#rsrh Hey, want to drink Glenns Greenwalds’ pain?

The parts where they’re impotently fulminating about the way America deeply mourned Ronald Reagan’s passing is danged tasty stuff.  But not as tasty as the way that Glenns are incredibly bitter about the fact that even Christopher Hitchens’ enemies – of which the man had a plethora, across the political spectrum – are willing to admit that Hitch had his points.  Which Hitch did: the man (who I never met) could be absolutely maddening at times, but he was never, ever dull.

Unlike, say, Glenns Greenwalds.  Seriously, there’s a reason why I only ever link to them when they’re loudly screaming in petulant agony.

Moe Lane


  • lourae says:

    Bahahahahaha!!! Not sure if I’ve ever read anything so seething with adolescent jealousy/envy as this. Dismissing the brilliance of a writer because I disagree (at times vehemently) with a viewpoint? The height of arrogance. Ahhh–Greenwald tears taste like Skittles.

  • Jack Savage says:

    It must suck to have your words produce the effect of wisps of smoke when all you want is for it to be otherwise. This reminds me of Commodus trying to defeat Maximus in the arena, desperate for the love and attention of the crowd but too much of a coward to face him fairly.

    The reason no one speaks ill of the dead is because it IS cowardly, especially when there were so many opportunities to have that conversation with them during their lifetime.

  • BigGator5 says:

    Never read Christopher Hitchens.

  • jbird says:

    What a bitter man

  • Kresh says:

    “Never read Christopher Hitchens.”
    I’d say you actually missed out. He was an excellent writer yet his unreserved… distaste for the religious tended to make some of his offerings quite unpalatable. He was one for whom no amount of good deeds, committed up by those who believed in and revered a deity, could make up for the horrific crimes perpetuated by those who also claimed to believe in and revere a deity.
    Otherwise he was quite entertaining to read. So, I’d avoid his religious offerings and concentrate on anything else he’s written. If you’re even interested.

  • DaveP. says:

    He also dissected Andrew Sullivan in a televised debate.
    If you watch closely, you can see the moment when Andy actually realizes that he’s saying things he himself doesn’t- can’t- believe.
    Plowhands shouldn’t draw on top guns, Andy baby.

    Rest ye well, Hitch.

  • Chris Chittleborough says:

    Since he moved to Salon, GG has written some good essays, though always from the far left (so far left that the people on the next block wear tin-foil hats). But he has also written some awful crud, and this is as cruddy as it gets. He writes that Reagan’s was more popular after his death than during his time in office because the media were too kind to Reagan during his funeral period. He seems to expect his readers to fail to remember that Reagan’s greatest accomplishment, the defeat of Communism, occurred after Reagan left office. The tragedy is that GG may well be right: his readers may well be ignorant and/or dishonest enough to fall for GG’s mindbogglingly silly argument.

  • Rob Crawford says:

    Gleenwald’s peak came when he was writing under multiple aliases. In the same comments section.

  • Chris Chittleborough says:

    Err… for “dishonest”, read “self-deceiving”.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by