He's an awesome writer with a knack for argumentation. He's also rare in that he boasts of the merits of Western liberal democracy yet is mostly scornful of the Right. He doesn't let bastardized concepts of multiculturalism force him to tolerate flagrant intolerance.

I think content content matters to him a lot. My theory on his axis of evil theory is that it comes from the same opposition to totalitarianism and internationalism. I think he wants to believe in internationalism also. The UN (which was never intended to be a guardian of democracy, human rights or such things) was failing. It would never 'liberate' Iraqi, Afghanis, Burmese, North Koreans or anyone else. So, he turns to the US for this job with, I think, the hope that this will eventually result in a paradigm shift empowering internationalism in general. Remember that he comes from a very internationalist socialist "heritage."

Afganistan and Iraq were (and still are) oppressive totalitarian regimes where the individual's mind was being invaded. He supports liberation. Iraqis largely see the coalition as occupiers, not liberators (apart from the Kurds who never saw themselves as part of Saddam's Iraq) regardless of their views of the previous regime. Accepting that Iraq was not in fact liberated is accepting that liberation is not possible. His solidarity is delusional. That's got to be a bitter pill for someone like Hitchens.

The thought of North Koreans rejecting liberation from their regime to Hitchens is like the thought of an American slave rejecting abolition to some lingering flag bearer of the Black Panthers, like Hatians begging for the return of the French.