RateItAll: The Opinion Network

This is an imagined 'change' by supporters and opponents of Hitch who desperately have the need to categorize him. (What is so 'liberal' about Hitch?) His belief system is based on science and evidence- and that isn't a politcal belief system, that's intelligence at work. Hitch is an academic who doesn't give a rat's ass what you think of him. I find his logic for continued support of the war to be flawed, but I don't find this a big political 'change' but an unexpected interpretation of his belief system.

I don't see a change in him, his cognitive process, his viewpoints, his articulation or his tone. I certainly don't see him looking more dour or pissed off than prior to his decision that the war in Iraq should be supported. Rather, I see him as a liberal, staunchly maintaining all his old beliefs and allegiances, enumerated by Drummond, and parting company with his liberal comrades on one point and one point only: he supports the war in Iraq. That his liberal friends are throwing him under the bus for such a singular violation of the liberal mantra should surprise nobody. I guess he's not a real liberal unless he believes EVERY ONE of their core beliefs. We're glad to accept him under the big tent. Why is it so difficult to accept a positive viewpoint to an initiative of George W. Bush's? The message is clear: if you're a liberal, you dare not speak positively about anything George Bush has done, lest you be tossed out of the party and off the reservation.

Like Dennis Miller, Hitches doesn't seem to be enjoying himself anymore. Then again, he is off the booze which was killing him. Maybe it's withdrawal. I will always respect Hitchens, but he seems obsessed with trying to justify his position on Iraq even as many conservatives themselves are jumping ship. Hitchens actually believes the war serves a progressive purpose by empowering and paving the way for liberals to enlighten the region. He still thinks Kissinger should be tried for war crimes. He still thinks Ed Meese was a "liar, a cheat, and a thief," to whom he once told to his face on Crossfire. He still believes in the use of social programs to level the playing field economically, and for some degree of comprehensive economic planning at the government level. But he is so charged up with the Iraq issue, he is alienating some of his former friends. He left The Nation because they held a symposium and he was the only Nation writer to support the war. He had been annoyed by a Marc Cooper editorial when he contradicted Clinton and Rosenthal by disclosing a confidential statement. Cooper questioned the ethics of the disclosure. Fellow Nation writer (and fellow Brit expatriot) Alex Cockburn did more than question in a column entitled "Hitch the Snitch." However, Nation editor Katherine Vandenteufel (sp?) tried to persuade him to stay on, ensuring him they would not edit any of his columns. But he felt the need to make a clean break. He has most recently been in the news debating maverick Brit parliament member George Galloway.

Christopher Hitchens is still generally quite leftist in an "outside the box" kind of way; he is highly independent minded regarding what he deems the futility of leftwing identity politics, the dangers of political correctness, the terror of Islamic fundamentalism (what he calls "Islamic fascism") and the mindless naivette of current peace activists and organizations. Still, he is a strong critic of Mother Theresa (and by extension, the Catholic Church) and Henry Kissinger, while championing the careers of intellectuals/writers such as George Orwell.