I can think of few people more deserving of Christopher Hitchen's vitriolic wrath than Gore Vidal. Once a talented writer, the latter has clearly degenerated into a tawdry peddler of ridiculous crackpot conspiracy claims.
...in an article headlined "Vidal Loco", Hitchens launches a stinging attack on Vidal, claiming that the events of 9/11 "accentuated a crackpot strain" in the author. He claims that Vidal's work after the terrorist attacks consists of "a small anthology of half-argued and half-written shock pieces [which] either insinuated or asserted that the administration had known in advance of the attacks."
"He openly says that the Bush administration was 'probably' in on the 9/11 attacks, a criminal complicity that would 'certainly fit them to a T'; that Timothy McVeigh was 'a noble boy', no more murderous than generals Patton and Eisenhower; and that 'Roosevelt saw to it that we got that war' by inciting the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor," Hitchens writes.
Now that Hitchens has called him on his bullshit, Vidal is predictably being defended by nihilistic professors of the Edward Said school:
yesterday, a British academic, who was also criticised by Hitchens, leapt to the author's defence. Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, of Sussex University, described Hitchens' attack as "extraordinarily vitriolic". He claimed there was a "sense of jealousy he never did quite get to Gore's level of literary flair and his almost iconic status. It does seem like a kind of bizarre personal vendetta being carried out on the pages of Vanity Fair, replete with factual inaccuracies and not very much substance."
Dr Ahmed, director of the London-based think tank the Institute for Policy Research and Development, claimed Hitchens failed to contextualise Vidal's comments.
"Hitchens has taken them very literally and Gore is being much more playful and much more provocative," Dr Ahmed said.
Vidal was not trying to absolve the Oklahoma City bomber, McVeigh, he added, but to make people think critically.
As Hitchens points out here, Professor Ahmed is the author of conspiracy tracts which maintain that "the attacks on New York and Washington were part of a pre-arrangement involving the United States government." His theses were thoroughly debunked, but naturally that has not stopped his nihilistic crusade.
I admire Hitchens for having the balls, the patience, and the intellectual rigor to go after these people, because otherwise their ideas spread like unchecked viruses. Somebody has to do what Hitchens is doing, and too often those who could and should don't or won't.
No wonder he drinks to excess. Who wouldn't?
I'd say thank God for Christopher Hitchens, but I won't, because he might take it the wrong way. Perhaps I should just toast him later.
posted by Eric on 02.08.10 at 11:43 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9362
Comments
Yes, Danke Dieu for Mr. Hitchens. I don't agree with about 80% of his opinions but he deserves fierce admiration for being willing to LOOK and to debate...even when doing so causes him to have to say "goodbye to all that." In other words, I'd love to have a diet coke and bourbon with him and talk of commas and kings and many other things.
RigelDog · February 8, 2010 02:49 PM
I'm with RigelDog, I don't agree with HItchens about 80% of the time (probably a different 80% though), but I have to respect the guy.
Yes, Danke Dieu for Mr. Hitchens. I don't agree with about 80% of his opinions but he deserves fierce admiration for being willing to LOOK and to debate...even when doing so causes him to have to say "goodbye to all that." In other words, I'd love to have a diet coke and bourbon with him and talk of commas and kings and many other things.