He's still one hundred eighty degrees wrong on Vietnam as two million Cambodians will attest to from the other side.
And his fondness for "Palestinians" ignores their teaching their children to "kill the Zionist wherever you find him"--not endearing to me.
Yet he's bold here and now where it's life or death, and that takes courage. David Horowitz (Radical Son) made a similar break with lemming leftists.
Fine that Hitchens opposes Islamofascists, but dangerous that he consorts with Edward Said. Daniel Pipes depicts Said:
Noted scholar and author Edward Said, whose works include "Covering Islam" and "Orientalism," wrote that Pipes is one of a group of anti-Muslim pundits who seek to "make sure that the '[Islamic] threat' is kept before our eyes, the better to excoriate Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while assuring themselves profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and book contracts." (The Nation, 8/12/1996)The same Edward Said who told a Kuwaiti newspaper some years ago that "the Israeli and U.S. Governments are our enemies" (Al-Qabas, Oct. 7, 1989); he is someone whose judgment we are to respect? And he, the guru of Middle Eastern studies, the president of the Modern Language Association, the celebrity intellectual of Columbia University, and the darling of post-modernists, accuses me of having fashionable politics?
So I don't agree with Hitchens that the U.S. was eevil in Vietnam--in my view we fought evil; nor do I agree with him that we must cater to the "Palestinians" more than to, say, the Manson family.
I do agree with him that Michael Moore and Ernst Röhm will be reunited in a bathhouse in hell.
I do agree with Hitchens' final paragraph which is full of stirring rhetoric (with which I posit Hitchens' collaborator Said will have nothing to do).
Now, on to Tehran and turn Khamenei into a Ceacescu for the New Millenium.
