More Endorsements

The surprise is not that Christopher Hitchens is for Bush; the surprise is that he appends the prefix "slightly," and especially that he makes the argument in The Nation. (Link via Michael Totten)

Comments

[David]

His new collection, Love, Poverty and War: Essays and Journeys, is forthcoming from Nation Books.

What is this, kiss and make up?

[Ken Shultz]

I haven't read "Why Orwell Matters", but I'd like to know how Mr. Hitchens squares his passion for Orwell with his embrace of neoconservative imperialism.

[Isaac Bartram]

Gee, I wonder how many Nation readers will be swayed to Bush by that. 🙂

[hm]

ken shultz,

its like the afghan lady says:
"the battle against terrorism and against dictatorship are the same thing."

what exactly is it that orwell would disagree with?

[Jason Bourne]

hm,

Because dictatorships are supported in the war against this particular sub-set of terrorists, that's why.

[Bleepless]

Self-censorship always has been The Nation's forte. Try finding Hitchens' piece on their website.

[ed]

Well, I actually read "Why Orwell Matters" and I still don't know why he (Orwell) matters. But I do enjoy Hitch's efforts. It's like devouring a steak and baked potato dinner with sour cream and a nice Scotch...I know it will all come to nothing, but the trip is well worth it.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm thumbing this on my phone; please pardon the brevity.

Hitchens credits Orwell for denouncing Stalinism, Fascism and Imperialism. Fighting against Saddam Hussein could be said to account for two of the three, but Imperialism is another story.

It's hard to imagine the man who wrote "Shooting an Elephant" embracing Neoconservative Imperialism the way Mr. Hitchens has. Of course, just because I don't understand this apparent contradiction doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

Indeed, Mr. Hitchens and I don't seem to land on the same side of many issues. But like ed, I really enjoy reading what Mr. Hitchens writes, and I enjoy listening to him speak even more.

[hm]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the question of what Orwell would say, were he alive today.

[Brad Reed]

This might be the first of Mr. Hitchens' essays where he didn't call someone "a liar," "a fanatic" or "a fraud."