Hitchens vs Galloway

[Proletariat]

I didn't see this being discussed elsewhere, but I think there are Organs from both sides of the pond that will enjoy it.

It sounds like it was good fun for both sides.

It had been billed as "The Grapple in the Big Apple" and the long-awaited, much-anticipated debate between George Galloway MP and Christopher Hitchens proved just as bitingly personal and entertaining as expected. No quarter had been asked and none was given. Perhaps that was why the audience had to pass through metal directors before entering the sweltering theatre.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0509160904.asp

In fact, both men tonight had waded into areas they would have better avoided. Galloway caused paroxysms saying the planes that slammed into the twin towers four years ago did not come out of "a clear blue sky". Rather it was the fault of the US and its foreign policies, especially on Israel. "I believe they emerged out of a swamp of hatred created by us", he said. "I believe that it's because of the total, complete unending and bottomless support for General Sharon's crimes against the Palestinian people."

Then there were the moments in the evening where Hurricane Katrina entered the hall. Galloway could not resist rehearsing the point, why send billions of dollars to Iraq when you can't help your own people in New Orleans? Foolishly, Hitchens then took it upon himself to defend President Bush and the Pentagon's post-Katrina clean-up. The White House, he said, had 200,000 soldiers to send to the devastated Gulf area after the hurricane, but wasn't able to until it got the say-so from state governors. That was the problem - it wasn't lack of compassion. Even more rashly, he castigated the left for making assumptions about the numbers of victims being disproportionately black "before the bodies were even identified". Sharp intake of breath from Ms King there, who briefly considers joining the Galloway camp.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312968.ece

At the following site you may listen in.

http://kpftx.org/#galloway

I plan on listening to the debate in a few moments when I get home and then I'll weigh in with my own take on the score, how much I hate Galloway, and whether Hitchens did a decent job of trying to take him down a peg.

It sounds like it was fairly even from the above NRO article.

The audience, for their part, seemed unsure of who had triumphed. Michael Purzycki, a student at George Washington University, resplendent in a "Ban Che Guevara" t-shirt, admitted that even though he was a Hitchens partisan, "I can't say either of them won."

(Isn't that what ya say when your guy loses, though?)

[Proletariat]

Okay, that link was the live feed and I didn't see an option to listen to the debate itself. I'm running out to buy dinner, so if someone else finds a transcript or media file of the event, please feel free to post it.

Edit: Okay, here's a bit of it.

[Slyspy]

Normally I would be quite interested in such a thing, but I've been on holiday so missed it. Besides which I have never heard of Mr Hitchens so that really made it a non-event. Generally the only real interest in Galloway here is that he basically stuck two fingers up at Blair, which everybody likes. Its why people still like Ken Livingston as well. Trouble is Gorgeous George is not known to have any real principles, though I and the rest of the country could be wrong. He turned up looking dapper though which alone should get him a few points above is scruffy opponent!

[Tribesman]

Isn't it funny that Hitchens opposed the UN sanctioned liberation of Kuwait from Saddams invasion , but supports the US invasion of Iraq .
Then again , it does show consistancy in his opinions , always support the invader .

[econ21]

I used to like Christopher Hitchens' commentary - witty, waspish, impassioned, informed and not predictable. Then I saw his brother, Peter, who writes old fogey right wing conservative commentary for the Daily Mail. Their manners and style are alarmingly similar, despite diammetrically opposed views. Suddenly all the qualities you appreciate for someone on your side of the political spectrum start to look like faults when marshalled for the other side. Arrogance, a rush to judgement, abrasiveness... You can't help feeling this is someone who loves the sound of his own voice and whose political migration has not yet finished.

Galloway is another interesting character. In some ways, true "old Labour", he can hit emotional chords with me by harking back to old tribal loyalties and beliefs. His combativeness can also appear rather admirable, combined with a certain raw charisma. On the other hand, like Christopher Hitchens, he also seems to lack "bottom". In Galloway's case, this manifests itself in an alarming populist tendency to pander to what his audience wants to hear - whether the audience is a gangster dictator or the Arab "street".

The brief exchanges of the debate that I've come across were not particularly enlightening and, with regards to Hitchens arguably losing the debate, it reminds me of the old adage - don't wrestle a chimney sweep.

[Proletariat]

I'm just learning about this Hitchens fellow and after watching this I can see what you previously liked about him.

(Figured you'd get a kick out of it, Tribesman.)

[Geoffrey S]

Galloway's an interesting fellow. Populist, and lacking real principles, I can't really take anything he says completely seriously; however, he's obviously an extremely clever man. Despite his barrages of words and bluster he chooses what he says carefully, often leaving little in the way of opportunities for other's to attack him.
Looks like this could be interesting to follow. Thanks.