Again, you failed to address any of the facts brought up by the movie.
I copied and pasted a pertinent section for you, since you had trouble
finding it.
Your worthless character attacks do nothing to counter the facts.
http://www.opednews.com/wade_062604_blocking_fahrenheit_911.htm
//SECTION
The issue then becomes, is the movie accurate? Do the Saudis own 7% of
this
country? Does the President's family have deep ties to the Bin Laden
family?
Did the President arrange for the Bin Laden family to be flown out of this
country on 09/13, while there was a ban on flights, and then lie about it
for two years? Have they made the billions of dollars from the Saudis that
Moore asserts? Did the Taliban meet with GW Bush in the late 90s to
discuss
a pipeline through Afghanistan? Did GW Bush sit in that classroom reading
My
Pet Goat while we were under attack? Did he use macho tag lines, while
soldiers were dying, such as bring em on and we're gonna smoke em out? Did
the White House really turn over the President's military records with the
name of James Bath crossed out with marker? Did the Patriot Act get passed
without being read? Did that mother lose her son in Iraq? Did those
children
die, and are they still dying in Iraq? Did Halliburton make billions upon
billions of dollars in no-bid contracts from this war? Did Dick Cheney
used
to run Halliburton? Is that profiting, from a war, which some are calling
war profiteering? Was the man GW Bush named to run Afghanistan, Hamid
Karzi,
a consultant for Unocal, the same company that wanted that infamous
pipeline? Is there more than one Senator who has a kid in Iraq right now?
Did Bush spend 42% of his first year on vacation? Did he not read the
intelligence briefings, which may have tipped him off to 9-11? Were the
soldiers lied to about how long they would be in Iraq? Is the predatory
nature of recruitment for the armed services aimed at minorities and the
poor? These are just some of the facts asserted in this movie and I
challenge anyone to actually prove any of these wrong. I understand that
the
right desperately wants to prevent the American people to connect the
dots,
but that does not take away from the credibility of the film. They can
parse
words and confuse the issues but at the end of the day, these are facts
and
they are not disputable.
//END SECTION
"John De Gennaro" <rhadts1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:mxnEc.18193$w07.12393@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Unfairenheit 9/11
> The lies of Michael Moore.
> By Christopher Hitchens
> Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the
American
> left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn,
> mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How
many
> times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and
> semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who
will
be
> our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the
> comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not
the
> second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious
that
> I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
>
> Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally
> beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air
America
> network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days.
There,
> one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and
tripped-over
> wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media
> presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's
Fahrenheit
> 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a
> possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic
> standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or
Leni
> Riefenstahl.
>
> To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to
promote
> those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a
piece
> of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again
rise
> above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile
> crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister
exercise
> in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It
is
> also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a
> demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
>
> In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American
society,
> I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film
Festival.
> In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden
> should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said,
the
> American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been
at
> least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since
we
> knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that
> Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so
guilty
> and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a
> dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I
> understand the convenience of this late conversion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about
> Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
>
> 1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if
> convoluted business relation****p with the Bush family, through the
Carlyle
> Group.
>
> 2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign
investment
in
> the United States.
>
> 3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas
pipeline
> across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
>
> 4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan
and
> thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
>
> 5) The Afghan government, in sup****ting the coalition in Iraq, was
purely
> risible in that its non-army was purely American.
>
> 6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I
divine
> from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully
to
> all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
>
> It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which
Moore's
> direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these
> discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis
run
> U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or
they
> do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed
> Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all
right:
> They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at
the
> time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to
> send any at all-the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002-or we sent
too
> few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces
survived
or
> escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr.
Moore
> is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is
"in"
> the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we
> discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now
a
> joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest
> military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is
> preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at
least
> a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I
don't
> think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't
do
> with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar-an insurance
against
> warlordism and a condition of nation-building-is nearing completion with
> infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan
> secular left-like the parties of the Iraqi secular left-are strongly in
> favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which
Moore
> chooses to deal.
>
> He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the
> distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening
of
> the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members
of
> the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on
about
> this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to
the
> groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar,
which
> Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our
Mike.
> In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the
> film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to
complain
> of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke,
Bush's
> former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and
he
> alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures.
This
> might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that-as
you
> might expect-Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical
> hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely
that,
> in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is
> taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So,
> that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all
> mythologies."
>
> A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can
only
> sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up
by
> wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush
is
> accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the
way?
> Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive
wars?)
> But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with
> Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so
> briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other
figure.
A
> meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with
this
> prime minister, is not a goof-off.
>
> The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf
> course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and
then
> asking the re****ters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if
you
> catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he
> often did, it would have been presented as calm statesman****p. If
Clinton
> had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More
> interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the
> infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole
> minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who
say
> that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe
stance,
> and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any
such
> thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks
a
> month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him
a
> man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be
> saying what they already say-that he knew the attack was coming, was
using
> it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his
coup.
> This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book
that
> also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least
> Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back
in
> their paranoid box.
>
> But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many
> other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact,
> Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions,
> however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with im****tant
U.N.
> resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's
flabbergasting
> choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are
smiling
> in the sun****ne, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed.
Then-wham!
> From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism.
Watching
> the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various
> Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment.
But
> these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al
Jazeera
> would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly
propagandistic.
> You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not
> even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking
Moore
> at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a
straight
> answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the
"insurgent"
> side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the
30-year
> record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not
mentioned
> once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but
only,
> and smarmily, because of the bad period when Wa****ngton preferred Saddam
to
> the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)
>
> That this-his pro-American moment-was the worst Moore could possibly say
of
> Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astoni****ng
falsifications.
> Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or
even
> threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is
as
> ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible.
Baghdad
> was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then
the
> most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even
by
> the PLO and had blown up air****ts in Vienna and Rome. Baghdad was the
safe
> house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam
> boasted publicly of his financial sponsor****p of suicide bombers in
Israel.
> (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of
Jerusalem.)
> In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous
Iraqi
> invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time.
After
> that same invasion was repelled-Saddam having killed quite a few
Americans
> and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having
threatened
to
> kill many more-the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder
former
> President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son
should
> take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not
> resent any foreign dictator****p that attempts to kill one of our retired
> chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He
ordered
> the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security"
headquarters.)
> Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that
patrolled
> the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south
of
> the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for
the
> bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he
remained
a
> guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's
regime
> was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New
> York and Wa****ngton and described them as just the beginning of a larger
> revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of
anti-Semitic
> incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if
one
> was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it
was
> after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved
> from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and
lethal
> design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York
Times
> re****ted-and the David Kay re****t had established-that Saddam had been
> secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of
> secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North
> Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the
shelf.
> (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the
> coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
>
> Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind,
you
> can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so
> many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can
possibly
> believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look
> again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed
to
> happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and
others
> would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having
> ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."
>
> The same "let's have it both ways" op****tunism infects his treatment of
> another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy.
From
> being accused of overlooking too many warnings-not exactly an original
> point-the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many.
> (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been
taken
> seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd
> encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who
> can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded
police
> departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any
> stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that
we
> know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous
interrogations.
> Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and
confiscation
> at air****ts and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not
> forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for
sinister
> influence of Big Tobacco.) So-he wants even more pocket-rummaging by
air****t
> officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore
is
> having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again-simply
not
> serious.
>
> Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join
"the
> Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States
to
> switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family
and
> the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a
sort
of
> vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats,
then
> how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to
> stop Bush from demoli****ng its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in
> Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's
> recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear
the
> liberation of the ****ite Muslims they so despise. To make these
elementary
> points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory."
> Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the
Middle
> East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one
dare
> not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This
would
be
> a strange position for a pur****ted radical. Then again, perhaps he does
not
> take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any
audience
> member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the
provincial
> isolationist.
>
> I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock
Bush
> for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From
> Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden
disclosures,
> such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of
> Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the
> presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to
> point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the
army,
> and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back
in
> Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits
this
> time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles
and
> march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought
for
> almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the
U.S.
> Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army
> that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In
the
> film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent
to
> garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of
those
> who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.)
Well,
> where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come
from?
> Does he favor a draft-the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he
> think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines?
Does
he
> think-as he seems to suggest-that parents can "send" their children, as
he
> stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned
> Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve
in
> their place? Would he have sup****ted the antidraft (and very antiblack)
> riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's
a
> waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much
like
> taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats
or
> flies or gets a cheer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is
one
> of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent
interview,
> he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they
would
> have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men
and
> women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were
on
> those planes-we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that
> Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll,"
rammed
> the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped
bring
> down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward
> either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real,
> impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse
than
> actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the
self-evident
> fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is
being
> brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not
> recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot
summon
> it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences,
is
> everything.
>
> Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might
> face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20
that
> he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking
> staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll
sue,
> Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack
groups,
I
> gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to
drop
> the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one
> form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see
this
> terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience
> strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in
the
> conversation.
>
> However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that
> "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers-get a
> life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his
rapid
> response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any
show.
> Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.
>
> Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's
only
a
> movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone.
It's
> kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote."
Yeah,
> well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget
> made-for-TV do***entaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and
Bill
> Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more
> polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I
know,
> thanks, before you tell me, that a do***entary must have a "POV" or
point
of
> view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out
> absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and
throw
> in any old rubbish that might sup****t it, and you don't even care that
one
> bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no
chance
> to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you
flatter
> and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing
them
> and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote
> somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (.), I swear
on
> my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full,
> would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate
this
> pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does
Michael
> Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he
pass
up
> the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera,
for
> minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved
> mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy
who
> thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling
for
> Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.
>
> Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore
> concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The
> words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a
> hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The
> clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest
that
> there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban,
and
> the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If
Moore
> had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really
saying,
> and in his own voice, the following:
>
> The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or
are
> simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow
> their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of
intellectual
> pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred
of
> western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist
propaganda
> usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but
if
> one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists,
one
> finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but
are
> directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States .
>
> And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short
word
> of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are
already
> way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also
> incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric
> celluloid rewriting of recent history.
>
> If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the
big
> man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have
been
> cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan
> would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part
of
> Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a
psychopathic
> crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea
for
> WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would
induce
> a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one
of
> the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture.
Rock
> the vote, indeed.
>
> Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist
> attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome air****ts. The 1985
> attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna air****ts.
>
> Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book,
Blood,
> Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relation****p, is out in
> paperba
> --
> Let the name calling begin!!! (its all you libs have)
>
>
|
