When Buckley Met Hitchens

[@lordemed1]

i'm always saddened when I see/listen to Christopher Hitchens. He left us way, way too soon. Imagine his comments in todays world!

[@pappyscrappy6663]

I think a few of his positions would change in the wake of the Woke movement.

[@masoudsarvin6117]

PappyScrappy, are you insinuating that Christopher Hitchens would be cowering to the irrational mob, surly you're mistaken.

[@pappyscrappy6663]

@@masoudsarvin6117 Quite the opposite, he would see the irrational mob for what it is. Hitchens was above all else, anti-authoritarian. The Woke mobs are a quasi-religious cult.

[@BoiledOctopus]

@@pappyscrappy6663 Interesting as brothers, Peter and Christopher are at the end of spectrums.

[@pappyscrappy6663]

@@BoiledOctopus Not exactly, they differed on many positions but agreed on some things. When Christopher dies, he was more center left.

[@tiffsaver]

Supremely humorous comments by the equally sublime host, Mr. Kinsley. I don't think I've ever seen both these men smile so much in a single debate.

[@CompelledUsername]

Kinsley and Hitch became Vanity Fair's most prolific writers no?

[@chandruae]

It's so clear from this how deep Hitch's hatred for Kissinger was. The moment Kinsley mentioned Kissinger, Hitchens' laugh just disappears ( at 1:22 )

[@joerogue231]

@Jazzkeyboardist1 LMAO.

[@TomorrowWeLive]

@Jazzkeyboardist1 what are you on about?

[@andyok3625]

@Jazzkeyboardist1 The fact that time after time on Christopher Hitchens pages you call him Chrissy, only because he disliked it, and reference his sexuality, which is only his business, shows that you lack the courage and confidence to take on his arguments on an intellectual level. Whether right or wrong, he was always intelligent enough to debate respectfully with those who held different opinions to him and brave enough to call out the charlatans without recourse to those kind of tactics. That is why he was a better man than the one you are.

[@jamesboulger8705]

Thete is good fun, and then there is just crossing the line. The FIRING LINE.

[@pmajudge]

R.I.P. TO BOTH CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS & WILLIAM BUCKLEY JR. SUPER GREATS !!! LEGENDS !! MISSED GREATLY !! FROM U.K. (2022).

[@darbyheavey406]

When conversation was intelligent without being mean spirited.

[@alpineareas8629]

Misleading title, but anyway, you can see the admiration they had for each other, even as opposites. Rare these days.

[@jakebarnes28]

You really need it spelled out, and read to you, slowly, don't you.

[@neplusultra4196]

@@jakebarnes28​​⁠you are so clever. They did meet. I hope you patted yourself on the back.

[@elborrador333]

For anyone who's interested, this debate is entitled "Resolved: The Federal Government Should Not Impose a Tax on Electronic Commerce". Couldn't find the whole debate on youtube unfortunately.

[@PhilWithCoffee]

To add, if you have Amazon Prime you can watch it in full, for free through them.

[@alabamamanable]

PhilWithCoffee To further add, if you have "the internet," you can watch it in full, for free, through its adroit application. Though in your defense, it may involve much, much less hassle when using Amazon Prime, which I decry out of a stubborn demeanor and the pinching of very specific monetary units.

[@obbeachbum69]

PhilWithCoffee Thank you

[@Thumph]

It has been uploaded to youtube! Just search the debate name! :D

[@billybartcody3591]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/equvdWqcfNmdr8k

[@cestmoi2894]

Buckley met Hitchens long before this. Hitchens was often a guest on Firing Line

[@robertkresko6338]

True. At least as early as 1984.

[@jamesboulger8705]

Very true, the title is stupidly misleading.

[@Xargxes]

You can see Hitchens thoughts on Kissinger, his eyes speak volumes.

[@OQIF87NREU]

Xargxes not to mention the context, which somehow made a bizarre comparison between the two of them

[@andrewsapia]

you know why they were friends because despite their disagreements Buckley recognized Christopher's great mind.

[@cestmoi2894]

Jefferson and Adams

[@larrywheeler9917]

Buckley couldn't bully Hitchens . Some people fight back. Hitchens had a presence.

[@jeffym8929]

Kinsley admitted that for every ten hours that he spent with Buckley on the set of these debates, he spent one hour in real life, and for Hitchens it was even less . If Hitchens had of been invited up to the maisonette I’m sure it would have been proudly recalled in Hitch22. Hitchens frequently said that Buckley launched his television career and he also frequently quoted him . Yes there was mutual admiration albeit a bit lopsided. Why on earth would Buckley want to bully him? Hitchens once recalled that if you said anything fatuous on Firing Line that Buckley wouldn’t let you off lightly but he never bullied anyone. What a bizarre thing to say

[@biffalobull2335]

@@cestmoi2894 Substitute one for Thomas Paine He was fairly godless like Hitchens

[@patrickmcj.166]

bro Kinsley was saying he was friends with Hitchens it wasn’t Buckley who was friends with Hitchens

[@KentBuchla]

I'd be hugely grateful. I can't wait to hear/see it. Thanks for replying.

[@SamvedIyer]

Here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/equvdWqcfNmdr8k

[@edwardmirza]

Good to see Buckley smile.

[@krtmddhs]

best introduction ever

[@winmine0327]

This is the last episode of Firing Line. I think Amazon Prime sells it. There's a list out there of all the Firing Line episodes, with some clips listed.

[@obbeachbum69]

This was an interesting debate between people who had no idea what they were talking about. Internet commerce was new and many on the panel thought what was being proposed was a blanket tax on all purchases made via the internet in addition to state or local tax. In fact what was being proposed was a loophole where one could purchase an item via the internet and avoid sales tax all together. For the Hitchens fans out there, he really didn't contribute much to the discussion other than some pithy quips. Oddly enough, the real star was Michael Kinsley who was clever, funny and affable throughout. Buckley's age was clearly taking it's toll, rendering him a shadow of his former self, quite sad actually.

[@billybagbom]

I think Mr. Buckley and Mr. Hitchens had previously met.

[@rosslumbus]

They certainly have

[@QwidgyboMan]

It's not a matter of whether the US can be stopped or not. You do not WANT them stopped.

[@st3ppenwolf]

Hitchens didn't like a single bit being compared to Kissinger right there at the end..

[@althmanne]

I don't think their point is that the average progressive-minded person is personally a totalitarian. It's that the progressive frame of mind - that is, that there is one right way of doing things that is independent of tradition, and all we have to do is get enough smart people together and think hard enough and throw the right amount of money and bureaucracy and force at any problem and it will go away - that is a mode of thinking that tends to legitimate totalitarianism.

[@greyeyed123]

I remember Kinsley. The man never blinked. Ever. It's not a good look for television.

[@williamgrigg3263]

Michael Kinsley is the smartest and wittiest person I know who uncannily resembles Squidward from "Spongebob Squarepants."

[@nunya1738]

William, every so often we humans can rest assured we have come up with some thought that no other on the planet has, at least at that moment in time. Congratulations, sir! By the way, any relation to Robert Preston played Grigg, in The Last Starfighter? PEACE

[@williamgrigg3263]

Actually, Robert Preston played Centauri, and the name of the titular character's alien comrade-in-arms was spelled "Grig." There are many situations I've experienced in which a "Beta-unit" would have been a blessing.

[@DougWild]

***** Where is Kinsley these days? I always waited impatiently for his introductions, whether or not he hit his mark. My memory isn't always reliable any more, but it seems to me there was more candor, a bit less disengenoursness on these Firing Line shows than on any news/talk/interview shows today (the one notable exception, I thought, was Bukley's "god fearing" tribute-paying "interview" of Malcolm Muggeridge).

[@williamgrigg3263]

Doug Wild I've seen Kinsley's work at Vanity Fair and occasionally at Slate, for which he served (I think) as a founding editor back in the 1990s. He got that gig at about the same time he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, a development that made me genuinely sad. As an intern at The New Republic in the late 1980s I became acquainted with Kinsley and found that he was not only very professional and extremely intelligent (obviously), but also very supportive of young, aspiring journalists -- and much nicer than many people in his business.

[@DougWild]

***** I didn't know about the Parkinson's. That is very sad indeed. I'm not much of a reader any more - truth be told, I never was - so I've not read Kinsley in either Vanity Fair or Slate, but I became an enormous fan when he was on Firing Line. It's good to know that his 'on air' qualities were, in fact, were authentic. Thank you so much William for bringing me up to date.

[@ALD56]

I loved this series of debates moderated by Michael Kinsley. The lines may well have been written for him, but they were often humorous. He was moderating one on the pro/con of legalizing marijuana. He closed it out by remarking something like "regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, I'm gonna go have a drink"

[@roughhabit9085]

I don’t think Buckley would have hired him if he wasn’t witty enough to write his own lines

[@redryan20000]

I wonder what Hitch was writing down

[@BountyFlamor]

+redryan20000 perhaps just drawing a penis?

[@sp4de69]

+BountyFlamor lmao well played

[@Here0s0Johnny]

a doodle of buckley?

[@riod43]

"Kissinger is a bloody war criminal..."

[@rexmundi1570]

would love to see the full debate on youtube.

[@tjhancock85]

where can i see this full debate? anyone know the title of the youtube vid? ill i can find are older debates...

[@J0W1]

I second the request for more of the Firing Line discussion to be uploaded!!

[@nadinejoyce1203]

We all have friends we are ashamed of. This is your last chance to go first. Brain needs this caliber of discourse.......

[@5starcomment]

people asking for the full version should find it over on the right somewhere... --------->

[@bobbyb.6644]

Two great intellects who loved displaying it ! A little ( or more) narcissistic?🤔

[@MHRocha]

Gore Vidal has just joined them in the harem... missing them all!

[@Bren3485]

"it'd be equally wrong to think that a state is WRONG all the time as well as right all the time." I totally agree. I wasn't disputing the rightness of the policy I was disputing the claim that the bush administration was motivated by wanting to bring democracy to Iraq. whether the policy was correct is of course a separate question. cont.

[@JamesTheFox]

This revolutionary act within the Republican Party against the disgraceful Cold War status quo, and the lead up to the Arab Spring, strongly suggests that the move was on the right side of history.

[@stormbringer_7774]

The first time Buckley met Hitchens, again! 😂 👍 Jolly good joke have a sherry, after all, it's almost lunchtime🍸

[@JamesTheFox]

But I stress again, did I not repeatedly say that aggressive U.S. military regimes SHOULD be stopped?

[@Bren3485]

With that being said I do think invading Iraq in the way that they did was worse than not invading at all, but I can think of policies where that wouldn't be the case. They were to concerned with their own economic interests for the policy to benefit the Iraqi's in the way that it could have. Naomi Klein wrote an essay call "Baghdad year zero" on the economic policies pursued by that admin. It's available online, I recommend it.

[@zolnsalt]

Deceiving headline...They met years before that video...Undo your thumbs up.

[@kuanshankein]

I one hundred percent agree with you sir. +1 to you!

[@LucisFerre1]

Hitchens has been on Firing Line at least once before. It's on youtube.

[@JamesTheFox]

(..cont) makes the whole issue blurry and I am not sure if it were the right decision or not.

[@JamesTheFox]

I just think it's worth pointing out how most citizens within the U.S. would want something done about one lone gunman, and even something done about the U.S.'s Cold War crimes, but not a torturous, fearful, murderous, psychopathic monster and his sons who slaughter Iraqis and those of other countries, and are quite willing to be patient with the regime even in spite of the failure of all methods that don't involve direct force. "Moral equivalence" doesn't stop just with politicians, remember.

[@JamesTheFox]

"But if not, and the country turns totalitarian, then YES use force against it." "Yes, maybe there's no willpower to impeach in those conditions.. so yes, intervene." "Let's say there were a country 50x the size of the U.S. who COULD put a stop to aggressive military action - then yes, do it." "I want to push back aggressive U.S actions as much as I want to take out totalitarian regimes. So what's the problem?"

[@cisium1184]

Ole Miss had an impressive ability to attract intellectual heavyweights to campus. When I was in law school there we had two Supreme Court Justices come to speak - that was only three or for years before this debate. And less than a decade after this debate, Ole Miss hosted a presidential debate.

[@schmittyhanrahan8126]

The Country Club

[@JamesTheFox]

I remember Hitchens saying something like "parts of the admin feel that what this really is is a war with Saudi Arabia". It might have been in a 2003 episode with Bill Maher. And the page in the memoir is in the chapter "Mesopotamia and Back" page 305 if it's the paperback edition. It's at the start of the bit where he describes being invited to the Pentagon by Wolfowiz.

[@JamesTheFox]

Well the admin-side that wanted the regime change to happen actually theorised that it would lead to something like the Arab Spring - they had considered Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, but for their huge faults they've been nowhere near as deadly and near-perfectly-totalitarian as Saddam in Iraq, so it'd made sense to start in the middle of these countries to start the wave of revolution. Wolfowiz even called it an "anti-Kissinger policy". Hitchens talks about this in his memoir. (cont..)

[@QwidgyboMan]

We should've supported democratic forces like the Kurds. That's the only way to resolve a conflict like this. The mess you create with all out warfare becomes, as we've amply seen, much bigger than the one you intended to sort out in the first place.

[@MrTomte09]

Where's the rest of it???

[@magicpony9]

Thanks so much for uploading:) Do you know where I can watch the entire video?

[@SamvedIyer]

Here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/equvdWqcfNmdr8k

[@MrBuckshot44]

well said......I agree completely

[@QwidgyboMan]

I'm an internationalist and I am in favour of intervening in Iraq. Just not by all out warfare and for two reasons. Firstly, just on pragmatic grounds - I simply don't think it works (and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary in the last 9 years. And secondly, as I've tried to say, there is no basis for legality that we would find applicable to ourselves.

[@kurtjk01]

A matter of perspective there; I've heard both the other interpretation, as well as a clear draw, so what it amounts to is personal interpretation.

[@adamleckius2253]

Fantastic quips. Is the actual debate accessible somewhere?

[@tuxguys]

KINSLEY'S MOMENT IN THE SUN. Where's the rest of this?

[@QwidgyboMan]

I don't recall you saying that, no.

[@JamesTheFox]

Wolfowiz hates how Kissinger has got away with so much, for example.

[@davidbauler3159]

They met in the early 1980s and became lovers soon after.

[@JamesTheFox]

(..cont) Hitchens had described it as a reactionary/revolutionary force within the Republican Party, one that started to show how the Cold War mentality was grinding against reality.

[@elypeachy3296]

looked like a great panel is there a full episode?

[@JamesTheFox]

Again, wouldn't stooping to the U.S.'s level be a failure of moral equivalence, i.e. "well they did it to us and we didn't like it but not it's totally justified to do it to them!". Can't I just cut the crap and say that overthrowing democracy is morally a bad thing? Let alone murder? Let's say there were a country 50x the size of the U.S. who COULD put a stop to aggressive military action - then yes, do it. But we don't have that option, so we're kind of stuck. Neither perfect human beings.

[@JamesTheFox]

Yes, including any U.S. government who did so.

[@JamesTheFox]

It's a better argument, yeah. But credibility has to extend towards empowering the Kurds as well. And I don't care what 98% the U.S. thinks, to be honest. They also laughed at the theory made in 02/03 that Iraq intervention would help trigger a domino effect of revolution against the dictators in the region. Hitchens also re-emphasized it in 05 in the video "Whiskey, Cigs and Jefferson". It's only now in 10/11 that the mass media have caught up with the idea, not surprisingly due to their bias.

[@markphc99]

Great , but where is the rest of it?

[@Ivantheterrible666]

Are you still going to upload that? I could not find it on your channel. :/

[@MrJoefizzy]

They met a long time before this

[@QwidgyboMan]

Actually I'd say supporting him for 30 years was the real crime - For which, I'm sure you'll notice, nobody has been held to account. Of course the sanctions had to go but I simply do not believe war was the only option left on the table.

[@Locateson]

As far as british socialists and american conservatives go, these two where absolute greats.

[@Locateson]

(This is not the first time they met one another though)

[@rumcheckbooktrader]

We all have friends that we are ashamed of...

[@willforrhall]

Where is the rest of the debate

[@slappyabromowitz]

Love them both amazing

[@JamesTheFox]

I'd rather have a state that is hypocritical than a state that is 100% consistently evil. In fact, I doubt there is one state on Earth that is NOT hypocritical in regards to law. It's a rather meaningless point. Humans are overrated, as the great Dr House once put it. I want to push back aggressive U.S actions as much as I want to take out totalitarian regimes. So what's the problem? The fact the U.S can even so much as vote a new government into office ALONE puts it well above Saddam's regime.

[@JamesTheFox]

(..cont) And where the Wolfowiz side failed disgracefully was to assume that the democratic "pulse" they were hoping for would work so well in the short term that troops and humanitarian help could be toned down in places, which lead to needless violence leading to more violence. Not to mention that U.S.'s (and my side, the U.K.'s) lack of troop equipment. So yes, but I think for historical reasons, and maybe perhaps that we might not have had another chance to take Saddam out in the future..

[@Jrunri]

Is the rest of this available anywhere?

[@hridaykhattry]

It's April 13th today. Hitchen's birthday.

[@mikefitzgerald41]

Did Michael Kinsley ever blink in his life?

[@rockoo2112]

At all possible to access all of this encounter? Would be well worth a watch I think!:)

[@billphil8235]

Ive seen them on a show with woody Allen in 1967

[@QwidgyboMan]

CONT - Meaning if you occupy a particular country on the grounds that it supports terrorism, genocide, nuclear proliferation, and aggression (as well as torture and innumerable other crimes), then YOU too should be subject to occupation when YOU commit these crimes. Hitchens derisive caricature of saying since we can't do everything let's do nothing, is just another non sequitur. We want something done but we cannot in good conscience advocate actions which we would never apply to ourselves.

[@rockoo2112]

Appreciate your response, Is there a link to it? It appeared as regular text.

[@QwidgyboMan]

Firstly, they didn't LET it happen in Iraq. They helped engineer it by supporting Saddam for decades. Given that point, the US does indeed have a responsibility to Iraq - Their responsibility is to pump billions into their economy and support democratic forces. Their responsibility is not to wage war and make the situation even worse whilst stealing their resources.

[@QwidgyboMan]

I was in favour of removing Saddam. I agree there is an enormous amount of anti-war advocates who need to take a long, hard look at themselves if their position meant keeping Saddam in power.

[@I.amthatrealJuan]

You still sure about that?

[@mdem2040]

Anyone know a link to the full debate?

[@jordandemetri8315]

The days where u disagreed but could be friends....now we may be at a point of no return

[@QwidgyboMan]

I don't recall espousing a position of letting Iraq rot.

[@fifty9forty3]

The heading of this video is misleading to say the least because Buckley has had Hitchens on Firing Line more than once. This was not their first meeting as the title implies. Introducing intellectuals by clickbait is insulting to them.

[@StevenCAmendola]

Well aside from having used the term amply in several interviews, it's factually the case. Trotskyism is a form of Marxism even if he had not used the term Marxism specifically, which he has. It is true that he is a Trotskyist specifically as well. All this aside, whatever version of Marxism he espoused, there is no possible interpretation which could be used to call him a "neo con" or a conservative of any kind.

[@JamesTheFox]

..(cont) state mentality is of course problematic.. but you have to remember that there are more states out there other than the U.S. with their own wants of power. And it'd be equally wrong to think that a state is WRONG all the time as well as right all the time.

[@StevenCAmendola]

It's your judgement to say that Trotskyism is misguided; Christopher Hitchens and myself do not agree. In an interview towards the end of his life he still describes himself as a Marxist. He became less concerned with the spread of Communism as he was in his youth, but never shifted from the left. It's completely nonsensical to place him on the right in any sense.

[@bobpurcell8357]

If you've heard him on the subject of Islam, he's not exactly a moral relativist...

[@Hirnlego999]

@@bobpurcell8357 Which still won't make him a rightwinger. In fact the rightwingers have more incommon with Islam than Hitchens

[@LucisFerre1]

False dichotomy, excluded middle fallacy. Also known as False Dilemma.

[@vivalaleta]

Where's the rest of it?

[@waldosgrade]

Uh...this isn’t when they met. It was at least 15-20 years prior. Why the misleading title?

[@JamesTheFox]

Well whether they intended to or not, they've done something big. Most of the Arab Spring movements started on the day they saw Saddam's statue being toppled, and even more so on the days that Saddam was tried and sentenced. Put it this way: Bush and co originally wanted to keep Saddam in place and have a "business as usual" perspective on international issues. They could have kept a similar mentality after 9/11 and promoted it as a means to "get at a bigger threat" through war by proxy again.

[@karangmail15]

Part 2... I forgot to address your concern about why "OUR ALLIES" are so inadequate on the Israel-Palestine question. Its the same reason why so many people in Lebanon have some sympathy for Hezbollah though they despise and fear them. Without US support, the Israeli state would not just go back to pre-1967 borders but would cease to exist. Without Hezbollah and Hamas, Palestinian expulsion would increase. Haaretz has better discussion on this than any newspaper in the west.

[@mporter012]

They’d met long before this.

[@hotticket7772]

Kinsley was awesome.

[@Bren3485]

I understand your reasons for being in favor of the war, and in my view they are the only morally justifiable reasons to be in favor of it. With that being said, what do you think the Bush administration hoped to achieve in pursuing military intervention? That's a question I've always wanted to hear Mr Hitchens address. Looking at the economic policies that were implemented by Paul Bremer, along with the SOFA proposed in 2007, I think it's clear that they had different reasons than you.

[@barryk00da]

Seeing Hitch laugh is like spotting a unicorn. Except I'd much prefer the former.

[@JamesTheFox]

That may be a stronger argument for opposing. However, time was not exactly on our side at the time. Uday and Qusay Hussein could've blown Iraq up and ignited an even worse sectarian conflict/war, plus possible future vortex of Al Qaeda + border states opportunism. This is where I'm not sure. And yes, perhaps the U.S. would not care if Iraq had no oil. But that doesn't make the action any less right. Believe you me, we will GET ROUND TO the other regimes whether the U.S. wants to help or not.

[@MEpianist]

Not redundant to people like John Yoo, no. What's with the attitude? We seem to agree on the main points...

[@JamesTheFox]

Well I consider any action to allow Saddam in power and/or arm him by anyone after a minority genocide a wrong thing to do, even as a bystander. Therefore, those on the anti-war front who like to boast about how the U.S. was once Saddam's ally are unaware that they are supporting those EXACT policies by wanting him kept there. THAT'S what it means to not hold the same standards to yourself. I've accepted that the U.S. often contradicts itself, why is it that I rarely get that favour returned? ..

[@JamesTheFox]

..CONT There's a very unsettling psychological phenomenon called the "bystander effect". Look it up if you don't know. I say "unsettling" because it reminds us of how selfish we can really be. A more blunt way of saying it is "sure, you only live once, but you're not the only one alive." It is hard to give a damn about oppressed Iraqis if a) because of proximity, you are ignorant of the issue and b) you have your own interests to tend to. This is THE true ugly side that anti-war can take. CONT..

[@JamesTheFox]

Well you have to remember that the Kurds were not exactly in favour of a peaceful resolution with Saddam. (This is the only part of the convo that interests me now, if I am being honest).

[@JamesTheFox]

Well the sanctions were killing Iraqis, painfully and innumerably. And unless you wanted to risk more wars & therefore deaths in Iran and Kuwait, you couldn't have removed sanctions. Diplomacy was useless, Iraqis had no will to revolt, the list goes on. Surely I can point out that there was only one option left on the table. I don't consider it reckless war advocacy if I wanted to a) stop Saddam from HIS evil wars and b) stop people starving. The U.S. left him in 1991: that was the true crime.