that Bill clinton wasted his time since they were going to be released anyway? That' s pure conjecture on his part. It's garbage since it can't be proven.

Personally I think this particularly pushed Hitch's buttons because it was about two journalists who still engage in actual investigative journalism... a rarity these days. Plus he got to complain about the Clintons.

It's also possible that Hitch just picks either a major news story that involves the Clintons, or a story that he has a passing familiarity with that not many others know much about (and can therefore say whatever he wants bombastically and his neocon fans will nod along and say, he's sooo right!), and then follows a checklist to write the article.

1) Insult the Clintons. Even if it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, somehow it proves that the Clintons are inept/evil/power hungry/etc.

2) Insult religious people. Even if it's irrelevant to the topic, somehow it proves what's wrong with religion. While that's a goal I can generally get behind and wish more people would 'come out' of the atheist closet, he's giving atheists a bad name with his knee jerk, shallow brand of anti-religion scorn.

3) Praise the Iraq war. Once again, even if it's irrelevant, all good things that happen in the world happen because of the Iraq war.

4) What would a 'typical liberal' think about this topic? Have the opposite opinion.

5) What does logic suggest is true about this topic? Have the opposite opinion. (while I'm a liberal, 4 and 5 do occassionally conflict or there is no clear consensus liberal opinion, leading to hilarious results while he tries to do both at the same time).

6) Insult at least one other large group of people. Women, gays and lesbians, people with a sense of humor, lesbians with a sense of humor, etc.

Obviously he doesn't manage to include all six in every article, but I'm pretty sure he usually gets to check off at least four of those.