> Scaife 'n' Snitch (and the Hitch)

[Peter K.]

Jan C.:
>Moreover, did Nader ever say anything about US obstructionism against
>UN action in Rwanda? Not that I remember. And how could he have made
>much of it--that would have forced him to lay out a well thought out
>position about how the US is to actually cooperate with the rest of
>the world, thereby alienating the anti globalization simpletons whom
>he hopes will one day make him the Chief Executive of the United
>States. Or perhaps Nader did not want to lose support by implying
>that he would sacrifice any number of American lives even for the
>prevention of a genocide? So Nader seems hardly different than
>Clinton here.

I don't follow your logic.


>And did Hitchens ever say this is why he could not re-elect a
>Democrat (yes Clinton killed Rector but Bush has been killing people
>who were mentally arrested long before they committed crimes)? Rwanda
>was not the reason I remember he gave (or at least he seemed no more
>concerned about this than Clinton lying about his love of cigars).

To my knowledge, Hitchens never said this. *I* thought it was a point
against the Democratic Party, or at least another instance where
the two parties agree.

In a review of Clinton's presidency, Hitchens did say:

"We are supposedly entering "legacy time," and I think history will record
with some astonishment that this remorseless progress toward a corporate
state was accompanied by a chorus of support from the politically correct.
During the impeachment battle, for example, feminists rallied around a man
who hit on the help and then trashed his conquests if they complained.
African American leaders described as "our first black president" a
character who as a candidate had made a point of executing the mentally
deficient Rickey Ray Rector, who ditched Lani Guinier, humiliated Betty
Currie, and vetoed a United Nations resolution calling for international
action to forestall the genocide in Rwanda."
<http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO00/hitchens.html>

What's funny is that I believe Hitchens agrees with you and John Gulick
concerning the "anti-globalization simpletons," as you call them. [Feel free
to defend editor Peter Bienart of the New Republic from the swarming
simpletons over at Plastic.com
http://www.plastic.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/17/1453200&mode=thread
You can use a handle [i.e. fake name] if you're too chicken to use your real
name.]

Here I think he's probably wrong, in a sense. I'd guess he'd argue that one
should be radically anti-capitalist instead of merely "anti-trade" or
"anti-sweatshop." I find this analogous to how in a recent New York Press
column, Cockburn gently mocked the passage of campaign finance reform in the
Senate by pointing out that as long as capitalism exists, corruption will be
rife. Yes, but...

Peter