Let's play a game. Let's call it....oh....I don't know. How about: "I may have a lot of problems, personal and (to the extent that I am able to transcend the personal) political, and I may be mad as hell, and I may wish I could do this or be that, and I"...OK, enough of the main clause of the sentence, `cause here comes the rest of it, and you know - you just know - the dependent clause begins with..."but." So let's back up and hit it from a running start below the fold:
"I may have a lot of problems BUT AT LEAST I'm not....' fill in the blank. From the most obvious to the most obscure choice, with a brief (or, if it floats your boat, lengthy) explanation. And what kind of hostess of this Diary would I be without leading the way?
So here's mine. "I may have problems (a lot of problems, believe me you don't want to know my problems) BUT AT LEAST I'm not Christopher Hitchens." Yeah. Mr. Not Featured on Kos Very Often But When He is It's Because He Wrote Something That Would Humiliate Any Person of Even Moderate Sensibilities. Whose contribution yesterday to the Slate website - you guessed it - why the Wilsons are making fools of themselves (oh, the delicious irony AND projection) by suing Cheney et. al. culminated not only in my naming him but the reason for this Diary.
For those with the proverbial or literal strong stomach, here's the link.
http://www.slate.com/...
For those without or who, like me, would prefer not to waste their time (I skimmed the article as a sort of compromise) here's the essence of Hitchens' case (that the Wilsons are wrong, if not publicity-seeking idiots, for suing the Administration): a) Novak didn't really "out" Valerie since her name is listed in Who's Who for all the world to behold (yes, yes! an argument the DKos community has shredded many times over, seems Mr. I Invented Arrogant with a side of Duplicitous must not be lurking around these parts), b) she virtually single-handedly appointed her unqualified husband for the Niger trip (how's that for a double fallacy?), c) Joe Wilson must not have looked very hard, since it turns out Saddam was trying (if not did buy) to buy yellow cake there (an oldie but goodie for Hitchens), d) Armitage, whom Hitchens is convinced was Novak's primary source, was biased in favor of the Wilsons, thus destroying the "gotcha" theory of the lawsuit, and e) if I've forgotten anything, forgive me, I refuse to read his article again.
Now, of all these points, I admit I'm not educated on the biography nor political leanings of Mr. Armitage, so if there is anything convincing about that argument, let me say a) his role in this drama is not in evidence, b) if he was the leaker he had reasons which elude Hitchens, and c) drop it from the equation and the considering the bogusness of points a through c the Wilsons are left with a pretty strong case.
And Hitchens (this is about Hitchens, not the Wilsons, though it's hard to tell from my rather long tangent) is left humiliating himself, as he has since first he chose the neo-liberal path to self-discreditation and self-destruction. Thus, my Diary AND my choice. So let's back up and start again:
"I may have a lot (a whole lot) of problems, but at least I'm not Christopher Hitchens." Now it's your turn.