In the context of the piece, I read someone who thought the Serbian intervention was completely justified, which I find absurd.
You are right, JG. While Hanson may not have come right out and said, "Serbia poses a threat to the U.S.," it is clear that he believed Milosevic was a threat to U.S. interests, and that our intervention was justified:
"Just as the removal of Milosevic was critical in the formation of a post-Cold War moderate Eastern Europe, so too a change in Iraq might foster a similar spread of sanity in an otherwise insane region."
--from Things Forgotten"In Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Kosovo we preemptively attacked governments that had not directly assaulted us, because they posed perceived dangers to either our own interests or their own people."
--from Iraqi Interrogatories
We're not talking about "interests." The charge was that Hanson believed Serbia "posed a threat to the United States." JohnGalt clearly wanted his readers to understand that Hanson believed Serbia posed military or security threat to the US, although now he seems to be backing off by saying things like "[Hanson believed] the Serbian intervention was completely justified." The dispute is not whether Hanson supported intervention or thought it was justified. It's whether he ever claimed that Serbia posed a military or security threat to the US.
Our "interests" are manifold, but those who can threaten us militarily constitute a very exclusive club of which Serbia is not a member. I doubt very strongly that Hanson has ever been in the least confused on that point.