As much as all sane people despise Mugabe's acts and hope his reign comes to a sudden end, why is Hitchens more interested in what Mandela thinks rather than, you know, people who can actually do anything about it?

It isn't as if Mandela surreptitiously supports Mugabe, a quick internet search demonstrates that Mandela has criticized him in the past, although Hitchens fails to mention this and leaves hanging in the air the possibility that some corruption or moral laziness is behind it all.

Its because Hitchens thinks only in terms of ad hominem attacks and gossip. If his opinion isn't offensive or at least a form of personal attack, he can't really formulate an argument.

Take his reasoning for supporting Bush on Iraq: his argument consisted of two points - how bad Hussein was, and how the left was hypocritical, and at the end of the day he spent most of his time talking about the latter point.

In the case of Zimbabwe, Mandela's impact is not of major importance to anyone including starving children, with the exception of Hitchens himself. Yet insinuating that Mandela is morally derelict is uppermost in Hitchens mind when he hears about atrocities committed by Mugabe.

You apparently either chose not to read or grossly misunderstood Hitchens' arguments in support of the Iraqi War. There are a few more than two points (and one of them was not that the left is hypocritical, he has indeed pointed out the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to matters of human rights, but that was not a reason he gave for going to war).

Saddam Hussein being a "bad" guy was not a reason Hitchens' gave for going to war. It was a reason not to trust him on matters concerning WMDs. That you cannot tell the difference comes as no surprise considering that you also didn't understand what Hitchens' was driving at with this column.

Nowhere does he say that if only Mandela spoke up it would bring down Mugabe. He merely makes the point that two such moral entities as Mandela and the Vatican should be speaking up about the continuing madness in Zimbabwe, especially considering the headlines concerning the ongoing presidential election saga and the violence by governmental thugs directed at the opposition. That Mandela spoke out publicly against Mugabe eight years ago doesn't seem to say very much for the man. He didn't even mention Mugabe by name.

If you disagree with Hitchens then that's fine. It might be good to understand what he is saying before falling all over yourself to take issue with him and appearing a jacknape in the process.

Mandela's words could severely curtail Mugabe's support in the ANC - which is clearly a lifeline he has.

This situation is not new. Mandela has always had a blind spot for those he sees as old comrades from the days of the fight against apartheid. He was also never able to bring himself to criticise Yasser Arafat for initiating the second intifada at the height of Israeli compromise and Ehud Barak's offer of part of Jerusalem.

Remember that the IRA, PLO and ANC (and numerous other leftist, revolutionary groups) were part of the same global anti-Western block sponsored by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Mandela was himself a terrorist, a fact lost in the mists of time and the saintly image cast upon him since his release from prison.

While he has demonstrated enormous leadership and courage in enduring prison and rising to lead South Africa out of the apartheid era (along with FW de Klerk), Mandela is still just a man of his times - stuck with baggage that he either cannot, or most likely will not jetison.

What Mandela has now is moral authority and he must use it. He has been given and accepted his secular sainthood - which comes with the same requirement for miracles to be delivered or at least attempted.

No, buddy, I did understand Hitchens' arguments for the invasion of Iraq. It was your standard mantra of Hussein being a global threat (WMD's) and the divine paradise of secular democracy that occurs instantly after dropping daisy cutters on the major urban centers of a dictatorship. At the end of the day, the power of that argument is:

hussein = bad

critics of invasion = hypocrites

When it comes to Mandela, I'm fascinated by Hitchens' inability to just write a straightforward article about Mugabe's behavior in Zimbabwe. Mandela's actions or lack thereof are totally irrelevant in the big picture, yet Hitchens must make all sorts of innuendoes about Mandela.

The point is, who gives a shit what an old man like Mandela does? Leave him alone, he's not even a major player anymore. Sure he could say something, grab a headline or two, but bad press hasn't stopped Mugabe before.

I'll tell you what, when you and Hitchens get off your asses and take a few beatings for the oppressed masses, sacrifice a few years of your life in jail, maybe you'll have the right to pick on an old warrior who's earned a hell of a lot more respect than Hitchens, or you, for that matter.

Hitchens has some kind of compulsive disorder where he has to attack someone who is "left wing" (whatever the fuck that means) and has a good reputation. Go back and look at any piece written by Hitchens. Each one is focused on ad hominem attacks, with substantive issues, such as policy or research, as mere decoration.

I don't know what a jacknape is but I do know it makes you sound ridiculous going around calling people "jacknapes."

Just so you know, there is no evidence the IRA was supported by the Soviet Union, and the principle that all terrorist groups were operating with the USSR was a 70s right-wing fantasy that has been thoroughly debunked. They were spearatist terrorists, like the ETA, and you don't have to call them commies to show how bad they are. Just pointing out their actions is enough.

Also just so you know, Arafat did not initiate the second intifada. Nor did Barak offer part of Jerusalem. He offered the name Jerusalem to be applied to a few neighboring villages and made Israeli demands on the status of Jerusalem that were in fact beyond what earlier administrations had made.