[FoRK] At the risk of inflaming JB and others ...

[Jeff Bone]

On Mar 29, 2008, at 1:20 PM, James Tauber wrote:

> The entire section attributed to me below is a direct quote from the  
> article I referenced. You asked for support that Hitchens was a  
> neocon, I said he probably wasn't in name but that he agreed with  
> them on foreign policy. You still expressed doubt. I quoted an  
> article where he expresses his agreement both on Bosnia and  
> responses to 9/11.
>
> Are you arguing with Hitchens, the article or me?

In a sense, Hitchens, but more generally with the prevailing  
understanding of who the neo-cons actually are and what they want.   
Hitchens may agree with them in some specifics, but I would argue that  
he doesn't in fact share their ultimate goal, which is a global  
American hegemony controlled behind the scenes by a closed, secretive  
neo-con oligarchy.  To the extent that Hitchens thinks he agrees with  
the neo-cons re: Bosnia, Iraq, or anywhere else, he fails to  
understand their ultimate aim.  What he thinks of as goals and admires  
and agrees with are merely tactical moves in a much larger and less  
benign strategy that drives the neo-cons.

jb