As much as all sane people despise Mugabe's acts and hope his reign comes to a sudden end, why is Hitchens more interested in what Mandela thinks rather than, you know, people who can actually do anything about it?

It isn't as if Mandela surreptitiously supports Mugabe, a quick internet search demonstrates that Mandela has criticized him in the past, although Hitchens fails to mention this and leaves hanging in the air the possibility that some corruption or moral laziness is behind it all.

Its because Hitchens thinks only in terms of ad hominem attacks and gossip. If his opinion isn't offensive or at least a form of personal attack, he can't really formulate an argument.

Take his reasoning for supporting Bush on Iraq: his argument consisted of two points - how bad Hussein was, and how the left was hypocritical, and at the end of the day he spent most of his time talking about the latter point.

In the case of Zimbabwe, Mandela's impact is not of major importance to anyone including starving children, with the exception of Hitchens himself. Yet insinuating that Mandela is morally derelict is uppermost in Hitchens mind when he hears about atrocities committed by Mugabe.