Wasn’t it Hitchens who called his former friend, Sid Blumenthal, a liar about ten years ago, during the impeachment fiasco?

He’s become a caricature of his former self, which itself was a caricature.

Who was it who pointed out that if the voters wanted honest politicians, how come they elect so many who aren’t?

#17 was a joke I couldn’t resist.

But the single anecdote that seemingly crystallizes, and in fact substitutes for, a substantive eargument, has been Hitchens’ metier since long before he changed ideological clothing.

Surely this incident demonstrates that Clinton is in fact less than stellar at successfully lying?

I am not sure ‘telling a pointless lie and getting caught out’ is much of a CV-booster.

An hoest human being? Would that be a cross between Homo sapiens and Cercopithecus l’hoesti? Is this the new wingnut line about Obama?

Best elect McCain – definitely neither hoest nor honest nor a pacifist. Vote McCain and give Europe a chance!

People are talking as though we’re choosing a Sunday School teacher here. Electing an hoest human being would be as fatal as electing a pacifist.

He basically has three and a half points. The first is that Hillary Clinton lied about the Tuzla airport, which, even if true, is a stupid and trivial gotcha that distracts us from actual policy. The second is criticism of Bill Clinton’s Bosnia policy was very bad, which, even if accurate (and I think it probably is), can’t obviously be laid at Hillary Clinton’s doorstep. They’re different people. The second-and-a-half point is that the Bosnia policy arose from a desire not to distract from Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, which again doesn’t seem like Bill’s fault (I don’t place a scintilla of credence in Hitchens’s attribution of this to “the happy couple,” given how remote the anecdote is from the source). You might have some doubts about whether Hillary Clinton is the best possible candidate here (I support Obama myself) but even if Bill’s policies do her some discredit they hardly seem disqualifying.

The third point is that “Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself” to which, fuck you, Madame Cleo. Fuck ten times a day and twenty on Sundays. Never mind your pathetic attempt to read Hillary Clinton’s mind—you’ve never shown the slightest lost sleep over your role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In fact, you’re quite proud of it. Of course there’s no shame and decency left in the world—Christopher Hitchens is living proof.

So as a liar, propagandizing for a liar (Bush), and doing his best to muddy the issues related to the Middle East in order to deny clarity to the citizens who are supposed to pay for and provide the personnel for his favorite wars – I’d say Hitchens has no moral standing. I mean, this is the kind of guy you wouldn’t even trust with jury duty. To put it briefly: he’s an odious pig. Except that that is an insult to the innocent porcine critters out there. No Charlotte will ever write on her web, above the recumbent form of a Hitchens, the phrase: some pig! More likely she’d write: fat enough to eat!

I don’t care much for Hitchens and think he was (and still is) an idiot when it comes to Iraq, but when it comes to the Clintons he’s got their number.