The brothers have both a different style and political outlook.
Peter was wrong about going to war in(not with) Iraq. Although Peter holds eccentric right-wing views the Neo-Cons and the Old Cons in the UK believed they would never have a better opportunity to pacify the Mid-East; making the new political geography in their own image.
Anyone holding Peter's brand of ideology would definitely agree with this strategy.
Peter could see problems and funked joining in the charge for Western democracy. Oh, he'd like the desired outcome but shied away from the risk.
Christopher probably took the view that if Mid-East states ruled by dictators and feudal oligarchies could be overthrown - even by right-wing gung-ho governments - than so much the better.
Blair no doubt took much the same view.
Any passenger using the railways who does not have a financial or political investment in the private transport domain would come to the same opinion as Peter.
Greed is a powerful ideology.
Both journalists are worth a read. Our preference is for Christopher's work

In public debate Hitchens thoroughly bested Tony(Tory)Blair, Britain's greatest parliamentarian for many a decade.
Yet these debating titans still agreed on the Neo-Con Middle-East view that obstreperous nations such as Iraq, Iran and Syria should be pacified and besides allowing Israel to exist in a trouble-free zone, could then live under a PAX Nato arrangement. Oh, forgot - under democratic government with pro-Western attitude. Bank details: Zurich/City of London/Wall St
No doubting the beautiful flowing prose or the incisive Hitchen's mind. And the US military promised it would be a cake-walk with little or no blood being spilt.
For those people of a serious religious persuasion - remember we all have to die.
Try and do so with the same grace and acceptance as Hitchens is doing.
Come on - pray for a miracle! Remember God can see into your soul. Don't pull that Doubting Thomas stunt at this late stage.
Listened to BBC Radio 4's programme with Christopher Hitchens contesting the use of 'water-boarding'.
Extremely courageous investigative journalism.

Dedicated and Hopeful Readers

Hugh Markey, "the Old Cons" on both sides of the Atlantic, and everywhere else for that matter, were dead against that disastrous war, with its consequent significant worsening of the condition of women (at least we have merely failed to improve their lot in Afghanistan), ongoing genocide of Christians, massively increased threat of Islamist terrorism, colossal global loss of post-9/11 good will towards America, and so on, and on, and on.

Anyone who supported that war was by definition a neocon, since it could be, and is, defensible only by reference to that ideology, of which Christopher Hitchens is a textbook example: still as sectarian Leftist as ever, but with America now seen as the superpower to impose that vision on the world by force of arms.

But neither the US Constitution nor the other words of the Founding Fathers admit of that role for that Republic. As "the Old Cons" there would be the first to tell you. And are, in fact.

Mr. Hitchens, I wish I could shake your hand and thank you for enriching my life and many others with your experience, bravery, wit, and prose.

For all those who say that intervening in Iraq was wrong can I ask firstly what you thought life was actually like living under Saddam and secondly if you agree that it was horrendous then how do you propose to fix it. I've actually never heard that point of view.

"There is no absolute truth, there is no supreme leader, there is no totalitarian solution that says if you will just give up your freedom of inquiry, if you will simply abandon your critical faculties, a world of idiotic bliss will be yours".

All fine and good. But Christopher misses the crucial point that his unyielding support for the invasion of Iraq" was the act of absolute truth, totalitarian solutions and absence of free thinking.

Its reasonable to accept the position of someone who lives by absolute truths to embark and also support a military venture that unleashed death and destruction upon millions.But I fail to see, I will even argue that its rationally inconsistent, how one could support such a venture without absolute certainties.

Hitchin and the so called four horseman also support jihad in the name of by abstract ideological constructs - freedom, human rights, democracy- and abide with power systems in pursuing their vision of life.

Yes he is an unparalleled intellectual, but the ability to frame a good argument isn't the same as the ability to grasp truth.

I respect the men for his qualities and just on a human level you cant help but feel sympathy for a great mind that's in his last round, but I do feel that on the big questions, truth alluded him.

@David Lindsay - Peter is so far Christopher's cerebral inferior that were it not for their similar looks and public school accent, you'd never believe they were related.

@Agorwood
I don't agree with Hitchens' support for the Iraq war either, however haven read in his own words his reasoning, I can't concurr with your assertion regarding his rationale for supporting the war either. He puts forth a compelling argument for his change of heart.

I'm Hitch's age and to me he has singlehandedly rid me of the fear and guilt of caused by a celestial dictator. Such an eloquent, brave, enlightened man makes me proud to be a primate. It's a pity that Hitch is leaving us as he would say before he's even got his trousers down.

Agoodword: And the truth would be?

cant really vouch for a bigot and islamophobe .. no matter the manner it is stated .

@Jack. If you're asking me about the matter of Iraq, I think its pretty obvious what is true and what't not.

If you're asking me a more philosophical question about the nature of truth itself then this really isn't the forum where we have the time and space to engage in it.

My observation was simply a response to hitchins, who said there is no absolute truth, and yet he was eagerly stoking the invasion of Iraq through his unparalleled skills in argumentation. He provided a brilliant intellectual justification for the barbarism that followed. In my mind he was absolutely motivated by a sense of absolute truth, the truth of his belief and his unfaltering commitment to them.

I just despise the notion that just because he is a crusader against organised religion, his view was or is somehow divorced from any superstition or bigotry.

The problem is in my humble opinion his greatness which provides a perfect intellectual veneer for his hate.

I wrote this open letter to Christopher Hitchens. I disagree with him about God, but admire certain qualities of his.
(see: http://wp.me/p1eZz8-N)

oooops wrong coloumn. I thought it was about Liam Fox.

Peter Hitchens was right about Iraq. His brother was wrong. Peter also wants to renationalise the railways, among his many other Old Labour views.

Oh, and since they are journalists rather than, say, Solzhenitsyn figures, it really does matter which of them can, and which cannot, secure a mass audience in his home country.

really? video removed by user?? yes, a dying man's last generous words remove because of some trite squabble about money....

I found myself disagreeing with Hitchens more and more over the years, and also respecting him more and more.