Hitchens explains

Peter Kilander peterk at enteract.com
Sun Feb 7 22:58:30 PST 1999

I'm curious to know at what point you Hitchens-bashers would consider stop spending time and energy defending Clinton. How right-wing would he need to be or what sort of policies would he need to push through or let die? Privatize social security? I bet he would have had not Starr put a crimp in his schedule. Eliminate the minimum wage? But the Consitution needs defending. Suspend habeas corpus? Clinton's done some damage there. Lecture poor kids about morality and end welfare for the "morally unfit"?

Why not call for the end of the grand jury system rather than defend Clinton? I also wonder if you all would be making such a stink if similar tactics had been used to impeach Reagan. It's OK for the mafia, but not the president? Screw the sanctity of the office of the president. It's not a bad thing that one of the most powerful men in the country can be put under such scrutiny. But it's wasting Clinton's time and the taxpayers' money? Clinton's the one using up millions in red herring missile launches on civilians and he would be spending his time privatizing social security anyway.

Roger Odisio says: Hitchens admits right away that when Blumenthal told him at lunch, both knew Hitchens, as a Clinton hater, would not spread the story. Hitchens knows that was NOT Blumenthal's purpose in telling him. This is consistent with what Blumenthal says: he told only family and friends and he used to think Hitchens was a friend. So Hitchens' affadavit provides NO evidence that Blumenthal spread, or even tried to spread, the story to others, which, of course, is what Starr and the House are after. If Blumenthal did spread the story, Hitchens is no help in proving it. His affadavit about the lunch conversation is irrelevant to nailing either Blumenthal or Clinton.

What was his *purpose*? Blumenthal testified he didn't tell any *reporters*. Well, he told Hitchens. And Hitchens testified he told other reporters. I made some of the points you make in my post but it seems you, Nathan et al. didn't bother to read it. Nathan just goes on about lesser-evil masochism and not "providing positive alternatives."

>But why write another yawn in the Nation when, with exquisite timing, you
>can capture the spotlight with his "accusation". The Blumenthal testimony
>gave him the opening. Just hope you can get in and back out again before
>people actually think about what you are saying. Self-promotion.
>There are several Chris Hitchens. The one who surfaced this week is the guy
>who auditioned for a spot as the "lefty" on "Crossfire", and wrote a
>self-congratulatory article in the Nation when they turned him down.

Talk about speculation and ad hominem argument. Blumenthal's lawyer provided the "opening" by saying journalists were freed to say Blumenthal had made disparaging remarks about Willey and Monica. Can I speculate that Blumenthal et al figured liberal journalists who have incriminating knowledge wouldn't come forward because 1) they'd lose access 2) they'd suffer the wrath of their liberal friends and 3) maybe they want to defend the Constituion as much as Nathan?

I don't know if the following is definetly for real, but someone e-mailed me saying it was in Hitchens's affidavit:

8. During lunch on March 19, 1998, in the presence of myself and Carol Blue, Mr. Blumenthal stated that, Monica Lewinsky had been a "stalker" and that the President was "the victim" of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman. Referring to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Blumenthal used the word "stalker" several times. Mr. Blumenthal advised us that this version of the facts was not generally understood. 9. Also during that lunch, Mr. Blumenthal stated that Kathleen Willey's poll numbers were high but would fall and would not look so good in a few days. 10. I have knowledge that Mr. Blumenthal recounted to other people in the journalistic community the same story about Monica Lewinsky that he told me and Carol Blue. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this fifth day of February, 1999. --------------------- you Hitchens bashers conveniently forget the Willey part. why bother telling Hitchens these things in the first place? because they were true? then why spin the other way and make Monica out to be a sweet zaftig? all's fair in love and defending the Constitution I guess


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list