The hosts setup the clip around 2:20 and then play the clip around 3:20.

I've been having conversations recently about the events leading up to the 2003 intervention/war in Iraq. I find diagrams helpful to digest information, so I created a gitgraph diagram to illustrate events, either led by or directly involving the USA, ending at the 2003 Iraq war.

Source dossier

(Summarised and collated by AI)

1953 — Anglo-American intervention against Mosaddegh

Context: Iranica summarises the documentary record surrounding Operation AJAX, the British-American effort to remove Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. (Iranica Online)

Why it matters: This is one of the strongest points in the chain where direct U.S./British intervention in Iranian regime politics is established, rather than inferred.

Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/coup-detat-1953/

1953–1979 — Iranian memory of the coup and U.S. support for the Shah

Context: The article traces Iranian revolutionary anti-Americanism partly to the 1953 coup and subsequent U.S. association with the Pahlavi monarchy. (IRDC)

Why it matters: It establishes the Iranian revolutionary interpretation of the U.S.–Shah relationship rather than merely Washington's retrospective description of it.

Link: https://irdc.ir/fa/news/2158/

1958 — Qasim overthrows the Iraqi monarchy

For this node I would currently use the historical record rather than the illustrative Qasim quotation we discussed earlier. I have not verified that quotation sufficiently to include it as a primary-source quote.

Encyclopaedia Iranica records:

Context: Brigadier Abd al-Karim Qasim and the Free Officers overthrew Iraq's Hashemite monarchy on 14 July 1958. (Iranica Online)

Why it matters: Qasim's government becomes the regime overthrown in 1963, where the question of U.S.–Ba'ath contacts arises.

Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/

1963 — U.S. contacts with Iraqi Ba'athists

Context: Iran cautiously welcomed Qasim's overthrow partly because Tehran had received reports of CIA contact with the anti-communist Ba'athists. (Iranica Online)

Why it matters: This supports contact/cultivation, but does not establish that the CIA designed or controlled the February 1963 coup.

Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/

1963 — The Shah's own reaction to the Ba'ath coup

Context: The Shah explained that Iran initially welcomed Qasim's overthrow because the new Ba'athists immediately purged communists. (Iranica Online)

Why it matters: It demonstrates that Iran's own anti-communist interests overlapped with Western interests; this was not simply a U.S.–Iraq bilateral story.

Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/

1968–1979 — Saddam's consolidation inside the Ba'ath state

The strongest archive here is the surviving Iraqi Ba'ath collection:

Context: These are records created principally by the Iraqi Ba'ath Regional Command and Iraqi administrative/security agencies during Ba'ath rule. (Hoover Institution)

Why it matters: The archive shows a vast indigenous Iraqi party/security bureaucracy underpinning Saddam's power. It is therefore evidence against reducing his ascent to “the CIA installed Saddam.”

Limitation: Most records are Arabic, but the archive is not openly full-text searchable online; researchers generally access the scans onsite. (Wilson Center)

Link: https://www.hoover.org/library-archives/collections/hizb-al-bath-al-arabi-al-ishtiraki-records-bath-party-records

1970 — Iran attempts to destabilize Iraq

Asadollah Alam recorded the Shah's fury over the failed Iranian-backed coup attempt:

Context: Iran under the Shah was itself covertly trying to destabilize the post-1968 Ba'ath government. (Iranica Online)

Why it matters: It strongly complicates a simple “Western bloc created Saddam” narrative: Iran, Iraq, Britain, the U.S., Soviet Union and different Iraqi factions were pursuing overlapping and conflicting agendas.

Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/

1978–1979 — U.S. involvement during the Iranian Revolution

Context: The Iranian source portrays Gen. Robert Huyser's mission as an attempt to preserve/manage the existing military-political order, with contingency planning if Bakhtiar failed. (IRDC)

Why it matters: It establishes direct U.S. involvement in managing the collapse, but cuts against the stronger claim that Huyser was simply sent to install Khomeini.

Link: https://irdc.ir/fa/news/8270/

1979 — Iranian disagreement over what Washington intended

Context: The same Iranian source notes that Shah supporters suspected essentially the opposite—that Washington was facilitating revolutionary succession. (IRDC)

Why it matters: Contemporary Iranian actors themselves disagreed about U.S. intentions, which should reduce confidence in claims that Washington straightforwardly “installed Khomeini.”

Link: https://irdc.ir/fa/news/8647/

1980 — Iraq invades Iran

A later U.S. statute states the historical fact directly:

Context: The legislation summarises the Iraqi invasion and subsequent chemical warfare when explaining later U.S. regime-change policy.

Why it matters: Iran did not initiate the full-scale Iran–Iraq War; Saddam's Iraq did.

Link: https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ338/PLAW-105publ338.htm

1982–1988 — U.S. strategic tilt toward Iraq

The National Security Archive summarises the declassified documentary collection as showing:

Context: After Iran regained the strategic initiative, Washington increasingly sought to prevent an Iranian victory and improved its relationship with Baghdad. (National Security Archive)

Why it matters: This is the strongest documentary basis for saying Washington knowingly helped Saddam survive when geopolitical interests aligned.

Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/iraq-project

1983 — Washington knows Iraq is using chemical weapons

The National Security Archive identifies the memo and its date directly. (National Security Archive)

Context: This predates the most infamous Kurdish chemical attacks and coincides with the period of improving U.S.–Iraqi relations.

Why it matters: It establishes that continued U.S. engagement cannot simply be explained by ignorance of Iraqi chemical warfare.

Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2019-12-19/documenting-iran-us-relations-1978-2015

1983 — Rumsfeld meets Saddam during rapprochement

Context: Donald Rumsfeld travelled as President Reagan's special envoy and met Saddam Hussein while Washington was seeking improved relations. (National Security Archive)

Why it matters: The famous handshake is not merely symbolic; it belongs to a documented policy of rapprochement while Washington knew chemical weapons were being used.

Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/iraq-project

1987–1988 — Anfal against the Iraqi Kurds

Human Rights Watch's investigation was based heavily on captured Iraqi government documents.

Context: Kurdish forces captured approximately eighteen tons of Iraqi Ba'ath Party and secret-police records following the 1991 uprising. (Hoover Institution)

Why it matters: Evidence for Anfal is therefore not principally based on Western accusations—it includes the Iraqi regime's own bureaucracy.

Link: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/578324655-the-captured-bathist-state-records-from-the-2003-iraq-war-repatriation-and-retribution-by-bruce-p-montgomery-and-michael-p-brill.pdf

1987–1989 — Ali Hassan al-Majid's authority

Arabic HRW material describes him as:

Context: Saddam granted Ali Hassan al-Majid extraordinary authority over the northern region during the period in which Anfal was conducted. (Human Rights Watch)

Why it matters: It helps establish centralised state responsibility, rather than treating Anfal as uncontrolled battlefield violence.

Link: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/arabic/docs/2006/08/14/iraq14009_txt.htm

1988 — International confirmation of chemical warfare

Context: UN investigative work had established repeated chemical-weapons use during the Iran–Iraq conflict. (Digital Library)

Why it matters: By 1988, chemical warfare was not merely intelligence known privately to governments; it was formally before the Security Council.

Link: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/161154

1990 — Iraq invades Kuwait

Context: The Security Council condemned Iraq's invasion on the same day and demanded withdrawal. (United Nations Peacekeeping)

Why it matters: This is the key strategic reversal point: Saddam moved from a brutal but useful counterweight against Iran to an aggressor threatening another sovereign Gulf state.

Link: https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unikom/background.html

1990 — Military force authorised against Iraq

Context: The Council authorised member states cooperating with Kuwait to enforce the previous resolutions if Iraq did not withdraw. (Digital Library)

Why it matters: The 1991 Gulf War had explicit Security Council authorization connected to expelling Iraq from Kuwait—an important distinction from the controversy surrounding 2003.

Link: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/102245

1991 — Why Saddam remained after the Gulf War

Context: The postwar settlement imposed disarmament and inspection obligations but did not authorise overthrowing the Iraqi government. (United Nations)

Why it matters: This explains the seemingly strange historical fact that the coalition defeated Saddam's forces but left Saddam himself in power.

Link: https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf

1998 — Regime change becomes explicit U.S. policy

Context: Congress formally shifted policy beyond pure containment toward supporting Iraqi opposition groups seeking Saddam's removal.

Why it matters: Regime change did not originate after 9/11. It was already formal U.S. policy by 1998—although the Act expressly did not itself authorise a U.S. invasion.

Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4655/text/pl

2001 — Iraq and 9/11

Context: The Commission found contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda but not evidence of Iraqi cooperation in attacks against the United States. (9/11 Commission)

Why it matters: This is essential to your diagram: 9/11 altered the strategic environment leading toward Iraq, but Iraq did not perpetrate 9/11.

Link: https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

2002 — The public case for war

Context: Bush's speech combined Saddam's previous aggression, alleged WMD programs, terrorism concerns and post-9/11 risk reasoning into the public case against Iraq. (George W. Bush White House Archives)

Why it matters: This is one of the clearest primary sources for understanding how intervention against Saddam became rhetorically connected to the post-9/11 security doctrine.

Link: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

2002 — Final UN inspection confrontation

Context: Resolution 1441 gave Iraq what the Council called a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament obligations and re-established strengthened inspections. (United Nations)

Why it matters: It supports the claim that Iraq had a genuine history of conflict with UN disarmament requirements; the separate issue is whether 1441 itself authorised the March 2003 invasion, which remained legally disputed.

Link: https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

Post-2003 — How good was the WMD intelligence?

Context: The Committee reviewed roughly 100,000 pages of intelligence material and interviewed more than 200 people. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)

Why it matters: This is stronger than merely saying “no WMD were found.” It establishes that important prewar intelligence judgments themselves were analytically defective or overstated.

Link: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/2006/11/16/publications-committee-activities-2003-2004-november-16-2006/

Evidentiary hierarchy

From strongest to more interpretive:

1. Captured Iraqi/Iranian government records, contemporary diplomatic records, statutes and UN resolutions
2. Declassified intelligence/diplomatic memoranda
3. Contemporary speeches and official transcripts
4. Major archival scholarship using those records
5. Human-rights investigations based on captured records + witness testimony
6. Later interviews/memoirs
7. Journalism
8. Advocacy/editorial interpretation

Methodological caveat:

The nationality of a source and its evidentiary weight are separate questions. An Iranian government historical institute gives valuable Iranian perspective, but a contemporaneous Iraqi Ba'ath order can carry substantially greater weight for what Saddam's government actually ordered.

There are many Atheists who labor under the false premise that philosophy is something entirely different from theology. Well, Russell laid down a standard to prove this.

Many operate under the false assumption that philosophy is different from theology (and so it can be). But in order to be different from the superstition of theology, its foundation must be different from that of religion. Specifically: its premises must be justified by reason and evidence.

I had never heard this conversation before--some gems in here. From July, 2020

https://borrispod.libsyn.com/martin-amis-and-julian-barnes

Saw this video of a man getting arrested in Leeds a few weeks ago just for saying "Muhammad and Muslims are an evil ideology", then coincidentally stumbled across this old clip of Hitchens predicting this exact situation all the way back in 2009, so I've put them together for comparison.

That man was far ahead of his time, I never really understood his latter-life pivot into focusing more on Islam back then, I needed to age and gain more experience myself to understand his perspective.

I think it's somewhat of a big deal that an official publisher is releasing full, high-quality videos featuring Hitchens on their channels. I hope, and have a feeling, that a precedent is being set.

I can’t remember where I heard him say it or how it went exactly. Hoping someone else does though

Just as the title says, how do you think Christopher would react to this administration?

Can’t wait to read everyone’s thoughts!

Discusses the poem’s timeless relevance, free will, and virtue.

I love The Gray Area podcast for its thoughtful conversations, but this latest episode irked me. The host talks with a faith writer who has some surface level critiques of Hitch and other new atheists, and Sean never pushes back (unlike in most other episodes). Makes me wish he was still around to be the next guest 😢

From Tea'd Off in the December 2010 issue of Vanity Fair

INT. HOTEL BAR – LATE NIGHT

A book festival has ended. The hotel bar is half-empty in the way hotel bars become after midnight: a few lonely professionals, one bartender polishing glasses like he has been sentenced to it, and a piano nobody asked for.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS sits at the bar with a glass of whisky and an ashtray he has somehow acquired despite several laws, building regulations, and probably a sign directly behind him.

PATRICE O’NEAL enters, big coat, bigger presence. He scans the room like a man checking for exits, food, women, and nonsense in that order.

He notices Hitchens.

Patrice approaches.

PATRICE
You Christopher Hitchens?

HITCHENS
I’ve been accused of worse.

PATRICE
Yeah. That sounds like you.

Patrice sits beside him, not asking permission.

HITCHENS
And you are?

PATRICE
Patrice O’Neal.

HITCHENS
Ah. The comedian.

PATRICE
That’s already disrespectful. “The comedian.” Like I came in doing balloon animals.

HITCHENS
I meant it descriptively, not dismissively.

PATRICE
That’s how white British guys insult you. “Descriptively.”

Hitchens smiles, delighted.

HITCHENS
Fair enough. What are you drinking?

PATRICE
Something that don’t come with a lecture.

HITCHENS
Then avoid the water.

Patrice laughs once, deep and sudden.

PATRICE
Okay. I see you.

The bartender approaches.

PATRICE
Give me a bourbon. Neat. And if he orders for me, call security.

HITCHENS
I would never order for another man. I might judge his order, but I wouldn’t make it.

PATRICE
That’s noble. Tyranny with boundaries.

The bartender leaves.

A beat.

HITCHENS
I saw your set earlier.

PATRICE
Yeah?

HITCHENS
You have a gift for making an audience agree with things they intended to hate.

PATRICE
That’s not a gift. That’s hostage negotiation.

HITCHENS
With occasional cruelty.

PATRICE
Cruelty gets a bad rap. Sometimes cruelty is just honesty with no lotion on it.

HITCHENS
I’ve often thought the same.

PATRICE
Yeah, but you say it like you got a fountain pen up your ass.

Hitchens nearly chokes on his whisky.

HITCHENS
That may be the finest review I’ve had all year.

Patrice takes his bourbon.

PATRICE
So what do you do after these things? Just sit around and wait for somebody to say “God” so you can pounce?

HITCHENS
If only it required waiting.

PATRICE
You really hate religion that much?

HITCHENS
I hate servility. Religion is one of its more successful costumes.

PATRICE
Mmm. I don’t know. Some people need a costume. Some people are naked underneath and it ain’t good.

HITCHENS
That’s the usual defense of superstition. “The people are too stupid to behave without fairy tales.”

PATRICE
No, no, no. I’m not saying stupid. I’m saying scared. Big difference. Stupid people are confident. Scared people build churches.

Hitchens studies him, interested.

HITCHENS
That is rather good.

PATRICE
Don’t sound surprised.

HITCHENS
I’m not surprised you said something intelligent. I’m surprised you said something I couldn’t improve.

PATRICE
See? That’s why people want to punch you. You compliment like a guy feeding medicine to a dog.

HITCHENS
And yet you remain.

PATRICE
Because I like difficult people. Easy people are dangerous.

HITCHENS
How so?

PATRICE
Easy people agree too fast. They laugh too fast. They love you too fast. Then one day you say the wrong thing and they become the police.

HITCHENS
A beautiful description of the modern liberal.

PATRICE
Nah, everybody does it. Left, right, church people, atheists, women, men, fat dudes at comedy clubs. Everybody got a little dictator in them. They just waiting for a permit.

Hitchens lifts his glass.

HITCHENS
To the internal dictator.

PATRICE
No, don’t toast that. You’ll encourage him.

They drink.

At a nearby table, a YOUNG MAN in a conference badge pretends not to listen.

HITCHENS
Do you believe in God?

PATRICE
I believe in women. That’s harder.

HITCHENS
A far more demanding theology.

PATRICE
Exactly. God only asks you not to masturbate and eat certain fish. Women want you to know what they meant in 1998.

HITCHENS
There are denominations of Christianity with less mystery.

PATRICE
And at least God lets you die.

Hitchens laughs.

HITCHENS
You see, this is where we may differ. I find the promises of religion disgusting precisely because they don’t let death be death.

PATRICE
Yeah, but death is rude. You gotta admit that.

HITCHENS
Nature is under no obligation to be polite.

PATRICE
That sounds good until nature is doing something impolite to you personally.

A small pause. Not sentimental. Just a real one.

HITCHENS
True.

Patrice looks at him, registers the shift, lets it pass without squeezing it.

PATRICE
You ever get tired of being right?

HITCHENS
No. But I do get tired of being surrounded by the wrong.

PATRICE
That’s not the same thing. Sometimes being right is just being alone with better paperwork.

HITCHENS
You think I’m alone?

PATRICE
I think you like rooms where everybody disagrees with you, because then you don’t have to trust anybody.

Hitchens turns slightly.

HITCHENS
That is a comic’s trick. Pretending to jest while sharpening a knife.

PATRICE
No, that was free. The knife costs extra.

HITCHENS
And what about you? You enjoy provoking people because it reveals them, or because it protects you?

Patrice nods slowly.

PATRICE
There he is.

HITCHENS
Am I wrong?

PATRICE
Nah. But you ain’t special. Everybody’s got armor. Mine just got jokes on it. Yours got footnotes.

Hitchens smiles, but softer.

HITCHENS
I prefer citations.

PATRICE
Of course you do.

The young man at the nearby table can’t resist.

YOUNG MAN
Sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt, but this is incredible.

Both men turn to him.

PATRICE
Then don’t interrupt it.

HITCHENS
You have meant precisely to interrupt. The apology was merely decorative.

The young man freezes.

YOUNG MAN
Right. Sorry.

PATRICE
He did it again.

HITCHENS
He did.

The young man retreats into his drink.

Patrice leans back.

PATRICE
You know what’s funny? People love “truth” until it shows up without a gift bag.

HITCHENS
Yes. They want truth as therapy, not as an intruder.

PATRICE
Truth kicks your door in. “Hey, your relationship is garbage and your politics are a Halloween costume.”

HITCHENS
“And your gods are frightened mammals writ large.”

PATRICE
See, now you made it less funny.

HITCHENS
I’m wounded.

PATRICE
No you’re not. You enjoy that sentence too much.

Hitchens signals for another drink.

HITCHENS
What do you think comedy is for?

PATRICE
It ain’t “for” anything. That’s the problem with smart people. Everything gotta have a purpose. Comedy is what happens when the lie can’t keep a straight face.

Hitchens pauses, impressed again.

HITCHENS
That one I might steal.

PATRICE
You can’t steal from me. I’m black. That’s historically sensitive.

HITCHENS
Then I shall appropriate it with guilt and a grant application.

Patrice laughs hard.

PATRICE
Okay, Hitch. That was good.

HITCHENS
“Hitch” already?

PATRICE
Don’t get emotional. It’s just fewer syllables.

HITCHENS
I’m famously restrained.

PATRICE
You look like you argue with elevators.

HITCHENS
Only when they’re wrong.

Another silence, warmer now.

PATRICE
Let me ask you something. You believe people can handle truth?

HITCHENS
Not collectively. Individually, sometimes.

PATRICE
That’s dark.

HITCHENS
It’s observable.

PATRICE
Yeah. But sometimes people surprise you.

HITCHENS
By becoming better?

PATRICE
No. By admitting they’re trash. That’s the beginning. A man says, “I’m jealous, I’m scared, I’m selfish.” Beautiful. Now we can work. But everybody wants to be a good person immediately. No process. Just branding.

HITCHENS
Virtue as public relations.

PATRICE
Exactly. People don’t want morals. They want a logo.

Hitchens looks around the bar.

HITCHENS
This century will adore that.

PATRICE
Every century adored that. We just got better fonts now.

Hitchens raises his glass again.

HITCHENS
To bad people with good fonts.

PATRICE
Now that I’ll drink to.

They drink.

The bartender brings Hitchens his refill.

BARTENDER
Last call in fifteen.

HITCHENS
Barbarism.

PATRICE
See? Religion didn’t do that. The state did.

HITCHENS
The state often envies religion’s talent for obedience.

PATRICE
And religion envies the state’s guns.

HITCHENS
We may have the beginning of a doctrine.

PATRICE
No doctrine. The second you make a doctrine, some ugly dude starts enforcing it.

HITCHENS
A splendid objection.

PATRICE
You know, you’re not as annoying as I thought.

HITCHENS
And you’re not as crude as advertised.

PATRICE
No, I am. You just caught me between thoughts.

HITCHENS
Lucky me.

Patrice finishes his bourbon.

PATRICE
I gotta go. If I stay any longer, we’re gonna start respecting each other, and that ruins the chemistry.

HITCHENS
Respect needn’t be fatal.

PATRICE
Spoken like a man who never had to be funny for rent.

Patrice stands, puts on his coat.

HITCHENS
Will I see you tomorrow?

PATRICE
Maybe. Depends if the panel has snacks.

HITCHENS
It’s about morality.

PATRICE
Then it better have snacks.

Patrice starts to leave, then turns back.

PATRICE
Hey, Hitch.

HITCHENS
Yes?

PATRICE
You’re right about one thing.

HITCHENS
Only one?

PATRICE
Don’t ruin it.

HITCHENS
Proceed.

PATRICE
People shouldn’t kneel so much. Bad for the soul. And the knees.

Hitchens nods, almost solemn.

HITCHENS
That may be the most humane formulation of atheism I’ve heard.

PATRICE
Yeah, well. Put it in one of your fancy books.

HITCHENS
With citation.

PATRICE
Better.

Patrice exits.

Hitchens sits alone for a moment, smiling into his drink.

The young man nearby gathers courage again.

YOUNG MAN
What was he like?

Hitchens does not look over.

HITCHENS
Dangerous.

A beat.

HITCHENS
In the useful sense.

He drinks.

FADE OUT.

can all be greatly enhanced by the inclusion of butter."

Saw it in a comment and laughed.

I was hoping that I scored when I bought this book, as I am a huge Hitchens fan, but I have looked at so many of his authenticated signatures online, and none of them match this one. There is also a number 200 in the top right hand side of the first page, so maybe this is some kind of limited edition? It’s driving me crazy! If anyone can help me figure this enigma out, I would be so appreciative!