The Hunting of the Snitch
Day 2
By Atrios
Did I get my man? I will give you a hint – he told me to “Get a life.” Remember that. It is important.
But, first things first. I have a lot to write here. The MWO editors can excerpt the more interesting bits on the front page. However, I hope some of you read the whole thing because I do have a story to tell.
Besides, if I am unable to turn this into an interesting column, then I’ll give up my budding journalistic career.
To begin with, a drink. It was a tough night. I’ll make it a whiskey, in honor of the subject of this piece. Maybe a triple, in honor of the subject of this piece.
It was Sunday afternoon. I really did not want to go on this assignment. Partially, this was simply because it would mean that I would be making three trips up to Los Angeles in four days. Partially, it was because it was a Sunday night and, well, some of us have to work on Mondays. But partially it was because I knew that even if I succeeded to any degree, the evening would probably leave a very bad taste in mouth. Right I was.
But, fortunately, MWO pays very, very well indeed (being as they are, along with Bartcop the Treehouse Comic, financed to the tune of $10 million per year by Terry McAuliffe and the DNC, Barbra Streisand and a cabal of “Hollywood Jews,” Sidney Blumenthal, a man known only by the name of “Jerky”, and of course the recently outed pro-choice Democratic mole Pat Robertson). So, being the Media Whore that I am, off I went.
I climbed into the car, the gas light went on, so off to the gas station I went. Not too bad, only $1.97/gallon economy. Thanks for the energy policy, Dick! Stopped at McDonalds for a little read meat, or whatever it is, and went on my way.
While driving, I had some time to reflect. What was my personal history with Christopher Hitchens? Besides the fact that I was acting at the bequest of my Corporate Masters (pay attention, you’ll see this phrase again), I was quite concerned by Hitchens’ recent writings and activities. Hitchens was against Clinton from the beginning (pay attention, you’ll see that phrase again, too), I remember that. However, his attacks were, at least as I remember, “from the Left.” He never liked Clinton the man, either. But, hey, that’s okay.
I was a regular reader of Hitchens throughout the 90s. I was also a fan. I looked forward to reading his columns, and I liked it when I managed to catch him on TV. Pre-internet, it was usually pretty hard to catch people’s TV appearances, even when you wanted to. I didn’t always agree with him (nor is it necessary to in order to be fan). I was not a Hitchens groupie, and this is not a tale of a disillusioned disciple. But, hey, the guy is funny and refreshing and he referred to himself as a socialist. Definitely different. Great fun.
It is important to note here that this is not a well-researched journalistic piece. I have not gone back and re-read all of his work during the Clinton years, and either my interpretation then or my memory now may be incorrect. I do not have the precision of Joe Conason, nor do I have fact-checkers and a copy editor. I also do not have a recording or transcript of tonight’s talk. So, consider this a first draft, quickly written while it was fresh in memory. Forgive the mistakes and typos. All of what I write is from memory, which is faulty, and if anyone disputes my analysis or facts, let me know and I will provide a correction. Which is, as we know, more than what we can expect from the New York Times these days.
So, as I was saying – Hitchens, what was my beef? I was out of the country for the impeachment mess. And, for those of you who think the U.K. press, or even some of it, always jumped to Clinton’s defense, think again. I remember most of the major newspapers there calling for his resignation. But, during this time I missed the climax of the Clinton cockhunt. I was here for the beginning of Monica, but I was not here for the rise of 24 hours on Clinton’s cock, all the time. I missed the rise of Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity.
So, I was a bit shocked when I came back to the U.S. and found my old pal Hitchens in on the Clinton Cock roundtable. Hey, hate the guy if you want. Reasonable people can do that. I personally believe they suffer under the delusion that Clinton was a dictator and had the power to do whatever he wanted, rather than the persecuted leader of the minority party. But, fine, hate the guy. But, blow jobs and fake rape charges? What is this about?
So, I wrote the guy off for a while and stopped reading his columns. There were a million cockhunters – suddenly Hitchens was not providing a unique perspective. I could read his crap on every page of every newspaper. Not worth the effort.
Then come the charges from MWO about Hitchens connections with Richard Mellon Scaife and his comments about The Nation. As for the latter, I do not have a strong beef – he has a right to criticize his employer, and I am glad he is not fired for doing so. If only all media outlets worked that way. However, we would like to know just whom on the staff he has a problem with. Such hyperbole should be substantiated. In addition, MWO and I have given him a chance to do that. As for the former charge, it is really, really disturbing. But, I’ll discuss that more below. It is time to get back to the story before I lose you.
I drove to Santa Monica where he was going to be talking and signing copies of his book. He was also going to be joined by Naderite Mark Cooper, whom I had the misfortune of hearing on my last mission. I had left a little late, and had some problems finding parking, so I arrived just before 7:30 when it was supposed to begin. The place was full. Overfull. There was no place to sit or stand within earshot or view. I pushed my way forward through the crowd (I apologize) and found some wall space right by the podium. I was standing by where Snitch’s wife would be sitting, and 4 feet from where Snitch himself would be.
Snitch was late, so Cooper began the evening’s presentation. Since my last piece, I’ve found out more about Cooper. He’s an unrepentant Naderite who has a daily show on Los Angeles’s Pacifica Radio Network outlet. Now, there aren’t many Pacifica radio outlets in the country, so many readers may not be aware of them. Pacifica is kind of what Republicans used to accuse NPR and PBS of being – very Left. In addition, Pacifica has been embroiled in a major scandal lately, inspiring protests by its listeners and staff. I am not a good source for all of the details, but a rough version is that there was apparently a strange takeover of the network’s Board of Directors, which has since been accused of having strong influence over the editorial content of the stations. Most disturbingly, they have forbid on-air talk of Pacifica’s internal struggles, and shut down broadcasts that have violated this rule. That is my understanding of the situation, though the above disclaimer applies to this description.
People at the talk were upset about Pacifica’s situation, and had passed out fliers advertising their concerns. Cooper began by joking that “most of the Left are in this room.” And, then continued to state that “of course, half the people in the room are suspicious of the purity of the other half” and referred to the disgruntled Pacifica listeners. He then joked about bowing to his “corporate masters” who were apparently in the room. It was clear where he stood on the Pacifica issue.
Cooper spoke about the U.S. involvement in Chile and the overthrow of Allende. He had many interesting things to say, but bizarrely could not resist a few Clinton jabs. What the connection was, I could not see. It is a disturbing bit of U.S. history, and worth knowing about, but as far as I know Clinton’s cock was nowhere near Chile in 1970.
Then Hitchens showed up, seemingly drunk and reeking of fags. The former I cannot vouch for, although Cooper had said that Hitchens was “preparing”, with a nod and a wink. Good for him, though. I’m half way through my “triple” now. The latter I can vouch for because he was four feet away. He reeked.
But Alex Cockburn's observation should be noted here: "It's true, Hitchens does drink a staggering amount with, as all acquaintances will agree, a truly amazing capacity to pull himself together and declaim in a coherent manner while pint of alcohol and gallons of wine are coursing through his bloodstream. "
To his talk. Snitch is charming, eloquent, funny, and larger than life as one would expect. He looked a hell of a lot better than the last time I saw him on TV, when it looked as if the bottle might be winning. Here, he looked fine. His talk was about the subject of his book, the myriad crimes of Henry Kissinger. Though I enjoy plugging bad reviews of the book (which I admittedly have not read), he most likely has a very good point with respect to Mr. Kissinger. In addition, he made more than a few cracks about the election debacle, referring to the fact that despite our rhetoric there was not really a “peaceful democratic transition of power.” (remember this).
For the full argument, I will let the reader purchase the book. However, there were some interesting things that came up during the talk that I feel are quite relevant to the issue at hand. The first is the issue raised to MWO by James Higdon, who argued that Hitchens was always a cynic, rather than a progressive. Perhaps true, but tonight he seemed more than willing to associate himself with the Left, whatever that may mean. I do not think it is simply a label that others have given him and that he has failed to reject. It is something that he has professed, and embraced.
The second involves a story Snitch told which is directly related to the issue raised by MWO – the concern about his career connections. In discussing his lifelong quest to bring down Mr. Kissinger, Hitchens relayed a tale about a conflict with Ted Koppel of Nightline. I am unsure about the precise details of the timeline of this story, but I’ll relay it to the best of my memory. Apparently, over some period of time (still current? I do not know), Mr. Kissinger was a salaried news consultant for ABC News (I did not catch his official title). This period covered the rise of Palestinian civil unrest during the early1980s. Apparently, Kissinger served on a panel which was convened to discuss the appropriate response to such action. He recommended an immediate, strong, and unpitying military response to this, but also stated that this could only happen if there was a complete censorship of American press during such an attack. And, he supported this, according to Hitchens.
This is not information that puts Kissinger in an appealing light. Upon hearing of this (and the timing of this is what I was not completely clear about), Snitch decides to question Ted Koppel about it. As told by Snitch, he called and talked to Koppel. First question: “Do you really want to have a news consultant on the payroll who favors the complete blackout of US press during a military action?” Second question: “How much do you pay him?” Third question: “Is it true that Kissinger told you that he thinks you would make an excellent Assistant Secretary of State for Europe?”
Koppel: 1) No comment. 2) No comment. 3) Yes.
Chuckles from the audience. Proof that Koppel is soft on Kissinger so that he can achieve such a high position someday. It was unclear to me how Kissinger would be in a position to make such an appointment, but maybe I missed something. What was my response?
Get a life, Snitch.
Ha ha. Admittedly, that wasn’t really my response at the time. But that was what he was going to communicate to me in a few minutes. You see, it was okay for Snitch to question a Big Media Figure’s objectivity in the face of obvious career and financial interests. But, not for me or MWO, as we have seen and as we will see.
Soon, Q&A began. Luckily, unlike the previous event, they were picking from those with raised hands. I didn’t have to beat the screener, but I did have to get the attention of Cooper who was choosing the questioners.
One woman asked the question of “what can we do?” An important question, no doubt. Hitchens had advocated for the indictment of Henry Kissinger. If we agree with this prescription, is there anything the masses can do?
According to Snitch, this was a macroscopic problem with a microscopic solution. In the Pinochet case, a lowly Spanish judge issued an arrest warrant that the UK was, under EU law, required to comply with. Thus, pressure on a local DA could potentially result in the arrest of Kissinger. I’m not sure I buy the feasibility of such an approach – I do not know which level of government would have jurisdiction over such cases. But, one aspect of Snitch’s (and Cooper’s) message was clear: little actions by “little people” could result in big things happening. Nice idea – I hope they’re right!
At some point, perhaps in response to a different question, Naderite Cooper chimed in. Guess what he said. I bet you can. We have heard it before, and I have never even listened to his show. What he said was that he did not want all of our politics to be defined by whining -- whining that Bush was President, and that was the end of the world.
Well, he is definitely right about that. Although it might become the end of the world, the fight isn’t over yet. However, it was his next statement which inspired a bit of fear, “Take the arsenic standard. Bush is being criticized for having the same arsenic standard that Clinton had for 8 years.” He proceeded to state that the election of Bush shouldn’t promote apathy, any more than Clinton’s election should prompt us to “suck on the Clinton tit.” Ha ha, we know what he meant!
Neither should inspire apathy by the Left. However, his arsenic example is, well Naderite Shit. If you don’t know why, email me, and I’ll tell you.
This is the stage that has been set for my question and the subsequent answer. It is good to question the financial and other connections of the media, and actions by the masses count. Great! I agree 100% Snitch and Co!
Time for my question. I am right next to the podium and I raise my hand eagerly. Cooper recognizes me, and points – here is the moment!
It is a small thing, and I should not make too much of it. I ask my question. I ask it in a friendly, light-hearted way. I do not attack – my question is actually rather innocent. Hey, I’m a lover not a fighter. More importantly than that – an offensive approach simply would make me sound like a nutjob with a grudge. And, honestly, I am not that. I really would like answers to the questions I am asking. Just like Snitch wanted answers from Ted Koppel. (are you beginning to connect the dots?).
Here is what I asked – “I’d like to get back to media criticism, because that’s entertaining. Recently, you were quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, referring to The Nation magazine as “lying servants of power.” I was wondering if you stand by this quote, and, if you do, to whom specifically were you referring ?”
I was standing literally right next to Snitch, so I didn’t say it too loudly. Besides, I had been standing for 90 minutes and my voice was not going to boom. Most of the audience did not hear me.
Snitch paused for a second, and then repeated my question into the microphone, minus the last bit. The naming names bit. Then he said “is this a fair representation of your question?” Okay, here is where I screwed up. I should have repeated the second question. But, I didn’t. I left him to answer the question without the important part.
He did. He basically repeated the quote, and spoke about the other organizations that he had lumped in with The Nation. You know, NOW, NAACP, etc. He proceeded to explain himself, by running through his rather limited indictment of Clinton: “thug, rapist, I’ve spoken against him since 1992.” Sadly, he didn’t name names, though I partially blame myself for not restating the question.
At the end of the diatribe, he turned to me and said “I think I know where this is coming from.” I smiled, and nodded slightly. He said, “I see from your response that I was right. Well, congratulations, you did it… and..[pause].. Get a life!”
All heads turn towards me. What had been an interesting, if amusing question (even Cooper laughed), had now been revealed as an attack!
Snitch turned to the crowd, “Don’t worry, it’s a private feud…” End of explanation.
He answered a few more questions, but he wasn’t done with me. When he was walking out, progressing from the pro bono to the paid portion of the evening (the talk to the book-signing), he turned to me and said “now I’ve seen one of your faces, even if I don’t have your name. I’ll remember you next time!”
Oh please, Chris. First of all, I have a life, at least as much of a life as the rest of the wanna-be political activists who attended your book-signing (of whom I am no different – that’s the point). Secondly, if you had introduced yourself to me I would have reciprocated. The main reason that I use a pseudonym on MWO, Bartcop, etc… is that I don’t want to be harassed by Freepers. In addition, my job is such that I wouldn’t want my colleagues to read a letter to the editor or Op-Ed piece in my local newspaper, let alone casual rants and diatribes. But, nonetheless, I’ll be more than happy to tell the Snitch my name. Maybe there’s a certain unwarranted paranoia there, maybe not.
Third -- I hate to break it to you, but I do have a life and do not expect spend the rest of it stalking you at book-signings. You’ll probably never see me again. Not because I’ll go into hiding, but because I am not obsessed with you. You’re not that important. You are a part of a larger issue which is very important, but you’re simply a symptom.
You have a right to hate Clinton and you even have a right to believe he’s a rapist. What you do not have a right to do is to sell yourself as independent and pure while selling your services… or, hell, even associating with Larry Klayman and Richard Mellon Scaife. Receiving money from them, in any form, would be even more disgusting. But, frankly, even attending their pow-wows makes you a lying agent of power.
I retreat from that previous statement somewhat. You are important, because currently there are few Lefty voices that ever make the talk show rounds, from which most Americans get their profound political insight. This cabal, including yourself, Pat Caddell, and Robert Reich, all seem to have made a career of bashing the Democratic Party.
There is no sin in bashing the Democratic Party, but there is potentially a conflict of interest. And, there is no requirement that someone on the Left support the Dems ever. This is not a debate of ideology of practicality. However, the idea that someone like Snitch would elevate the ideal of “peaceful democratic transition of power”, while simultaneously cavorting with Richard Mellon-Scaife, in any capacity, is frightening.
The MWO editors can probably enunciate their un-resolved questions to Snitch better than I can, but I have a couple of my own. First, why is it inappropriate for me (or MWO) to question your financial and career connections? All you have to do is answer. Second, why is that MWO and myself, in the process of doing so, receive the devastatingly powerful criticism of “get a life.”?
-- Atrios