It reads:
“May 17, Coral Gables, Florida: I owe an apology. It is absolutely not true, as urban legend has it, that Orthodox Jews conduct sexual congress through a hole in the sheet. I should never have mentioned this slander, even in passing, in my book. (It won’t appear in the reprint.) At the Temple Judea, a Reform synagogue that seats a thousand people, I make this concession in an exchange with Nathan Katz. But when I go on to attack the Jewish prayer that thanks god for not making you a woman or a Gentile, I get quite a bit of applause. As well as featuring Katz, the panel of my critics contains a Muslim woman scholar, a Buddhist nun, and a charismatic Catholic. What if all these people were to walk into a bar at the same time? Surely the barman would ask if it was some kind of joke.
The Second Presbyterian Church in New York puts up a sign in big letters, reading, “Christopher Hitchens doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” These are the people whose early dominance of America was described by Jefferson as witchcraft and inquisition. As against that, my book is climbing the bestseller list and is outselling the Pope’s volume on Jesus Christ.”

We don’t have enough time for me to list all of the unforeseen ills that may yet come.

That’s not really an effective way to bait a realist.

I’m not trying to bait you.

I don’t know how the Bush Administration thought they’d be able to pull of a regime change of its liking in 2003. Agreed.

The Iraq War has led to many terrible things. Agreed.

But the expression “war monger” is tossed around too loosely these days–maybe not by you.

And, I think we might be a bit careful in classifying supporters of military options as war mongers. Considering all of the things that MIGHT have happened had XYZ, etc., etc.

I didn’t get the degree. Marijuana and hot tubs.

“You responded by saying I was using straw man tactics.”

When someone throws Michael Moore in your mouth, one tends to do that.

“(I did change the word from “would” to “might”–a remarkable about-face if there ever has been one.)”

It is remarkable difference. Don’t play dumb.

“You now respond by saying that you only can discuss forseeable consequences of the 2003 Iraq War.”

I think it’s a fair and reasonable limitation to a discussion of 2003′s justification. If not, I might ask you to consider all the unforeseen ills that may yet come of it as Iraq becomes poised for disintegration.

I think that it’s pretty telling that all of the other strikes you mention were strategic strikes, not attempts at regime change. That’s not really an effective way to bait a realist.

What can I tell you?

First, above, you kept writing about the terrible things that happened because of the Iraq war.

Then, I kept writing that it is true that many terrible things happened because of the Iraq war, but opponents of that war need to consider the terrible things that MIGHT have happened had the war not occurred. (I did consciously change the word from “would” to “might”–a remarkable about-face, if there ever has been one.)

You responded by saying I was using straw man tactics.

Then I kept writing that it is true that many terrible things happened because of the Iraq war, but opponents of that war need to consider the terrible things that MIGHT have happened had the war not occurred. (I did change the word from “would” to “might”–a remarkable about-face if there ever has been one.)

You responded by saying I was using straw man tactics.

Then I kept writing that it is true that many terrible things happened because of the Iraq war, but opponents of that war need to consider the terrible things that MIGHT have happened had the war not occurred. (I did change the word from “would” to “might”–a remarkable about-face if there ever has been one.)

You now respond by saying that you only can discuss forseeable consequences of the 2003 Iraq War. I’ll admit that that’s quite an accomplishment, to handle discussing the forseeable consequences of a conflict that has all but ended.

I’m not sure if I’m up for something like that, as I don’t have a graduate eduction.

So again, not for bearer’s of graduate degrees and/or creators of objective top 5 threats lists . . .

It is true that many terrible things happened because of the Iraq war, but opponents of that war need to consider the terrible things that MIGHT have happened had the war not occurred. (I did change the word from “would” to “might”–a remarkable about-face if there ever has been one.) (and the first Iraq War, and the 1981 strike, and the 2007 strike on Syria, etc., etc.)

Yes any of those things might have happened, when ‘might’ is understood in the sense of ‘epistemic possibility’ or possible, for all we know. I can’t imagine you really care that I admit that point because it is so amazingly weak. But that’s great. Your retreat from ‘would’ to ‘might’ is remarkable, and very acceptable. This is what I objected to (notice the use of ‘would’, not ‘might’):

“Ghaddafi would have used large amounts of chemical and biological weapons on his own people–weapons’ programs he only relinquished because of the Iraq War; and Assad would be on his way to nuclear weapons too–no Israeli strike in 2007.”

It still remains that I am limiting my critique to foreseeable consequences of the Iraq war, nearly all of which occurred. You are off in the land of for all we know … Back in my graduate school days, we wanted to establish a Center for Counterfactual Research to address such questions about what might have happened if the world were different. Funding requirements would be minimal – enough for a hot-tub and small amounts of marijuana.

Strengthening Iran, no WMD’s to be found, and a laxity in prosecuting the Afghan war were all foreseen well before the invasion of Iraq by hard-headed critics.

These are my words from above–please try to read carefully:

“First you claimed, in this stream, that I’m avoiding the question and changing the subject and using straw man tactics, etc., etc. . . by not acknowledging all of the terrible things that have resulted from the Iraq War. Then, I pointed out that, ironically, I do acknowledge those things, but I think that you should acknowledge the ugly things that MIGHT have happened had the war not occurred–and you claim that it’s impossible to talk about such things–for there was no track record of people like Sadaam and Ghaddafi committing mass murder?”

You are addicted to straw men. You see, there’s a difference between real (Iran) and fictional (Iraq) nukes. Real nukes are more dangerous.

Wait a second. Is the Iranian nuclear threat in the top-5 list? I must have misunderstood. What a relief.

“by not acknowledging all of the terrible things that have resulted from the Iraq War.”

Strengthening Iran, no WMD’s to be found, and a laxity in prosecuting the Afghan war were all foreseen well before the invasion of Iraq by hard-headed critics.

“then the West can say to the protesters: “Hey, we can’t do anything about this. What do you expect from us, we only lend a hand to people dealing with top 5 threats.”

You are addicted to straw men. You see, there’s a difference between real (Iran) and fictional (Iraq) nukes. Real nukes are more dangerous.

. . . .

then the West can say to the protesters: “Hey, we can’t do anything about this. What do you expect from us, we only lend a hand to people dealing with top 5 threats. The Iranian government only made it to #7 in this years rankings (they lost that recruit to Duke?)”

Maybe next year, when the new rankings are released.

“I’m just suggesting that you’re going to have to account for the fact that, had that invasion not occurred and had the Arab Spring still had happened, then the Sadaam Huessein government would be murdering people left and right in Iraq, and Ghadaffi would be using chemical and biological weapons against his own people left and right.”

No, I don’t need to account for what might have happened in one thing changed and the rest of the world miraculously worked out nearly the same way 7 years later. I mean, you can’t believe in complexity, and expect that.

Ok. You can have your cake and eat it as well.

First you claimed, in this stream, that I’m avoiding the question and changing the subject and using straw man tactics, etc., etc. . . by not acknowledging all of the terrible things that have resulted from the Iraq War. Then, I pointed out that, ironically, I do acknowledge those things, but I think that you should acknowledge the ugly things that MIGHT have happened had the war not occurred–and you claim that it’s impossible to talk about such things–for there was no track record of people like Sadaam and Ghaddafi committing mass murder?

Why would any of those things be relevant to discussing the Iraq War?

But, hey, why talk about that? When we can talk about a bunch of things irrelevant to the conversation.