I have to reluctantly confess that I can be naive on occasion. My facade of cynicism is not nearly as genuine as I would like to think.
In this vein, I had thought that Christopher Hitchens conversion to “neoconservative” thought was an honest matter of conviction. A world view that I believe to be wrong and corrupt, but that I thought was an honestly held world view. So I am undecided about whether Hitchens started socializing with the Cheney clan for conviction or profit.
We have a hard enough time understanding our own motives sometimes. Deciding motive in someone else can be close to impossible. I’m not sure in the end Hitchens’ motives matter. We can judge him on what he wrote and his justification for supporting Iraq War II (freedom for the Kurds) was dramatically weak. In both health and strength of argument, it was down hill for Hitchens.