May they be both short and difficult.
Posted on 09/18/2005 3:57:30 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
The man's search for a tyrannical Fatherland is gone, Christopher Hitchens half-chuckled to himself Wednesday evening, speaking of the anti-war British Member of Parliament George Galloway, who stood a mere few feet to his right. The Soviet Union has let him down. Albania is gone, The hunt persists! Saddam Hussein has been overthrown! Onto the next!
It was only a matter of time before these two met again.
Back in May, George Galloway was making a splash in the United States for his fierce testimony before the Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations. He was accused of taking bribes from Saddam Hussein bribes siphoned from the oil-for-food account and the Iraqi people it was supposed to support. Passing the Vanity Fair columnist and Washington man-about-town in a Senate hallway, he called his fellow Brit a ?drink-sodden, former Trotskyist popinjay.
Some of which Hitchens wrote with his self-deprecating wit, was unfair.
What was not unfair was the use of the word popinjay. One suspects that Galloway was using the term?s modern definition, meaning both talkative and ?conceited. Hitchens, on the other hand, probably took it in the old-fashioned sense, to signify someone who is targeted for archery practice. After all, such a description is quite fitting for a martyr, and that?s exactly what Hitchens has become in recent years. At nearly every twist and turn, the vocally pro-war writer has suffered intense scorn from his former comrades on the left.
He was a martyr again on Wednesday evening, when the two met at Baruch College's Mason Hall to settle their scores. It was there in New York that Hitchens had to contend with an unruly crowd unwilling to hear his words.
Fresh from a whirlwind tour of the Middle East in which he heaped praise upon Syrian dictator Basher al-Assad and bemoaned the West's rape of Jerusalem and Baghdad, George Galloway is back in the United States. He is on a continent-wide speaking tour accompanied by Jane Fonda and arranged by Eve Ensler, who apparently has yet to finish milking her decade-old Vagina Monologues for all it is worth.
As the debate was being sponsored by such periodicals as The Nation and the International Socialist Review, and moderated by Amy Goodman, host of the leftist Democracy Now! radio program, Hitchens was well aware he would not be the audience favorite. So, prior to the debate, he stood on the sidewalk outside the hall handing out leaflets to audience members that detailed some of Galloway?s more choice comments: lauding Bashar al-Assads flexible mind, condemning Iraqi Shiites as a ?fifth column? and lauding Saddam Hussein's courage, strength and indefatigability.
Lines stretched outside both sides of the building before the event, because audience members had to submit to bag checks and metal detectors. On air, a Democracy Now! commentator speculated that the security was tight out of fears that a right-winger would seek to harm Galloway. But considering his recent company in London and the Middle East, it is more likely that the authorities were worried that one of Galloways gloried ?resistance operations might be in the works.
A half hour after the planned start time, Hitchens opened the debate by asking all assembled to observe a moment of silence in respect of the 150 Iraqis sadistically murdered in terrorist attacks that morning. When he asked the largely pro-Galloway audience if they would accept this gesture, several boorish members shouted no!
And so the night began.
Hitchens laid out his case for war: that Saddam had regularly antagonized neighbors, violated the letter and spirit of the non-proliferation treaty and the genocide convention, and given refuge to international gangsters. In contrast to the carnage that morning, he listed some of the gains that had resulted because of the war, such as a free media. Under Saddam, for example, it had meant death for someone to distribute a leaflet. One wonders if that comment was lost upon the hecklers who had been distributing radical newspapers and revisionist 9/11 tracts outside the lecture hall just moments before.
In response to these substantive arguments in favor of the war, Galloway could only offer ad-hominem attacks, calling Hitchens a drunk, a miserable, malevolent mouthpiece, and a slug. But as anyone who follows Hitchens knows, these slurs were nothing new. Galloway did, however, find the creativity to accuse Hitchens of falling out of the gutter and into the sewer, and assert that Hitchens [wrote] like an angel, but you?re now working for the devil. Finally, and perhaps most fitting in its aspiring Jihadist charm, Galloway declared: ?Damn you and all your works!
Watching the debate on mute would tell you all you needed to know about the tenor of its combatants: Galloway, red in the face, veins bulging from his neck and forehead, sweated profusely. Hitchens, in contrast, responded to the outlandish challenges mostly with quizzical expressions and brief chuckles.
If one could discern an argument from Galloway's corner, the crux of it was predicated upon the absurd expectation, common among many on the left, that a perfect consistency must exist in the foreign policy wishes of those who supported this most recent Iraq war. Galloway spent an inordinate amount of time reminding the audience of Hitchens opposition to the first Gulf War and his once-prominent support of the Palestinian cause.
Granted, Hitchens was a vocal opponent of the first Gulf War. But unlike Galloway, he was at least forthcoming in admitting past error. I dare say that I would not have been invited here to this battle of the titans if it wasn't tolerably well known that I think I was well mistaken on that occasion.
Galloway, whose contradictions Wednesday night were too numerous too count, simply ignored Hitchens when he pointed out the inconsistencies. One of the more obvious instances was after Galloway condemned Hitchens for supporting anti-democratic regimes across the Middle East. Hitchens was quick to retort, pointing out the obvious absurdity and hypocrisy that someone should say, fresh from the podium with Basher al-Assad, that the United States supports all the dictators in the region.
It is from this lame method of thinking that anti-war advocates repeatedly invoke the United States? rather unenthusiastic support for Saddam Hussein two decades ago, as if that somehow justified continued support of a genocidal, expansionist fascista policy that in opposing Hitchens, Galloway and his ilk seem to endorse. The cry of pure ideological consistency is common with extremists on both sides of the spectrum, who, because of their distance from power and its practice, enjoy the luxury of ideological purity. This has always been both an immoral and idiotic argument, because it favors the continuation of bad policy merely for consistencys sake, and faults pro-war supporters for their present bellicosity while simultaneously demanding an explanation as to why they were not bellicose twenty years ago.
Nevertheless, Hitchens was ready for that charge: I suppose we have to congratulate you,? he told Galloway, on being absolutely, 100% consistent in your support for unmentionable thugs and criminals.
A turning point in the evening occurred when Galloway, mere blocks from Ground Zero, uttered, You may think that those airplanes in this city on 9/11 came out of a clear blue sky. I believe they emerged out of a swamp of hatred created by us. The few pro-Hitchens members of the audience, who up until that point had been relatively quiet in comparison to their ideological opponents in the crowd, let out a range of catcalls and boos.
Hitchens knew well his audience of cosmopolitan socialists after all, he was once one himself. By repeatedly calling for internationalism and solidarity, he understood how to appeal to their sympathies. And he also knew how to push their buttons. The highlight of the evening arrived when, fed up with the boorish crowd, he addressed them directly: There are probably some people among you here who fancy yourself as having leftist revolutionary credentials, he said, in a discussion of Kurdish and Iraqi opponents of Saddams regime. And, in fact, I can tell that you do by the zoo noises you make and the scars you can demonstrate from your long underground twilight struggle against Dick Cheney. But while you?re masturbating in that manner, the Iraqi secular left [is] fighting for [its] lives against the most vicious and indiscriminate form of fascist violence that any country in the region has seen for a very long time. Touch
Though cathartic to watch, Wednesday's event was not a debate, for that requires both sides to actually engage each other in an intellectual give and take. Hitchens v. Galloway Round II can best be summed up as two ships passing in the night. Exasperated with the course of the evening's discussion, namely, Galloway?s playing the audience as if he were an orchestra conductor, Hitchens characterized much of the anti-war movement when he sighed in frustration, Mr. Galloway appears to think that anything will do. Shout anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-American pieties, and you will always get a positive response from the hard left peanut gallery.
Despite Hitchens best effort, there was little discussion of the actual topic that made Galloway famous in the United States: his alleged taking of bribes from Saddam Hussein. Though Galloway has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, it is an issue, according to Hitchens, that is going to haunt him on every stop of this tour and all the way back to England and everywhere he goes to raise the flag of Jihad in the Middle East. From the esteemed MP for Damascus, one should expect to hear little more than zoo noises in response.
James Kirchick is a senior History and Political Science major at Yale University. He is a columnist for the Yale Daily News.
Require Realplayer
May they be both short and difficult.
I watched it last night on CNN. As these things go, Hitchens won the debate easily - more pertinent facts, more wit, more logic, fewer lies, canards and prevarications and fewer ad hominens. The only thing Hitchens failed effectively to do was to nail Galloway on receiving funds from Saddam.
The sad thing was to see the behavior of the audience. Galloway's boorishness was matched by the boorishness of the crowd. Hitchens was right in calling it to task for its zoo-like noises. He handled the interruptions with aplomb, though I would have like a few lines of humor to be added to his obvious disdain for his former fellow travellers.
His main point: the left's view of Iraq and Galloway's is intellectually dishonest and fundamentally fascist and racist.
Hitchens would be a great dinner guest so long as you have the Alka Seltzer handy for the occasional attack of indigestion.
amen
C-SPAN BookTV:
Sunday, September 18 at 12:00 pm
Monday, September 19 at 5:30 am
"But while you're masturbating in that manner, the Iraqi secular left [is] fighting for [its] lives against the most vicious and indiscriminate form of fascist violence that any country in the region has seen for a very long time. Touch"
Went right over the heads of the morons in the audience, didn't it?
I saw a good bit of it on TV - boy, howdy... Galloway is an ass.
http://timblair.net/
This is a hoot!ROVE brought him!
Sunday, September 18, 2005
ROVE-GALLOWAY CONNECTION REVEALED
Leftoid Greg Palast admits: “I was suckered by Galloway.” But who does he blame? Why, scheming Republicans, of course:
"Where did this guy come from? Who invited him here? The answer: US Senate REPUBLICANS. As Cindy Sheehan was gathering public sympathy as the Gold Star mom against the killing in Iraq, the Republican party decided to import an easier target to pummel. So they brought over the “I-salute-your-courage, Saddam” religious fundamentalist crack-pot who can’t tell us where the money went.
That’s why the Republicans chose him for us. This gross cartoon from abroad whose “charity” is stuffed with loot from an Oil-for-Food profiteer is the image they prefer on TV to Cindy Sheehan whom they dare not confront ...
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to let Karl Rove or some sick GOP Senator pick my heroes for me."
You’ll do as you’re told, Palast.
I watched a few minutes of the thing last night:crashingly,resoundingly DULL !
Hitchens appeared overmatched.
I watched the entire debate last night thinking, "Christopher Hitchens is having more fun than me!"
Watched it last night. I thought Hitchens was brilliant and passionate. My first impression of Galloway is that he truly is a sick thug; I know it's a cliche, but here's a guy I think truly would be at home in the old Soviet system. The ugly sea hag moderator probably has idiotic stickers all over her subaru. And the audience was a mix of idiots and non. God help anyone who lives in a place where Galloway's friends are in charge, and a bigtime huzzah! to Hitchens for not just making the intellectual points, but doing so with the conviction and emotion that fascist sycophants and their fellow travellers warrant.
You didn't watch enough of it, then.
Galloway sounds like Mullahs of Islamic regime of Iran! Doesn't he?
That idiot "Galloway" isn't worth of arguing with!
It's interesting reading this, after seeing an article one of the Lefties on a neutral board I frequent, posted this AM.
Their delusion knows no bounds. Here's that article, for anyone interested. Serious barf alert (Cockburn).
Pope Rat in Cologne - Papal Double Standards
http://www.counterpunch.org/itani08252005.html
This debate is worth watching twice. Hitchens lcearly came out on top. My favorite highlights:
1) Galloway - The 9/11 "swamp of hatred" remark and the audience boos
2) Hitchems mentioning "Galloway you picked the wrong place and month to refer to 9/11" and the audince cheering Hitchems
3) The last 5 minutes that Hitchems has he closes his argument and says "Now Im going to sign my book over there by that table because this is America after all.." and then he walked off the podium. You could see Galloway standing at the podium and NO ONE even shaking his hand or talking with him..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.