>"Hit on Snitchens" is clever, because it's really quite a personal snit on
>Hitchens, as well: I'm a fan of Cockburn's but wonder if this time he
>hasn't gone Too Far
I would say that his recent brutal attack on Native Americans was much more egregious than anything he could write about a rival journalist, who he had an axe to grind with anyway.
> ... of course that may go for Hitchens, too. But it
>still seems to me that in the circumstances it would have been worse for
>Hitchens to clam up on the basis of friendship and become a material
>accomplice to Clinton's disinformation campaigns, actual or potential.
>After all, he spends much of his time in print saying (accurately) that
>the government is lying: should he then be silent when he has personal
>information that that's the case?
The impeachment joke is over and Clinton never waged a smear campaign against Lewinsky, so any information Hitchens has is irrelevant at this point. Did he really think he was going to change the course of impeachment with his testimony? Did he think he was going to stop government lying by telling his story to...the (Republicans in the) government? If so, his gin must have been laced with something real nice.
Eric, who is starting a good diet in order to fulfill his genetic potential