As the inimitable Bugs Bunny used to say. Hitchens argument is that he supported a decision that worked out badly --but hey --things were bad before.
True enough. However, before the foolhardy decision to invade Iraq the US had a more or less functional economy and financial system, and we actually had the ability to positively affect the course of world affairs.
None of which copuld be said --speaking with strict accuracy --to be the case after 5 years of funding the second most expensive war in U.S. history with IOUs.
In the time of Charles Dickens, there was no more despised figure than the wastrel patriarch -- a father figure that frittered away the family capital, leaving the children to face a harsh world without either friend or advantage.
This is where G.W. Bush and his neocon supporters have left the young of America. As an added bonus, they have pretty much crippled America's ability to positively affect the course of world events.
As a justification for this, Hitchens offers the fact that it might not be actually worse in Iraq.
I hope nobody is paying THIS guy for his reasoning abilities.
