i have to continually state that hitchens was wrong about iraq. now, maybe you have some secret information about hitch taking checks from lockheed martin, but i strongly doubt that such a suspicion is rooted in any fact. rather, all evidence is that he was just legitimately wrong. and, we can be frustrated by how such an intelligent person can be so easily misled, but it ultimately doesn't add much to the analysis of whether he was right or wrong.

i blame it on his americanization, in a process i refer bleakly to as the americanization of christopher hitchens. this text is a tragedy.

and, i've stated previously that he might not have been wrong, if the empire had acted slightly differently, or the facts on the ground had been somewhat altered. further, events in iraq may still transpire in such a way that makes him seem less wrong - although we should not be tricked or confused by that. there may still be a twist of irony, yet to come - but he was wrong, and it can't be undone.

so, the next time that you foolishly attack mr. hitchens for parroting "neo-liberal talking points" (and, you mean neo-con, not neo-lib), it may do you some good to remind yourself that mr. hitchens was a self-identified trostkyist, and he was consequently approaching many of these arguments from many of the same places, except honestly rather than disingenuously.

unlike the neo-con cabal, i have every reason to think he believed what he said.

he was just wrong - because he was naive.

it happens to all of us, sometimes.