> Some people agree with you Chris...
>
>
> "The Prague racket"
>
> (Subtitle: "Nato is now a device to exert control and extract cash. Those
> who resist, like Belarus, are punished")
>
> John Laughland
> Friday November 22, 2002
> The Guardian
Re: John Laughland, latest issue dated June 2nd of The American Conservative edited by Pat Buchanan and Taki, has another piece by John Laughland (Laughland and another signer of the petition by the ICDSM to Free Slobodan Milosevic, Neil Clark, are regulars in The American Conservative, and appear less frequently in The Guardian, The Observer and The New Statesman), this one on Serbia and Djindic calls Habermas, "an extreme left-wing ideologue."
Here is Laughland on Hitchens and Julie Birchell.
http://www.sandersresearch.com/html/ANIL20031002/ANIL20030210.html
> ...This perhaps explains why such committed Communists as Christopher
> Hitchens and Julie Burchill have become the New World Order’s most
> enthusiastic cheerleaders. Hitchens, who still says he is still proud to
> call himself “comrade”[10], was asked recently whether it was not rather
> odd that he should now be so friendly with the neo-conservative hawks
> whom he used so brilliantly to attack.[11] It is indeed noteworthy that
> Hitchens is a regular guest at the American Enterprise Institute in
> Washington, not least because the groups he identifies as his
> enemies–“Christian Orthodox thugs in the Balkans or Islamic fascists in
> Afghanistan or national socialists in Mesopotamia”[12] –are the same as
> those of the New World Order. Far from feeling ill at ease working with
> neo-cons, Hitchens told The New York Times, “I feel much more like I used
> to in the ‘60s, working with revolutionaries.”[13]
Julie Burchill, meanwhile, a self-confessed Stalinist who still boasts that she supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, wrote last week that it was “nationalist” to oppose attacking Iraq. For Burchill, it was “common sense” and “progressive” to oppose US intervention in Chile and Vietnam (the Americans were fighting Communism then, after all); now, by contrast, opposition to a US attack on Iraq is “babyish”: denouncing (non- existent) “nasty right-wing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq”, Burchill explains that, “Military inaction, unless in the defence of one’s own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.”[14]
[10] The Guardian, 4th September 2002
[11] Some his best essays include “Unmaking Friends”, Harper’s Magazine, June 1999; “Born Again Conformist”, New Statesman, 21st March 1980; “How Neo-Conservatives Perish”, Harper’s Magazine, July 1990.
[12] The Guardian, 4th September 2002
[13] “The Liberal Quandary over Iraq” by George Packer, New York Times,
[14] “Why we should go to war”, The Guardian, 1st February 2003