Hitchens Indicts Clinton--Again

[Sefarst]

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780

I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.

It's no secret that Hitchens has a deep hatred for the Clintons and this is around the fourth or fifth Slate article I've read in which he blasts away at them. I'm not sure if he brings anything new to the story, but we can at least admire his way with rhetoric.

 

[fuelair]

Hey, if he just has to do it and it makes him happy..............

 

[kallsop]

So who hates the Clinton's more - Christopher Hitchens or Dick Morris?

 

[Sefarst]

Interestingly, this new Hitchens story is the feature today on Slate.com. Usually, when Hitchens writes his weekly article, it becomes the feature the next day or part of the feature. Hitchens' story on Obama, however, didn't. The Obama article was actually burried near the bottom of their daily stories when I found it.

 

[Cicero]

So who hates the Clinton's more - Christopher Hitchens or Dick Morris?

These guys are not even at the head of the endless line of people who loath, despise and distrust the corruptible conniving coprophagous Clinton's.

 

[fishbob]

These guys are not even at the head of the endless line of people who loath, despise and distrust the corruptible conniving coprophagous Clinton's.

Coprophagous Clinton's what?

 

[jj]

These guys are not even at the head of the endless line of people who loath, despise and distrust the corruptible conniving coprophagous Clinton's.

At this point, I'd have to say that if that line doesn't start to branch, it's going to start seeing its tail chatting with its head.

 

[ravdin]

I was a bit disappointed with the article. Not because I'm a fan of the Clintons (I'm not), or because I disagree with anything Hitchens has to say here (I don't), or because I think that HRC's outright lies are irrelevant (I don't). I just don't think Hitchens had anything substantially new to add to the discussion. There are plenty of other events happening around the world that are far more worthy of his commentary.