It really is remarkable to me that someone seemingly so intelligent and insightful, can continue to push such fallacies about the build up to the Iraq war. I myself was for the intervention, not because of any direct threat I perceived from Saddam's regime, but because I believed him a psychopathic monster, a murderer of his own people, and an affront to any standards of decency and morality. I didn't put much credence in the statements that he possessed the means to strike with WMDs on Israel, Europe etc, but as my support for his removal was based on different rationale, it really was a moot point for me. I still believe that the war was justified, albeit on humanitarian grounds, and I think the mess Iraq finds itself in now owes more to post-"victory" cock-ups, than to the initial decision to invade.

Anyhoo, the reason I'm going into detail regarding my own position on the war (and thanks for sticking with me!), is really to show that one can have a contrary or unpopular opinion on a given issue, without tying oneself up in self delusional and irrational rhetoric. I believe the war was legitimate, I have my reasons, and one can disagree with me, but at the very least, my support doesn't neccessitate the absolute comprimising of my principles, character etc.

The opposite is true of Hitchens. I viewed him initially as an iconoclast, someone who spoke his mind and what he believed to be the truth of the matter, regardless of the consequences or who he offended. At least that's how I saw it, and indeed, I still believe it to be true in his writings on topics outside of the current one. However, when it comes to Iraq, his critical faculties seem to abandon ship.

There have been countless reports of the inaccuracies, distortions and lies spoon fed to the American (and British) public to facilitate the invasion. Numerous officials on both sides of the Atlantic have since come out and denounced, not the war itself, but the shoddy case that was made for it. In both Washington and London, those who offered a different point of view were hounded, in once instance to suicide.

The evidence that the public were misled seems overwhelming to me and most others, and yet Hitchen's refuses to see. The sad part of thw whole affair, is that it damages him as a journalist and a commentator. How can anyone read "God is not Great" and his injunctions to approach everything with a critical and rational logic, and not shake their head and wish he applied this to his own opinions and beliefs.

Right. A lot of us could have at least accepted a legitimate but mistaken choice to go to war, not completely lacking in justification. That is, the public is entitled to make well-formed but mistaken decisions. We could live with that. It's the "evidence that the public were misled" that damns this administration and its private war.