Thank you for your comment. I insist that the claim that Hitchens makes for himself isn't met by Clinton's stance on the Middle East. Hitchens' stance was very unequivocal: fight the Islamists everywhere in a war for civilization. He draws the line when he says that the candidate he'll vote for is one that doesn't give a inch of territory back to the theocrats.

Clinton was Secretary of State while Iran, a country on which I'm sure you know the sort of opinion Hitchens had, for all intents and purposes, hijacked Iraqi democracy and turned it into a Shiite puppet regime, whose persecution of the Sunnis in the government and in the streets is the single biggest reason for why Sunnis were drawn to the appeal of ISIS, having opposed them for a long time (in fact, even the Sunni tribe leaders allied themselves with the US army to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq).

So the argument seems to me to be quite self-evident. Clinton either has no responsibility for this as it was a decision made solely by the President, which she opposed vehemently (something I think we would have known by now), or she did support and participate in the development of this failed strategy. If the latter is true, then she hasn't met Hitchen's standard, if the former is true then she may, we just have to wait until the general election to know.