Strangely, it’s the small details which remain in the memory, even now, three months later. It’s the pale, sickly look that would come over people’s faces when I mentioned Saddam. It’s the fact that the Marsh Arabs – a proud, independent people who have seen their marshes drained and been “relocated” to tiny desert shacks – are forced to hang a small, menacing picture of Saddam in their new “homes”. It’s the child wearing a T-shirt saying “Yes, yes, yes to Daddy Saddam”.

If Britain were governed by such a man, I would welcome friendly bombs – a concept I once thought absurd. I might be prepared to risk my own life to bring my country’s living death to an end. Most of the Iraqi people I encountered clearly felt the same. The moment they established that I was British, people would hug me and offer coded support (they would be even more effusive towards the Americans I travelled with). They would explain how much they ‘admire Britain – British democracy, yes? You understand?'” Well, some people understand. And we’ll be coming to rescue you soon. There are some egregious bits of left-wing credentializing in this piece first published in the In dependent. But then that makes its moral clarity all the more impressive.

THE LEFT FOR WAR II: “The United States finds itself at war with the forces of reaction. Do I have to demonstrate this? The Taliban’s annihilation of music and culture? The enslavement of women? The massacre of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan? Or what about the latest boast of al Qaeda – that the bomb in Bali, massacring so many Australian holidaymakers, was a deliberate revenge for Australia’s belated help in securing independence for East Timor? (Never forget that the Muslim fundamentalists are not against “empire.” They fight proudly for the restoration of their own lost caliphate.) To these people, the concept of a civilian casualty is meaningless if the civilian is an unbeliever or a heretic.” – Hitch in fine form tackling the potluck peaceniks of Seattle.