The Hanover Collaboration

This is not intended as some liberal keelhauling of the most trenchant and well-spoken supporter of the Iraqi occupation. It is, rather, as the title would indicate, an annotation of this article; an academic supplement so that the less careful reader might fully appreciate the depth and delicacy of Christopher Hitchens’ rhetorical style. It’s doomed to the woeful incompletion inherent to any such endeavor, but then again, my time was limited.

1) “The recent hydrocarbon law…deserves a great deal more praise than it has been receiving”
i.e.; “Iraqis who capitulated with the US have finally done something other than get blown up.”

2) “[it] reinforces the idea that a democracy in Baghdad could still teach a few regional lessons”:
Just in case you thought the US needed to find WMDs to justify the invasion.

3) “the Saudi government”
“government”: an entrenched, oppressive royal family – of which Osama Bin Laden was a close associate.

4) “the Shiite dictatorship in Iran”
“dictatorship”: a substantially democratic regime, but one that Hitchens likes less than Saudi Arabia’s.

5) “the Anbar province where al-Qaida forces have been making their strongest challenge. Here… the visitor stands amazed at the sheer abject poverty and misery of people”
Juxtaposition; note the proximity of Al-Qaida to the misery – no mention of Bush “policy” here.

6) “The new law proposes a federalized control over oil and gas”
Compare to “subordinated everything to the leader and to the state” in Paragraph 2.

7) “a staunch foe of the Bush policy in Iraq”:
Euphemism; that “policy” being an invasion and lengthy occupation.

8) “...even Halliburton must come as a blessed relief”
Metonomy; replace “Halliburton” with “invasion, 100,000 dead civilians, continuing occupation, and civil war”

9) “And it’s no good chanting “no blood for oil” at me, because oil is the lifeblood here, and everybody knows it and always has.”
Equivocation; false metaphor; American blood is the protesters concern. Logically, bit of a weak finish. But the rhetorical “oomph” carries it well.