> >Of course Hitchens likes Kerry--the guy runs the university which
>>probably pays this non Ph.D. very handsomely. So why would Hitchens
>>mention that according one of the other SEALS and two Vietnamese,
>>Kerry is lying about their being shot at by the Viet Cong? Why would
>>Hitchens intervene in this dispute given his obvious conflict of
>>interest if he were not trying to raise the market value of his "Your
>>Honor Ken Starr" celebrity?
>>At any rate, do you think Kerry's apology was a condition the
>>Vietnamese "unofficially" wrote into the bilateral trade act which
>>Bush is now considering? The timing of the apology is interesting,
>>but probably this is no more than coincidence.
>>
>>Rakesh
>
>I just saw Hitchens on Chris Matthew's Hardball show last night, pushing
>his Trial of Henry Kissinger book - a good book by the way.
I'll take your word for it, but did I miss your explanation for his synchophancy vis a vis his boss?
>You should take a looksie and maybe then you'll cut the guy some
>slack, but I doubt it.
Why should I cut him slack for rising to the defense of his boss without so much as recognizing that there is another side to the story of this massacre? For someone who goes in a tizzy about Clinton as a liar, you would think the guy put some value on truth and journalistic integrity.
>At any rate, the Kerry revelations don't seem
>to be troubling him at all.
Well isn't that the problem? Shouldn't he be a bit more troubled?
>He seemed in a very, very good mood,
>all smiles as he pointed out that the U.S.'s ouster from the U.N.
>Human Rights Committee happened because of our unilateralism and
>that the U.S.'s aim of building of a missile defense shield was a dangerous,
>stupid policy. I'd guess he's enjoying his celebrity.
Says one one justifiable thing (of course this is hardly a radical opinion given that the NYT, LAT and Joseph Biden in the WSJ are saying the same thing), another unjustifiable thing (defense of Kerrey).
>Maybe he had just
>heard that Gore Vidal,
>who named Hitchens as his successor (or daupin or delphino), had agreed to
>be a witness to Timothy McVeigh's execution at McVeigh's request?
>This is no hoax.
I wish it were. Have not been following these posts on McVeigh and his new sugar daddy Gore Vidal, and while I oppose the death penalty, I think McVeigh is a monster, a coward, and of course a killer of innocent human beings(wasn't that the welfare and social security building he blew up in Oklahoma City?).
But I understand Vidal defending McVeigh with the guilloitine hanging over his head. And more importantly someone as smart as Vidal probably understands that insofar as "McVeigh" has come to himself be the reason why civil liberties have to be violated, McVeigh has to be defended. But what's Hitchen's excuse for defending his boss?
Look for whatever reason Vidal decided not to have children; he should just consign himself to having no heir, instead of settling for the erratic Hitchens. Either that or he should do what Tony Randall did at 70.
>(I belive liberals were in a tizzy about Hitchens refering to Starr
>as "Judge" Starr, not "Your Honor.")
>Peter
I am sorry to have got wrong exactly how he prostrated himself. By the way, I didn't know it was liberals who had a problem with snitching. But then I agreed with Cockburn's estimation of Orwell, not Hitchen's. And of course I agree with Cockburn's take on Kerrey's war time activities, not Hitchens' (insofar as it can be made out).
>
>
>Writer Gore Vidal to Attend McVeigh's Execution
>Saturday, May 05, 2001
>Associated Press
>
>"This guy's got a case — you don't send the FBI in to kill women and
>children," he said.
>
>"The boy has a sense of justice," Vidal said. "That's what attracted me to
>him."
Is this some kind of sick joke? McVeigh killed women and children. He wasn't even man enough to try to kill someone who was armed; he's no Assata Shakur (whose autobiography by the way is very good) or Mumia Abu Jamal (who of course has been mistaken for his brother).
>
>Vidal said he will write an article for Vanity Fair about the execution and
>may write a movie about McVeigh "and those of us who object to the tyranny
>of the U.S. government against its people."
So McVeigh blows up a govt building which houses child care, social security and welfare? What kind of sick fuck is McVeigh? Maybe I am missing something, but then I do not care about his ex post facto justifications for what he did. Who he killed reveals him to be misanthropic and nihilistic. Which doesn't mean--it should go without saying--that he should be killed. If Vidal has to contrive some reason to prevent that, I surely wouldn't hold it against him--in fact I admire Vidal for this; but don't think much of Hitchens for his snitching and grovelling. Did Vidal rise to the defense of Ted Kacynski? I don't think his manifesto is insane at all but then neither does Ray Kurzweil nor Bill Joy. If the left is attracted to "terrorists" with ideas, McVeigh would be among my last choices (his real ideas were manifested in whose lives he took); we should protest harsh punishment of assata, the unabomber and mumia. RB