Christopher Hitchens is such an asshole, a lying pompous fuck...

[Zinfandel]

Robert Scheer is kicking ass...un-fucking believable...

C-SPAN 2 "Books TV"


CHECK IT OUT...IT WILL BE REPEATED...FIND IT!

[terrya]

1. I'm thinking his, um, "robust" alcohol use may have clouded his thinking.

That's the only reason I can think of to describe his metamorphosis to Bush lover.

[Zinfandel]

4. Would you say the same thing, when he was the # 1 Clinton hater & attacker

Christopher Hitchens used to spit fire on how Clinton was such an immoral person...who in the fuck does Hitchens thinks he is...certaintly NOT impartial...He's a drunken lying whore...who is always on the right-wing side of IMPORTANT issues...fuck his pretending to be liberal on other issues...just a setup for where his imperialist English heart really lies...the fucking pig!!@!!

[durutti]

54. Hitchens cares about one thing...

It starts with an "m" and ends with a "y".

[Bombtrack]

7. It amazes me how easily "liberals" adopt the same personal attacks that

Kissenger apologists used against him when they dissagree with him on an issue, however major.

I don't think you can point out anything to show Hitchens is a "Bush lover". He's passionately for regime change in Iraq, not for the republican platform. You people remind me of ditto-republicans who bash McCain.

Has Hitchens ever renounced his liberal positions about bad the US cold war policies or about Henry Kissenger or the School of the Americas or RELIGION? No.

[terrya]

13. He quit working for the Nation magazine in a well publicized split..

He was dismayed with the left's stance on the War in Iraq.

I am NOT a Kissinger apologist, by any means. But I think that Hitchens has abandoned liberalism.

[thebigidea]

16. yeah, he's basically a good egg

"I'm a single-issue person at present, and the single issue in case you are wondering is the tenacious and unapologetic defense of civilized societies against the intensifying menace of clerical barbarism. If in the smallest doubt about this, I would suggest a vote for the re-election of George Bush, precisely because he himself isn't prey to any doubt on the point."

No, but he's a big subscriber of a different flavor of "clerical barbarism."

"President George Bush is a year old today. Surprisingly, our low expectations of him have been confounded by his strong leadership."

Only if you're confounded by strong drink, bourbonboy.

"And I’m very glad that Nader stayed in to the end, because he hurt Al Gore’s chances of winning."

And where would we be without George W. Bush, huh?

"The level of intellect in the Bush administration is not stellar, but it’s higher than the Clinton administration. The level of professionalism is very much higher. But mostly they are deadly serious about winning this war and are willing to be ruthless about it. There’s no Democrat I think that can be said of."

You would think that would be a complement... not in Hitchens' fantasyland, though.


If that isn't Bushlove, its at least fairly strong Bushlike.

[Joanne98]

37. Hitchens hates the religious. He wrote a book bashing Mother Theresa

of all people. Calling her an old con artist. Maybe Hitchens hates the Islam fundies more than he hates Christians. It's possible. But that doesn't explain his moral crusade to ruin Clinton. If he would just say something like, "All fundies are dangerous but we have to take care of the Muslim ones first". It would be nice if he was spying for us. Anyway, until I can figure out what he's really doing, I'll stay in the "hate his guts" catagory. I hate it when leftists go over to the other side. They're so damned effective. ugh

[ludwigb]

33. He has all but endorsed Bush

End of story. He is no liberal. He's a paranoid ass that the Left is better off without.

[Veggie Meathead]

52. Bombtrack, I agree. In his opposition to religion inspired

terrorism, Christopher Hitchens echoes the famous British Nobel
Prize winner in Literature, V.S.Naipaul, who, in a classic work in the mid-70's, predicted an orgy of violence by Islamic fundamentalists against the West and any other societies ruled by infidels, e.g.
India, Israel.I strongly recommend this work, at once dispassionate and apolitical, to understand the struggle we now face.Even though it was written thirty years ago, it remains in my mind the single most important and perceptive work on Islamic societies.By the way, the title of this book is: AMONG THE BELIEVERS, AN ISLAMIC JOURNEY.
When you read the book you will realize what an observant person,
not shilling for the powers that be, can do to enhance our understanding and what truth feels like.If Mr.Bush had retained
Mr.Naipaul he would have been able to articulate the rationale for
the Iraq war far better than the intellectually challenged cabal he has surrounded himself with, and very likley the American people,
like the Indian and Israeli people would have supported the war
without any reservations.

[robbedvoter]

8. He started as a Clinton hater - still had a following around here

The transition is a natural, with, or without alcohool.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Scheer always "kicks ass"! KKKristipher "Hitler" Hitchens.....

needs to end his miserable existance.

[Bombtrack]

3. How, when did he lie.

I don't agree with him on alot of things, particularly the war, but he is still respectable. Of course I doubt you have anything other than juvenile vague attacks to back up your claims.

I guess whether or not "scheer kicked his ass" is determined by ones political filter.

Danner was the panelist who's view best fit mine

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. Hitchens is scum. He hated Clinton because he was....

"too conservative" and adores Bush for being a right winger.

Hitchens is a Neo-Con!

[Bombtrack]

10. He hated Clinton because of alot of reasons

that cannot in any acurate way be summed up as being "too conservative"


And he neither adores Bush nor supports some of his policies because he's a right-winger.

And he freely admits he believes in the Neoconservative philosophy, in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo(which if you remember, was a GOOD neoconservative supported action)

However I don't know why I even argue with you people with such a simplistic attitude about foriegn policy. The people who call people scum because of a dissagreement just personify what's wrong with the political debate in this country. At least Hitchens does participate in real debate which is healthy for our democracy. Unlike people who call people drunken assholes because they dislike their opinion

[glarius]

22. I saw Hitchens on Canadian TV, bleary-eyed with a glass of liquor he kept

drinking from, spouting his nonsense.....I guess that entitles me to call him a drunken asshole!
Whenever I see him, he is mostly spewing venom....He seems filled with hate.

[thebigidea]

24. did you even watch the debate? He called his opponents FOOLS!

Repeated "pathetic" over and over again.

"And he freely admits he believes in the Neoconservative philosophy"

which makes him complete and total scum.

What, should we stick up for Paul Wolfowitz next? Bill Kristol?

[Bombtrack]

31. Your belief that anyone who believes in a foreign policy towards

a particular country or region as ipso facto "total scum" just illustrates how narrow a mindset you project.

I'm not going to stick up for anyone unless I see an unfair, untruthful attack perpetrated against them. I believe rational people can disagree with Neocons, who's philosophy on Kosovo and Afghanistan I supported, and who's policy on Iraq I object to, but at least half of America supports last poll I saw, without attacking them as "total scum".

And there are some people who believe in the Neocon policy in Iraq, such as Tom Friedman, Joe Lieberman, and Jim Woolsey, who I certainly have some respect for any will stick up for when the narrow minded try to demonize them as people and not there beleifs

[thebigidea]

32. ...who believes in a NEOCONSERVATIVE foreign policy, mind you

"I'm not going to stick up for anyone unless I see an unfair, untruthful attack perpetrated against them."

Say, here's a nutty idea: why not stick up for the Iraqi civilians who have had an unfair, untruthful attack perpetrated against them.

No? Not enough compassion for them? Are you booked through June with this Christopher Hitchens Appreciation Society Gig?

Could you squeeze in a coupla minutes of sticking up for people who are being butchered due to the lies of Hitchens and his ilk?

And what great company, too!

Jim "Project for a New American Century" Woolsey! Hurray!
Tom "Give War a Chance" Friedman!

Well, good luck with them - after all, they haven't steered you wrong before, right?

Hilarious that you're even attempting to make the point that not embracing absurd, unrealistic, colonialist NeoCon views makes me narrow-minded or something. Phew.

[fujiyama]

53. The neocon policy in Afghanistan

was a SHAM. They had no interest in Afghanistan and when they went in they did so half assed. That's what Clarke, Graham, and many others have said so repeatedly. Remember, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz actually argued that Iraq should have been attacked immediately after 9/11.

As for Friedman, Lieberman, and Woolsey -- they seem to not really understand the war on terrorism and have made the mistake in equating the Arab Baath parties with Al Qaeda and real Islamic fundamentalism -- the Whaabiist kind that has been sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

I'm more with Bob Graham and Wes Clark on this issue. They made it clear that Iraq should NEVER have been the focal point on the war on terrorism.

Immediately following 9/11 I thought Hitchens did a decent job arguing against those on the far left that opposed attacking terrorist camps in Afghanistan. He also made it clear that Islamic fanaticism was a major threat to the civilized world. I believed that then, and I still believe that today. Unfortunately, I feel like a fool for giving Bush the benefit of the doubt immediately after 9/11.

Then somewhere along the line, Hitchens and Berman (another on the left that supported attacking Iraq) began equating the fanatical Islamic terror with the domestic repressive governments of an Arab country.

Neocon policy is NOT good for American security. It has proved to be a disaster. Hitchens and others that don't see it ARE either FOOLS or have another agenda and other interests.

[smirkymonkey]

58. He probably hated Clinton so much because

Clinton could still get it up, which I am sure drove Mr. Whiskey Weenie into a jealous rage.

[Vladimir]

62. Kosovo was a criminal action

and in many ways a precedent for the subsequent criminality in Afganistan and Iraq.

[thebigidea]

6. yes, nothing more respectable than chanting "pathetic"

... right after you've been summarily eviscerated, then fleeing the stage.

It was a piss poor performance in every way.

[Zinfandel]

9. Pay fucking attention...Do you have a pulse?

[k in IA]

11. That's rather rude! Now you can go off on me but as for

Hitchens - he is a nut case. I can never figure out where he is coming from because he is soo off the wall. Supposedly a liberal and against Clinton because he is immoral and not liberal enough yet he loves shrub and the war on Iraq. He also despises Mother Teresa.

I think I'll stay on the side with Clinton and Mother Teresa.

[Bombtrack]

15. What about Henry Kissenger? Are you on his side?

And once again if you bothered to read any of his critisms of Clinton or his recent work dealing with Iraq and the overall war on terror neither of your summations are acurate representations of his positions.

He is a rather cynical person. And has no real love for any politician including Bush, who's religiocity is the pinnacle of what Hitchens despises

[k in IA]

19. No, I'm not on Kissenger's side. I don't know where your "once

again" comments come from because I don't believe I ever even seen you on DU before. I thought the other person's response to you was very rude but then again maybe you guys already know each other and you deserve it.

What exactly is it about Hitchens that you like so much? Please, explain.

[thebigidea]

20. two words: minty breath.

[Bombtrack]

26. He's a really good, smart, writer. And I don't just read people I agree

with. I agree with alot of his broad feelings about how many on the left don't really view the need to secularize the middle east or stop Khomenism and Jihadism from spreading, or as he calls it Islamic fascism, and I think that's not a misleading description of it.

Of course I disagree with him that a rush to war with Iraq was anywhere close to the best solution.

But it is true that people, alot of people here in fact, in my opinion are out there with there beliefs dealing with being "pro-palesitian" or pro-Islam or anti-occupation. And it would be better if left-wing media reflected a more diverse opinion when it comes to foriegn policy.

[Michael Harrington]

60. I've always liked him and his work...

There was, and remains, a progressive case for war with Iraq. I don't happen to buy it, but it's there to be made.

I read his pieces still and if anyone can point out when and where he's abandoned the Palestinians, quieted his criticism of Israel, retroactively talked up the Vietnam War or been anything but bitterly critical of Henry Kissinger, especially over Chile, I would be interested to see it.

His distaste for Clinton led him down some dark alleys and into some bad associations. (I still will never forget my fury at seeing that dimwit Judy Woodruff and that asshole Bernard Shaw kiss his ass and call him a "Veteran Journalist" {which fit, but that's beside the point}, when he ripped Clinton and behaved as disgracefully as he did toward Sid Blumenthal. This all on the same network where that psychotic troll Novak had once accused him of being a KGB agent...)

His shifts remind me a bit of a guy he wrote about in his (excellent) book Prepared For The Worst: Conor Cruise O'Brien. Neo-Cons are always on the lookout for leftists with forceful prose styles, because they are stuck with the pathetic likes of Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz unless they can turn a real writer their way.

I doubt they'll really get Christopher any more than they ever really got O'Brien. Both men are too independent and iconoclastic to be kept like that.

[fujiyama]

55. If Hitchens truly despises

Bush's religiosity, then how come he has never spoken out against it?

And I find it ridiculous the way you try to paint those that disagree with Hitchens as defenders or apologists for Kissinger -- I don't recall seeing a single poster here defending Kissinger.

[Bombtrack]

12. wow, what a considerate open minded and helpful response

but what should I expect from you people.

[k in IA]

14. Define "you people" ?

[uhhuh]

17. You People??

Which "You People" are you talking about?
If you would be more clear with your broad brush, many of us here wouldn't get the impression that you are disparaging the entire DU community, which you CHOOSE to be a part of.

[Bombtrack]

23. The extreme contingent here. Sorry I don't want to piss off people who

haven't pissed me off. A very large percent of the people I consider unreasonable have had Kucinich avatars, but then again some Kucinich people are positively lovely here. I don't know, broadly I mean the hostile anti-moderates. The people who think all republicans are fascists. Who cheapen words like racist, sexist, homophobe, evil, by throwing them around at all people who aren't on the left or the hard-left even.

[thebigidea]

25. what a confusing argument... not liking Hitchens is anti-moderate?

How in the heck is Hitchens even REMOTELY moderate?

You said by his own admission he's a NeoCon. What part of NeoCon = moderate?

"Who cheapen words like racist, sexist, homophobe, evil, by throwing them around at all people"

perhaps you could point out where this was done in the direction of poor, poor Christopher Hitchens.

[Bombtrack]

28. No, why don't you read what I was responding to

they asked me what I meant by "you people" and I was talking about what I considered the irrational, hostile, incapable of intelligent debate extremists.

[thebigidea]

29. because nothing says intelligent debate quite like "you people," huh?

[k in IA]

30. I'm not part of the "extreme contingent" - probably a fiscal

conservative and social liberal but I was with Dean because I thought the Iraq war was a diversion from going after the people that attacked us and would alienate the rest of the world, especially in the middle east and create more terrorists.

I have always found Hitchens hard to figure out. Maybe he has "evolved". But he is also frequently one of the people who disparages those that disagree with him and treats them with extreme contempt. That is a trait I find very repugnant and one that I have found directed at me sometimes from people further to the left than I (which was why I commented that I thought the earlier response to you was very rude).

[Bombtrack]

34. I agree with you that he goes overboard in his critisms of war-opponents

And he does paint them with a broad brush and applies some legitimate critisms of them way to deeply.

I'll just say I'm not sure how I would react though if I believed in something not fitting with those of my former intellectual allies and left-wing voices adopted a pattern of calling me a drunken asshole.

If people here can't identify at least 1 source of journalism from "the other side" that they expose themselves to I don't think they are worthy of calling themselves open minded

[ludwigb]

36. Well said

The reason to despise Hitchens is not because of his opinions. The reason to despise him is he is a mean-spirited bully, regardless of whether he is right or wrong.

[Bombtrack]

38. But people like Scheer and Michael Moore aren't mean spirited

I haven't seen Hitchens beat up on anyone or any people more harshly than they have.

I think people here just hate Hitchens more because they view him as an apostate of what he "should" support or whatever. You people have called him a liar, and have yet to produce a lie. You've called him a drunk and have yet to come up with any evidence of that. You've called him "total scum" and that's just to idioticly narrow-minded a charge to debate.

[k in IA]

40. Please say "some people" instead of "you people" otherwise

it seems like you mean everyone here.

[Bombtrack]

44. point taken

.

[k in IA]

42. I think all people on all sides weaken their arguments and credibility

when they stoop to name calling and character assassination. (I did call him a nut case above so I am no saint)

Maybe Hitchens has an alcohol problem, so do lots of people. That isn't the issue. Attack the flaws in his arguments and/or just where you disagree.

It is not like everyone who you disagree with has to be insane.

I still think he is a mean-spirited bully and he would make his own argument more effective if he would just focus on it. I would, of course, disagree with him but at least we would be focused on the policy arguments and not the personality.

[thebigidea]

50. pardon us if we don't think Neoconservatism is fine and dandy

[dennis4868]

35. when did he lie....

i did not see the C-Span debate but I have seen Hitchens alot on TV in the past and he is full of lies regarding the reasons we went to war....he always comes on these shows and talks about these connections betwen Saddam and al Qaeda, plus before and after the war he was saying things that there was never any evidence that could back it, much Like Bush....for example, that we could be attacked in 45 minutes by Saddam and that Iraq DEFINITELY had WMD....no intelligence said this shit....

[Christ was Socialist]

18. You know like horowitz he is an ex trotskyist

And those old 60's and college radicals are always radicals just for a different team. They know a left radicalism is tame and ineffective right now, while bush wields the most powerful milltary in the world

[Paradise]

21. i second that!!! hitchens is a lying, pompous, f**king a**hole!!! n/t

[scarface2004]

57. me too....

hitchens can go fuck himself!!!

[rock]

27. True enough, but what do you think of him personally?

[Parrcrow]

39. I've said it before and I'll say it again

Christopher Hitchens leaves a grease smear on the inside of my television screen.
:puke:

[JHBowden]

41. When will this be on again?

I'm interested in seeing this debate.

[Zinfandel]

43. I think you all are missing "Bombtrack" real mission, and the predicament

he now unfortunately finds himself, defending peripherals...

He despises me simply because I do indeed generalize. About a number of things...'bout republicans, all being "fascist racist, sexist, homophobes" and because I have a "Kucinich avatar".

And being the anti- "racist, sexist, homophobe", that I am...Yes, I'm intrigued, please enlighten me with a moderates stance or position or ideology, that you are on the fence about, and what issue allows one to accept Republican ideology and agenda? And then passionately moves one to just jump right back to the middle, ready to embrace a Democrat ideology?

Too difficult? Too broad of a question for you? Feel as if your being interrogated? "Moderates" (in the middle) to me is a phenomenon. How does one become so non compassionate, non committed to ideology? Do you find it too restrictive? Do you fancy yourself, a thinker, a Renaissance man, if in fact that's true...

Your leaning is quite obvious...but for argument sake let's assume you are indeed impartial...I'm NOT!

I do believe ALL republicans are fascist...because they may or may not believe in some racist or homophobic ideology, but still vote and consider themselves republicans...fuck them, they are, by whom they associate and fundamentally agree with.

And worst of all are the ones who perpetuate the lie, that they are only republicans because they are "fiscally" conservative...Shit, does that sound like a Rove sound bite or what?

[JHBowden]

45. That's pretty extreme.

I have family members that are Republicans, but I wouldn't consider them fascists.

[Zinfandel]

46. I'm sorry, as I stated I do generalize...

What I do despise, is people who continue to vote republican and continue to support this fascist regime and horrific deeds...by rationalizing they are republicans, because they believe in republican ideology, because they are fiscally conservative, (which is a myth) or for some other reasons. No, in my my book you vote for a fascist, YOU ARE A FASCIST! No gray area here!

[Christ was Socialist]

49. why not? because they are your family, is mel gibson's dad

anti semetic? according to mel no. And they are rethugs

[Bombtrack]

47. I don't think I'm right in the middle, I think I'm in the left of center

I consider people like John Breaux, or Lincoln Chafee, or Jesse Ventura, to be real centrists. I'm just not confinded to party mindedness. I see that polarization just leads to so much PROGRESS not getting done. I can go issue by issue with you if you want. I'm solidly on the left on issues like gun control, seperation of church and state, I think that the estate tax should not only be protected at what it was at the beginning of the Clinton administration it should be increased beyond that.

I pretty consistently agree with the Sierra Club and League of conservation voters.

But alot of the anti-moderate people seem to be obsessed with a regurgition of propaganda dealing mostly with foreign policy, that would barely fit the views of even the most left of left elected democrats in this country, including being more out there than the most partisan members of the progressive caucus. I blame the counterpunches and whatreallyhappened.com's of the net and some of the more motivated Stalinist-type organizations such as internationalanswer for this radicalization/stupification of much of the left.

[k in IA]

48. That sounds like the black and white world of Shrub. Either with me

or against me - no shades of gray. I have heard Rush echoing your arguments about how elevated ideology is, on either side, and moderates are essentially crap. (only listen while in the car - opposition research)

Sounds as extreme to me on this side as I think the Conservative Rethugs are on their side.

(This administration and Congress could not with a straight face, although when has that ever stopped them, call themselves fiscal conservatives)

[Zinfandel]

51. Yes, indeed, there are no gray areas in my life...and I'm a bigot, but

for the "left, for the left" please make that distinction!

As if I give a fuck what a moderate or republican thinks...there are no gray area in my life, dude...

The lines were drawn for me many, many years ago...

I have absolutely no tolerance, for intolerant people, by definition; a conservative, republican.

And if you would like a clear definite source of my fascist ideology bigotry, here’s as good a description that I will stand behind. Also by definition; a conservative republican....

http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

[brook]

56. Ever since I've been aware of him...

it's been obvious to me that Hitchens is a whore. A little wine, a little meal, a couple of bucks - and he's yours. But he looks like hell in the cold light of day.

[demgrrrll]

59. Ask Sidney Blumenthal about ole Hitch. Remember when

he dimed on Sidney B during the Clinton fiasco? What he did says a lot about who he is and how he operates. Rogan told Sid B. Hitchens called the House Managers but Hitch told Sidney B another story, that they had found an obscure clipping. He and Sidney B had supposedly been friends. That's all I need to know about Snitchens.

[krkaufman]

61. AUDIO CLIP of a Scheer response and his closing from the debate

Here's an MP3 audio clip of one of Robert Scheer's responses from the debate, plus his emotional closing. Most excellent.

Just right-click the following URL, and "Save Target As..."

(11.5 min, 4MB)

http://home.comcast.net/~krkaufman/BookTV_LA-Scheer.mp3

Hitchens was called on his right-wing slander and left sputtering.

[LittleApple81]

64. I watched it on repeat yesterday. I am listening to it again. Thanks. n/t

[AngryAmish]

63. Hitchens will do anything to suck up to the Religious Right