Today Christopher Hitchens debated George Galloway on the Iraq war. I’m just starting to listen to it now, but I’ll bet it will be great.
You can download the MP3’s here if you want to listen to it. Click on the seven ‘direct links’. The debate itself starts on part 2, but the first part is worth it just for the comedy value of listening to the commentators.
Did anyone listen to this? It was quite enjoyable. George Galloway is a despicable man. Hitchens mopped the floor with him. The crowd was split about 50/50 on each side, and it got quite unruly at times. Lotsa fun.
Is there a debate topic here?
Is there an online transcript somewhere? I can’t listen to this at work. Or post some of the highlights.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s interesting is thast both Galloway and Hitchens are theoretically on the same side" they’re both leftists with more or less the same ideology. War makes strange bedfellows. In peacetime, I would have no truck with Hitchens. Nevertheless, I admire his sense of honor and offer him respect that I never could Galloway.
What’s interesting is thast both Galloway and Hitchens are theoretically on the same side" they’re both leftists with more or less the same ideology. War makes strange bedfellows. In peacetime, I would have no truck with Hitchens. Nevertheless, I admire his sense of honor and offer him respect that I never could Galloway.
Hitchens hasn’t been a “leftist” for over four years. Is David Brock a conservative?
About halfway through it–Hitchens is like a cat playing with a mouse. Galloway’s cheering section is as obnoxious as a Bill Maher audience.
Oooh–G just blamed 9/11 on “a swamp of hated created by us”. Never heard so much booing.
Too bad the moderator didn’t have any balls–whoops–I mean too bad about that stretch of larynigitis she got right after the intro. Step in it sometimes, lady, you’re supposed to be in charge.
For highlights, at least, see this article from the Times: The Times & The Sunday Times
And this one from ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1461310.htm
If Hitchens and Galloway handle this right, they could spend years on a lucrative joint lecture circuit, like Timothy Leary and G. Gordon Liddy! 
Could you be more specific? Most of what I know about him comes from this board, recent news coverage, and “neutral” sources like this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway – based on which, there is very little about him that is despicable* and a great deal that is heroic. You know something we don’t?
*His quotes in praise of Hussein’s “indefatigability” stick in my craw too – but they’re hard to contradict.
Nitpick: He’s no longer a socialist. I think he would still self-identify as a “leftist” in most respects, based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
In American terms, Hitchens’ nearest equivalent probably would be the Social Democrats, U.S.A. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats%2C_USA, http://www.socialdemocrats.org/ – who emerged out of the Socialist Party split (mainly over Vietnam) in 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America#Split). The “right-Schachtmanite” pro-war faction eventually became the SDUSA. They’re like neocons in their foreign policy but they still believe in labor unions.
CH is against any religion and in protection of all poor and oppressed, everywhere in the world. Simply put, an honest man.
I’ve never been aware of a correlation between being an atheist (or anti-theist) and a “leftist”, to be quite honest. Also, he certainly doesn’t seem to still consider himself a leftist. In any case, the statement that was made that both he and Galloway have more or less the same ideology is so far from reality that it needed to be challenged.
What does that have to do with him being a “leftist”, unless you are saying that all honest men can be found on the left.
Is that what you’re saying?
I know nothing of this Galloway, but I do know that Hitchens is a polemic drunk, a warmonger and an abject ball washer for Bush. From the linked articles, it sounds like this debate was an exchange of ad hominems more than anything else. Even if Galloway is “despicible” (and I don’t see how he could possibly be any more unsavory than Hitchens), that doesn’t make Hitchens right about the war. My impression from the articles (without having heard the whole debate) was that CH was debating a straw man “socialist” in order to score cheap points.
Did Hitchens tell his story about the Kurdish taxi driver again? What a souse.
Thanks for the links, BG.
Hitchens seems to be accusing Galloway of profiting from the oil-for-food thefts. Has this definitely been established?
Regards,
Shodan
No, and in fact Galloway won a libel suit against the Daily Telegraph based on a story to that effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Corruption_allegations Which doesn’t mean that the meme can’t be kept alive.
Of course not. But most persons who are primarily concerned with “protection of all poor and oppressed, everywhere in the world,” would be classed as leftists by definition.
Controlling for vocabulary and erudition, I’ve seen more sophisticated debates between 8 year olds on whether Superman could outrun the Flash.
The Iraq war is a serious issue. It deserves serious debate, not mud-slinging between two people who’s only objective seems to be to make the other look foolish.
DtC: Well, there’s nothing wrong with being a “drunk”, per se. I could easily be called “a drunk”. Hiitchens does always look like he’s got a raging hangover, I have to admit, but so what? You would probably enjoy talking to him given his classical education. He can’t in any way be called a “ball washer” for Bush, as he has slammed Bush on a number of occasions. Aside than his stance on the Iraq war (which is no small issue, of course) I suspect you’d agree with him on almost every other political issue.