Thank you, efraker: You make one (only one) fair point – that my use of the word ‘intellectual’ was loose, perhaps inappropriate.

The word is normally applied, and understood to apply, to the type of people you cite (Locke, Russell, etc), and Chomsky is the only one on my list who can un-controversially be labelled ‘intellectual’ (in the usual refined sense of the word).

(Of course, if the likes of Cockburn et al don’t merit the label ‘intellectual’, then that certainly applies even more so to Hitchens.)

Two out of five of my casual list (I concede that I gave little thought to compiling a list worthy of the label ‘intellectual’) are Americans, Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson, so the list is not particularly UK-biased, like you suggest; moreover, I live in the UK myself, so it’s only natural that I would be more aware of the output of UK commentators.

You ask whether I consider myself to be “Chomsky’s bulldog”. My answer is, No, but clearly you do!

Here is the most revealing part of your post:

“Let's assume that everything you said about Christopher Hitchens is perfectly accurate. In what sense do you retain any moral or intellectual superiority after that screed?”

The first sentence makes a mockery of the second. If ‘everything I said about Hitchens is perfectly accurate’, then: Hitchens is indeed a supporter of unprovoked aggression (the supreme war-crime according to international law); he is a coward who offers his fatuous perspective from the comfort of home, unlike Fisk and others; he is intellectually dishonest for not addressing the question of the way forward in Iraq now, and who is culpable (perhaps because he’s one of them) for the mass- pain, death, chaos – he prefers instead his masturbatory fixation on Galloway; intellectually dishonest for focusing on Galloway’s alleged ‘support’ for Saddam while not condemning Rumsfeld’s (and the Reagan administration’s) actual, and documented, support for Saddam (all Galloway could kindly offer Saddam was friendly words; whereas Rumsfeld kindly sold Saddam weapons which, Rumsfeld well knew, Saddam was going to use to commit more mass-murder).

So the answer to your ridiculous question is: The ‘sense in which I retain moral & intellectual superiority over Hitchens’ is that you cannot say any of those things about me. Your most ‘damning’ criticism of me is that I indulged in a ‘screed’. On the other hand, if you efraker support Hitchens’ position on Iraq and if you were to rail against lefties like me with the kind of vitriol I have used, the least of my concerns would be your rudeness; I would only be concerned that you support bombing campaigns on civilian populations in defence of a pack of lies. Calling someone (eg Hitchens) a disgusting sack of shit for that – such rudeness – hardly equates morally to that person giving his support to war-crimes (the attack itself, the outlawed weapons used – cluster bombs, white phosphorous, ... ), however politely they might do it.

I say (above) that that was the most revealing part of your post because it reveals your priorities in this discussion – your indignation at my use of unpleasant words. Incidentally, Hitchens would probably concur with me, not you, on this – that there is no alternative but to use such language when you wish to convey how disgusting something is – because Hitchens too feels compelled to do just that (eg “prostitute”, “thug”, “charlatan”, “crook” - when describing, say, Galloway, Mr Theresa, Kissinger). I merely differ from Hitchens in that I know that he is disgusting, but he does not (probably due to his daily frequent sense-dulling habits).

Moreover, your focus on the academic question of who can/cannot rightly be labelled ‘intellectual’, rather than the moral questions – regarding Iraq – of who is guilty and what should now be done, also reveals a difference in priorities between us. Indeed, this is one of my criticisms of Hitchens (“fancy words” etc) – that Iraq is simply another point-scoring (school-boy) debating competition to him. He does not treat it as a question of morality, perhaps because he knows, in his sober moments, that he very publicly sided with a bunch of gangsters; but his juvenile ego would not allow him to admit being wrong, and his narcissistic personality precludes him from the honourable course of humility and silence (someone who has got it so wrong ought simply to shut the f** up).