People are all too ready to overlook the disturbing flaws in Christopher Hitchens' personality.
He was the one who coined the term "fascism with an Islamic face", giving birth and significant impetus to the modern far-right islamophobe movement, although probably not willingly so. He was very sympathetic of Paul Wolfowitz's version of foreign policy, which I regard as criminal.
He supported the war on terror, stooping very low in being frankly verbally abusive towards Noam Chomsky when they debated the subject in print, and accusing those who did not support the war on terror of being in league with Islamist terrorists.
He was an avid and vocal supporter of the Iraq war, calling it "justified" and "legal".
He supported George W. Bush in the 2004 elections, which is unforgivable.
He was equally intolerant as religious fanatics are, because he viewed any sort of religious belief as a totalitarian structure. He did not recognize the freedom of conscience, which is what bothers me in many so-called atheists: they are missionary. I detest missionaries.
That is not to say that Hitchens wasn't right on many subjects - Ronald Reagan, for instance, or his very vocal attacks on the use of torture. However, I'm not willing to eulogize this man. I see two completely different Christopher Htichens - a very intelligent and sympathetic thinker before the 1989 fatwa on Salman Rushdie (no saint himself), and an increasingly belligerent and paranoid conservative after.
Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus