I hope a simplistic comment doesn't spoil such a good post but it seems Hitchens has been the most consistent of anyone on the issue of Iraq, given the terrorists that he actually interviewed as proof of Saddam's pre-war support of terrorism, and the fascist state of affairs in that country that he has so clearly articulated. Correct me if I'm wrong and point to me where Hitchens stated that elections would bring a "secular, Western-style democracy."

I've been under the impression, from reading a review of a book by, I think, Paul Avrich (I haven't read the book, though) that at least one of Sacco and Vanzetti was certainly guilty, but that it's possible the other was either not guilty or guilty, but not to the same extent.

Hitchens may be consistent, but that doesn't seem to have made him intelligent.