What's right with America ?
- What's right with America ?
Well, fortunately, one answer to that
question is "Christopher Hitchens."
Christopher Hitchens that formerly
fecklessly foolish leftist is increasingly
"right" in regard to America.
Especially regard his remarks on our
former "boy president."
From today's WASHINGTON com-POST:
In the new issue of Doublethink, a
Washington-based right-wing quarterly,
Hitchens reveals that if the election were
today he'd support President Bush -- never
mind his recent Vanity Fair puff piece about
Democratic hopeful John Edwards.
"I don't believe in [Edwards]," Hitchens tells
Doublethink interviewer Tom Ivancie.
"I mean, I told him I wouldn't vote for
him. . . . Because I'd vote for Bush.
The important thing is this: Is a candidate
completely serious about prosecuting
the war on theocratic terrorism to the
fullest extent? Only Bush is."
Hitchens also scoffs at the Everyman
pitch of the millionaire trial lawyer
turned North Carolina senator:
"Oh, that's all [bleep]. . . . Spare us
the false populism."
Meanwhile, Hitchens suggests that
old nemesis Bill Clinton was a CIA
plant at Oxford, where both were
students in the late 1960s. "I think
he was a double," Hitchens says.
"Somebody was giving information
to [the CIA] about the anti-war draft
resisters, and I think it was probably him.
We had a girlfriend in common -- I didn't
know then -- who's since become a
very famous radical lesbian."
- Hello "lightsearcher",
Does your post --"What's Right with America?"--have anything to do
with anthroposophy? If so, would you please make that clear?
- From: DRStarman2001@...
>Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: What's right with America ?to look beyond a stale paradigm for new ideas, from those who
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:44:47 EST
>are unable to amend or renounce a model of the world that has served themWhat a curious, thought provoking moment in such a common, common piece of
>a lifetime. The differentiating question asks whether or not one���s world
>is dynamic. Is each encounter with historical phenomena going to result in
>lucid, honest and vigorous deliberation? Or will an event���s ontological
>status be tampered with (even unknowingly) so that every phenomenon fits
>a pre-existing paradigm?
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*