September 18, 2005


I managed to catch the Christopher Hitchens-George Galloway debate last night on C-SPAN2. Despite the fact that I think Galloway is a morally corrupt blowhard, I'd certainly be willing to concede the fact if he won the debate. He did not, however. Galloway, for those who don't know, is a [far-left] member of the British House of Commons and one of the leading opponents of the war in Iraq. A few months back, he testified before our own Congress regarding the UN Oil for Food investigation. In the debate, he just didn't listen to Hitchens, instead sticking to his talking points religiously. For example, he chastised Hitchens repeatedly for his anti-war stance (against Iraq) back in 1991, and his subsequent "flip-flopping" for being pro-war now -- calling him "inconsistent." The problem is that Hitchens had addressed this fact early on, saying he "learned from his mistake" (his stance on Iraq in '91) and indeed had written extensively about it.

In addition, Galloway looked absolutely silly when denouncing the US and the UK for "creating" the suicide attackers of 9/11 (the debate was in New York!), drawing resounding boos from the crowd. But that's minor compared to his yelling and screaming about this "fact," when all the while Galloway has a record longer than John Holmes' johnson of applauding and supporting middle east dictators such as Saddam and Syria's Assad (which Hitchens dutifully pointed out each time Galloway returned to this particular rant).

I expected more from Galloway, much more. He dissected congressional interrogators when he testified before them months ago, making them look pathetic. I knew that Hitchens was a talented writer and debater, but I figured George would give him a decent scuffle. Not even close.

Ironically, another far-left conspiratorialist, Greg Palast, rips Galloway -- this time for suggesting that author Salman Rushdie should expect the Islamic death sentence that was issued against him for his book The Satanic Verses:

During his debate with Salman Rushdie at the recent Edinburgh TV Festival, someone asked George Galloway if television should broadcast an adaptation of Rushdie's novel, Satanic Verses. According to Rushdie, Galloway replied, "If you don't respect religion, you have to suffer the consequences." Holy Jesus! This was, unmistakably, an endorsement of the death-sentence fatwa issued against Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini…The Honorable Member of Britain's House of Commons has become the new love-child of American progressives for his in-your-face accusations about our own government's mendacity in sending our troops to war in Iraq. I myself quoted Galloway with admiration. But the man who saluted the "courage" of Saddam Hussein in 1994, who today can't and won't account for nearly a million dollars in income and expenditures for a charity he founded to buy medicine for Iraqi children is not, friends, the best choice as our anti-war spokesman.”

That's for sure.

Posted by Hube at September 18, 2005 10:56 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Saw the debate last night also Hube. Galloway was disgustingly ridiculous throwing out nothing that would provide debate material, only using leftist rhetoric, name calling, and, oh surprising, even eventually calling Hitchens and those of his ilk racist (the last bastion of liberal argument once thought, reason, logic, and namecalling has been used!)Disgusting to see the (I know it is stereotypical, but, if the sandal fits......!) sandal wearing, white beards, thin glasses in the audience shout down Hitchens and hoot and holler approval for every inflamming statement Galloway SHOUTED out (no wonder he supports dictators)......And the questioning was so one sided slanted left (gee go figure, it was held at Baruch College!)but Hitchens deftly made everyone aware of the slants and proceeded to provide thoughtful commentary.

Posted by: schmitt at September 18, 2005 01:11 PM

Schmitt: right on. Also, the moderator, Amy Goodman, is a far-leftie in her own right. I suspect she shares many of Galloway's views, but she is quite reserved by contrast.

Posted by: Hube at September 18, 2005 01:40 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?