept. 2002

Jump up ^ Podhoretz N., "How to Win World War IV,", Commentary Magazine, February 2002

Jump up ^ Baxter, Sarah. "Neocon godfather Normal Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran." The Sunday Times. September 30, 2007

Jump up ^ Podhoretz N., "The Case for Bombing Iran," The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2007. Accessed May 30, 2007.

^ Jump up to: a b c "The Case for Bombing Iran", Commentary Magazine, last accessed November 26, 2007

Jump up ^ Podhoretz N., "America the Ugly" The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2007. Accessed September 11, 2007.

Jump up ^ Fallows, James "In Defense of an Offensive War" The New York Times, March 28, 1982. Accessed January 3, 2008.

Jump up ^ Norman Podhoretz, The Present Danger, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980.

Jump up ^ "The Rise of Neoconservatism", The Virginia Quarterly Review, Spring, 1996

Jump up ^ Podhoretz, Norman (March 30, 2010) "In Defense of Sarah Palin." Wall Street Journal.
External links[edit]



---------------------


The full topic:



Host: www.insideassyria.com
Content-length: 32287
Cache-control: max-age=0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/webp,*/*;q=0.8
Origin: http://www.insideassyria.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.95 Safari/537.36
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.0Kaq.
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.8
Cookie: *hidded*
X-onecom-forwarded-ip: 71.107.52.66
X-onecom-forwarded-proto: http
X-forwarded-for: 71.107.52.66
X-varnish: 1084668860
Connection: close



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9