Hitchens versus Margolis

The American Zeitgeist premeire was held Thursday night in New York. After the luminaries left the stage, Christopher Hitchens and Eric Margolis were scheduled to go to battle in another Iraq war debate.
_____

UPDATE 6/16..no transcript, but here's an anecdotal review, with some hard-hitting opinion on Margolis thrown in absolutely free!
_____

You might ask, who is Eric Margolis and what are his views about the Iraq war and Zarqawi? Allow me to give you a pre-game report (don't have the debate transcript/audio yet--it's early) :

Few will miss Zarqawi. But his assassination is not `a major victory against al-Qaida,’ as President Bush claimed.

Contrary to erroneous reports promoted by the US government, Zarqawi’s so-called `al-Qaida in Iraq’ was not truly part of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida movement, and he was not the leader of the anti-US resistance in Iraq.

Agreed. We know al-Douri and his Saddamist minions are the major instigators/handlers who may or may not still be in control of the Shura Council. But he was a poster boy for terrorism, and it's always good when the poster boy gets taken down. To diminish his role is irresponsible.

The real al-Qaida was most displeased by Zarqawi’s brazen trademark infringement. This deception was enhanced by American-produced faked letters supposedly `intercepted’ by US forces claiming to show Zarqawi was part of al-Qaida and acting under bin Laden’s direct orders.

Firstly, it's doubtful Mr. Margolis has any evidence the letters were faked. Secondly, AQ might not have always been pleased with Z-man's loose cannon approach, but they were MORE THAN HAPPY to praise him as "the Sheikh of Slaughter". Strike two for Margolis.

Some Iraqi resistance leaders and some Arab media even claimed Zarqawi and his henchmen were covert ‘agents provocateurs’ working for the US and Britain to stir up ethnic tensions as part of Britain’s old `divide and rule’ techniques.

This sounded far-fetched until the arrest in Basra of British SAS commandos armed with explosives and disguised as Arabs, leading many to believe Zarqawi’s men were indeed western double agents or criminals working for hire.

If Mr. Margolis really believes he was an 'agent provocateur' (which he seems to) then perhaps he'd like to explain why we eliminated him. Did Task Force 145 not get the memo?

Ironically, the only people who may miss him are the Bush Administration’s pro-war neoconservatives. Zarqawi played a major starring role in US propaganda efforts to convince credulous Americans that the Bush Administration launched an unprovoked invasion of oil-rich Iraq `as the central front in the war on terrorism.

Here we see him slowly devolving into stock 'no blood for oil' territory. Any whiff of logic, such as Zarqawi's previous involvement in bombing hotels in Jordan, murdering an American diplomat, or working with AQ in Afghanistan has evaporated from his head like a summer breeze.

We're getting to the end. Mr. Eric sums up his Iraq war position in polished boilerplate fashion:

Now that Zarqawi is gone, the US will need to find another demonic figure with which to keep selling the war to Americans at home and to US troops in Iraq, 75% of whom still amazingly believe Saddam Hussein launched the 9/11 attacks.

That's because it's more logical to believe Saddam was a master enabler of worldwide terrorism than to believe we "created Zarqawi" or that we killed our own "agent provocateur" in our continuing effort to rape Iraq for oil. No Mr. Margolis--we are right where we need to be.

So there you go. Margolis is a target-rich environment for Hitchens, and the transcript should be high entertainment.

MORE 6/16/06

There he goes again. Vice President Cheney was publicly quoted making loose ties between Saddam and the War on Terror again. Surely folks like Mr. Margolis find these kinds of declarations nerve popping.

But Mr. Cheney has been subtly telegraphing threats to the American public since 2001, so why stop now:

Taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said.

"It's also, I think, in part responsible for the fact that we haven't been hit again in nearly five years. That's no accident,"

We have the freedom to either believe the Veep or not. But while folks who don't proceed to roll on the floor laughing about his statements, others combine them with previous utterings and events such as this to arrive at their own conclusion about the state of threats today. Count me in the latter group.

HOUSE OF 55 CARDS 6/16/06

Hatfill Deception tips us that Tariq Aziz is under some intense pressure to sing:

Finally, Aziz said, he was prepared to seek the assiatnce of French lawyers to help him reveal information that he claims will have a great impact.

They better hurry.