(NPR natch) - recorded 12/17 - rebroadcast in SF area today.

Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..

[for his snide remarks to follow + your inventive complement above]

Hitchens described self as not agnostic or atheistic, but antitheistic.. Said ~ (scribbled a couple quotes down) on two grounds:

All religions peddle the same untruths. And the effect is positively harmful. Deems it a contemptible practice. Then went into some detail -equal obloquy- re the Zionists and their shtik, the Xians, conditions in Middle East and how these follow from the fantasies as cannot be reconciled among opposing flights (thereof)... (Man after my own heart) He suitably dispensed with theology's idea of 'the humble believer' in full erudition and fine vocabulary. (Referred to a Celestial North Korea.. and other delicacies; Pascal AND B. Russell!) {snort}

(No I don't mean to suggest you'd entirely agree with H., merely: you would understand where he is coming from ?!)
[/cackle]

Since this Is the politics forum (too):
Among other topics, he covered one Big Question among several: does anyone know who authorized the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandau (whom he lives almost next door-to) - to fly out of the US: 12 members of the bin-Laden family on 9/12? (when no US citizen could then fly anywhere etc.) In 20/20 - large Hmmmm anywhere? Bin Laden: Twelve of His Family Members -- in One Large Hurry ??? H. hasn't found out yet who actually OK'd this.

Then on to the Sr. Bush's response to the Salman Rusdie affair (from which point, '89 - Hitchins starts the "time of terrorism"). Bushie's response to the fatwa was, "As far as I can see, this involves no American interest". Ummm Bushie: Rushdie's *wife* is an American citizen! And.. H. went on about a number of other writers cavilling about the outrage, weasling - and what his (H's) reponse was to them, as well as to Bushie Sr's comment.

Some choice remarks re Enron, Bushie Jr. and the long record of Enron contributions to him and his. Rasco lobbied for Enron yada yada. Hitchens deemed it entirely intermingled bizness + politics via a scurrilous BOD - about which we are likely to hear a lot more. In due time.

Then a retrospective of Henry the Kissinger's role with Suharto - in arming him, abetting in invasion of E. Timor, telling him it was OK..[with US!!] ... if Suharto was discreet. Another little story not apt to appear in the NY Times. Snide remarks about Kissinger's buddies Charlie Rose, Ted Koppel, Lehrer et al - as interview him for a filler often enough - YAN reason the E. Timor story not covered. He despises K. and went so far as to publish his charges against many of K's actions: in England and intentionally there - daring him to sue! (UK laws are much more favorable to the plaintiff, in libel)

Then.. (after Not suing Hitchens) When a reporter pressed K. re H's assertions about him: K. called Hitchens "an anti-Semite and denier of the holocaust". >> So Hitchens sued him! << K's atty 'immediately' replied (! - was H's feeling too) "Ok he won't say that again". Hitchens was so hoping he would sue.. and demanded an apology (which he got, but did not elaborate about).

How is this all related to your quip? Orthogonally and if I have to explain it won't work so don't ask.


Ashton

BTW - of course you're 'wrong' in the specifics -that's why we invented the word myth ! but I think ya got the Cosmic Humor close enough.. for theological discombobulation; always a Good Thing.. (in my Universe)

(Thing is.. I knew a 'Hitchin' once)

As he's a now long-running muckraker, I'd expect him to have savaged Bill as nicely as he does here. Only trouble with that logic chain (and many others since) is that there are many nits to pick re motivation.. as opposed to 2020 hindsight. Take the bin-L camp affair. I've heard now variations which include "he Was there and had just left" / or hid in one of the omnipresent tunnels / or.. So in the end (oh the irony) - the cost of Bill's having defunded human intelligence (I hate the sound of humint and all who make up such stuff) = was his source right? almost right?

Now if... all had gone well and - he'd nailed bin-L just then..
(I just don't buy that that action was as utterly stupid as the Wag-Ed or Wag-Dog folks love to assert. I also realize: I will never know. S'OK. Don't need to know everything)

Well? And if Lincoln had sneezed, doubled-up just as Boothe fired. Or Joe McCarthy's tail-gun exploded from a dud round stuck in the barrel. Or.. the Romans had gotten All of that disruptive cult they were wisely feeding to the lions?

Maybe we'd have minarets instead of office towers. Abacii instead of Microsloth. But ya gotta love those folk who believe in causality, dontcha?

I suppose that the books hawked in the margin are not of Hitchen's choosing (?) Coulter? and the Strange Death of Vincent Foster; more or less a melange of the "really balanced" takes..

I've no idea what Hitchen's accuracy score is (we still can't reach a fairwitness on the cel fone) but fershur, especially as speaker - apparently reading from notes, however - he may be our 2nd-rate Mencken du jour. Like to have seen him, Bill Buckley & Gore Vidal! debating [anything at all] in the old days - keeps the language alive.

Today ya takes what ya can get, as expectations decline with the territory.



Ashton
'plenty left to lie to!' - shopping, anyone?