... It is particularly surprising that the claim arousing the most incredulity is the alleged sabotage of the pre-Nixon peace talks, which is almost certainly true. The far-more-moderate Larry Berman makes exactly the same claim (with a different analysis)in No Peace, No Honor a book which even conservatives (like former Reagan lackey Jack Matlock, writing recently in the New York Times Review of Books) find entirely credible.
As to Hitchens as character assassin: Certain characters, like Kissinger's, are in great need of reassessment. When one's life consists largely of extremely bad deeds done secretly in service of no good higher than one's own ambition and greed, a thorough assessment won't look very nice. Short of outright lying, there is no pretty spin one can put on secret carpet bombings, kidnapping, assassination (the murdering kind), overthrow of democratically elected leaders and a lifetime of making cozy with ruthless dicatators the world over.
The book is clearly not intended as a legal brief. As Hitchens recently stated: it is the case for the case for the prosecution, not the case itself. As such, it contains more than ample evidence to warrant further investigation. Indeed, Kissinger has already been served a summons in Paris to be a witness regarding crimes perpetrated in Chile. Summons have been issued in Argentina and Chile as well. So far Dr. K, with the assistance of the US State Dept., has assiduously resisted taking the stand, even though he is not even on trial. What is he so afraid of?
For those still making up their minds about the book, you should notice that those who dimiss Hitchens claims make no factual counter-claims, but instead offer puffy pseudo-expert dismissal. This is even true of Kissinger himself, who has yet to say publicly that anything in the book is untrue. Instead he resorted to calling Hitchens a "Holocaust denier" a claim for which Hitchens recently threatened to sue, and for which which Kissinger, by way of his lawyer, has issued a qualified retraction.
...
By their reckoning, a president is good and progressive if bad, regressive people dislike him. By extension, Hitchens is a bad writer and a bad person because he dislikes a good president who is good because, well, see above...
That the likes of Pinochet and Kissinger can no longer hide entirely from justice is perhaps the most civilizing trend in our uncivilized times. And we are indebted to anyone adding fuel to this particular fire.
Hitchens is, for all his faults, one of the all-time great living essayists (up there with Gore Vidal) and a dyed in the wool truth-teller. We should listen.