We see why our society is not doing well, it pays people a great deal of money not only to be wrong, but to continue to be wrong, loudly, proudly and publicly. The latest example comes from another Washington Post outlet, Slate Magazine. I again note that the conflict of interest between those getting tax breaks and favorable regulatory climate and supporting a criminally failed war is not mentioned.

But without further ado, more lies, sneers and delusions from the people at the Washington Post.

The four year mark from the invasion - the war had begun the summer before has brought out the worst in dishonesty and stupidity. Perhaps the most bloated self-parody has always been Hitchens, the token left wing warnut who is trotted out as proof that everyone was really in favor of invasion. Let us count the lies that this fat lying liar spouts.

First note that Hitchens throws himself cream puff questions, then, notice how he can't even answer his own questions honestly.

Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?

That isn't why Bush went to the UN, he went to the UN for enough permission to invade.

Note the lie in his reply:

The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.

But Iraq was brought into full compliance without invasion. This is not a hard question that supports war, but an easy question that shows that the UN was right, and could have gotten what was demanded without invasion. Instead Bush and his proxies destroyed the credibility of the UN by invading anyway, and using the failure of the UN as a large part of the rationale for war.

Hitchens lies on the question and then lies to himself on the answer.

Next...

Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or obstruction of U.N. inspectors?

Now for the lie:

If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that enabled even limited inspections to resume.

That isn't why there were there, they were there as a prelude to invasion. While it may be true that only the threat of invasion would have made Saddam yield - and chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter says otherwise, and he knows the process better than the fat drunk slob does - that wasn't what was going on.

This is the second straight piece of ponyhawk illogic. While Hitchens is crowing about his telepathic and oracular knowledge of Saddam, he is, twice, completely wrong about Bush. He can't make both the claim that he has superior knowledge of Saddam to everyone else, and inferior knowledge of Bush. Judgment that is catastrophically wrong, is no judgment at all. And Hitches was catastrophically wrong.

Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

The correct answer here is there is no credible evidence of anything resembling credible evidence that Saddam had working WMD or even a program that would lead to WMD given his then current resources.

Here is the Fat Drunk Slobs answer:

The entire record of UNSCOM until that date had shown a determination on the part of the Iraqi dictatorship to build dummy facilities to deceive inspectors, to refuse to allow scientists to be interviewed without coercion, to conceal chemical and biological deposits, and to search the black market for material that would breach the sanctions.

And the record shows that UNSCOM's information was used to bomb and target such facilities as might have existed, rendering the point moot.

Could Iraq have been believably "inspected" while the Baath Party remained in power?

The truth is that it was. The Fat Drunk Slob lies and says:

No.

Doesn't get any more delusional than that. Saddam was disarmed by inspections and some free-lance law bending in the bombing campaigns. Containment, contra Hitchen's assertions, was working. More over, the whole argument he makes - that there was a reasonable case for doubt - has been shown to be wrong as well. There was no reasonable case for doubt.

Wasn't Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations a bit of a disgrace?

Hitches comes closer to the truth here:

Yes, it was, as was the supporting role played by George Tenet and the CIA (which has been reliably wrong on Iraq since 1963).

Actually before then, because the CIA bailed a young Saddam out of the trouble from his career as would be assassin before then. Talk about blow back.

A bit of a disgrace is understatement - it was lying to the public and to the UN for the express purpose of starting what is now admitted to be an illegal war.

Was the terror connection not exaggerated?

Not by much.

Blatant lie. First the terror connection was consistently implied to be "in bed with each other" and "a chance of nuclear terrorism". Saddam wasn't even within the "1% doctrine" range of having nuclear material to give to anyone for anything. Pakistan and Iran, on the other hand... Right, we are friends with the dictatorship in Pakistan, a government which does look the other way towards Al-Qaeda, which has elements that have helped it and which has both terrorist connections and atomic technology.

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

And those who have benefited economically from it are willing to pay him to spew lies every single month.

You want a better world, you aren't going to get one, because you pay lots and lots of money for the one you have. Incentives matter, the people who blundered this are rich and have had the richest year in human history. Your real wages are flat, and many of your best and brightest are unemployed. You won't do anything that matters about it.

Expect the bleeding and dying to continue.