[lbo-talk] Re: Hitchens

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think Hitchens' position on the Bush wars is contemptible, but he was
right about the impeachment.  Clinton was guilty as charged and should
have been removed.  In retrospect, it's hard to see how that would have
been worse than what actually happened:  Gore would have become president,
run as an incumbent, and won by "maximizing the incumbency." Then at
least we would have had *Democratic* neocon wars.  --CGE

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Doug Henwood wrote:


> Brian Siano wrote:
> 
> >I think his account of _l'affair Blumenthal_ has been believable, 
> >and I'd be pretty resentful if the editorial staff hauled _me_ in 
> >for some kind of demented tribunal over the matter.
> 
> It was hardly a hauling-over. I was there. A lot of the staff was
> upset that one of their colleagues had been in touch with the House
> Republican impeachment staff - whatever the sins of the Clintons, the
> House Republicans are ghoulish monsters - and had been running around
> praising Ken Starr. (Hitch called him "Judge Starr" repeatedly at the
> meeting.) Victor Navasky asked Hitch to come talk things over. There
> was nothing tribunalish about it - his job wasn't on the line. Most of
> the staff was (and many still are) fond of him personally and
> professionally. Hitch was pretty hostile from the outset. When Victor
> welcomed him, his response was, "The pleasure is all yours I'm sure."  
> That set the tone for the whole thing. He tried to make his case, and
> no one was convinced. It was no "demented tribunal." It was rather
> sad. At one point, he said, "I'm very grateful for Judge Starr."
>