I think most of what Klein writes is terrific, but I think her column being criticized was flawed. What she has done by lumping the criticism of Frank Smyth in FPIF with that of the scoundrel Hitchens is slick but slippery. Check out what Smyth actually wrote at:
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0409progiraq_body.html
I still think it is a bad idea to not explicitly point out that some of the opponenets of the US are in fact theocratic fascists. That does not mean that we support US imperialism, but that we see that others who are anti-imperialist are just as bad, or worse. This is a nuanced analysis, not Klein's in her original column--as Frank Smyh point out.
Chip Berlet
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Philion [mailto:philion at hawaii.edu]
Sent: Sat 10/2/2004 1:07 PM
Cc:
Subject: [lbo-talk] Klein's response to the hitchens, coopers, etc.
This response of Klein is really powerful in its refutation of people
like Chris Hitchens and Marc Cooper's attacks on Klein as a supporter of
Al Sadr...
Steve
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041018&s=kleiin
These kinds of nuanced distinctions are commonly made in Iraq: Many
people I met in Baghdad strongly condemned the attacks on Sadr as
evidence that Washington never intended to bring democracy to their
country. They backed the cleric's calls for an end to occupation and for
immediate open elections. But when asked if they would vote for him in
those elections, most laughed at the prospect.
Yet here in North America, the idea that you can support Sadr's call for
elections without endorsing him as Iraq's next prime minister has proved
harder to grasp. For arguing this position, I have been accused of
making "excuses for the theocrats and misogynists" by Nick Cohen in the
/London Observer/, of having "naively fallen for the al-Mahdi militia"
by Frank Smyth in /Foreign Policy in Focus/ and of being a
"socialist-feminist offering swooning support to theocratic fascists" by
Christopher Hitchens in /Slate/.