:dubious: NOW JUST A GODDAMN FREAKIN’ MINUTE! Things in Afghanistan were not then (never are, apparently) so black-and-white as you seem to be assuming. The Soviet intervention was not, at first, an act of foreign aggression. The Soviets were invited in to defend a Communist government which was not, at first, a Soviet puppet, but the product of a home-grown revolution. IOW, it was a lot more like Soviet support for Castro than Soviet occupation of Poland. Soviet troops were preceded, long preceded, by Soviet teachers and construction workers. Eventually the Communist government was discredited and the Soviets started to act more and more like an occupying force. But there are still some Afghans (I can dig you up a cite, if you like) who remember the Soviet intervention in their country as comparing favorably with anything that has happened since, including the present situation. For all the brutality of the Communist period, it certainly was better than anything they had known before. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan#Soviet_intervention_in_Afghanistan_.281978-1992.29.) As for the Taliban, do not forget that its rise to power resulted directly from American intervention: We supported the Mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviets, and the Mujahedeen evolved into the Taliban.
IOW, Galloway’s position WRT Afghanistan is not flaty, inarguably evil.
So he did, the treacherous, dishonorable, backstabbing sonovabitch.
In Iraqi terms, Hussein’s regime was “normalcy.”
Actually, it’s more like a situation where the KKK and the Black Panthers and the Jewish Defense League and the Weather Underground and the Montana Militia are, for the moment, joining forces against a perceived common enemy.
But, as a fellow Orwell fan, I would like to point out that Orwell remained a committed socialist all his life, and that, AFAIK, no critic of the right or left ever seriously accused him of intellectual dishonesty in any form. While he lived, that is. After his death some stuff came out about him stooling for the gendarmes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell:
But that still leaves him comparing very favorably with Hitchens, as far as honor, integrity and consistency are concerned.
Some choice quotes by SDMB members in that thread:
Jane Fonda Cancels Bus Tour
(Galloway and Jane Fonda were going to do a cross-country bus tour opposing the war. Maybe Jane learned who he is and it was too much for even her to stomach)
Anyway, there are numerous threads featuring Mr. Galloway on this board, so I’m quite surprised to suddenly hear people saying, "Galloway? Never heard of him. "
That’s a pretty poor criticism. Basically, he’s been criticised for being unfaithful to the cause. Maybe he’s just changed his mind? Many people do.
There are better criticisms of Hitchens than that, and Galloway himself landed a few blows during the debate. Hitchens supported the North Vietnamese, for example, and he also opposed the 1991 gulf war, which even most people on this board supported. To Hitchens credit, he doesn’t deny this. He simply says he was wrong. After meeting the Kurds in the 1990’s Hitchens says he ‘grew up’. His trite anti-war catchphrases felt hollow to him while staring in the faces of people who’s families had been obliterated by the monster he was defending. It was his ‘road to Damascus’ moment.
Hitchens is also obviously still very internally conflicted. He still embraces the old left and identifies himself as a leftist, but he finds himself making knee-jerk defenses of George Bush on unrelated issues like New Orleans flood relief. I don’t think Hitchens has quite worked the conflict out in his own head yet.
I don’t rally around people. They, more accurately we, all have feet of clay. I rally around ideas and facts. I oppose the war as a result of my own independent analysis of the costs and benefits. I give not a single shit what the reasons for others who oppose the war are and I feel no responsibility at all to defend the character or motivation of others who oppose the war. Snipe at them if you wish, shatter their feet of clay. The ideas and facts are made of sterner stuff.
Thank you, Sarah! I’ve got the whole 4-volume collection of Orwell’s essays and letters, and I can tell you – when Lionel Trilling described Orwell (in his introduction to Homage to Catalonia) as “a virtuous man,” he was right on the money! They don’t make 'em like that anymore! And he’s a great model for writing style, too! (Of Hitchen I can say the latter, but not the former.)
People do. I know I have. (I was a Libertarian once.) But reread the above. Hitchens has been accused of much worse than “being unfaithful to the cause.”
And a very impressive collection of threads that is, as well. On a board filled with thousands of threads on thousands of topics, you manage to locate 4 – 3 of which didn’t even make it past page 1, and one of which only mentions Galloway once, in passing.
And, as always, the selective quoting. But then again, dishonest rhetorical tricks and vicious ad hominim are really all you’re good at Sam. Or would be good at, if not for the fact that your poor efforts are so pathetically transparent.
But just to provide a sense of balance, let’s look at what some other prominent opponents to the war had to say about Galloway in the threads you’ve posted:
As far as your citations go, people can actually compliment Galloway for defending himself without necessarily agreeing with the totality of his political opinions. But you knew that, didn’t you?
And what, precisely, is the relevance of your surprise for this discussion? Are you implying that those who claim not to have heard of Galloway are being less than honest?
Seriously, is that the best you can do? Obscure third-person acrimony? Don’t you know how much character assasination screeds were aimed at Orwell when he published “Homage to Catalonia”?, which broke ranks with official “progressive” version of Spanish Civil war and exposed many prominent Leftist as Stalin stooges and mouthpieces?
You’re getting hung up on the word “internationalist” and missing the point he was making; Neocons are seeking the traditionally leftist goals of social justice and minority rights in the thirld world. It’s entirely reasonable for a committed leftist to find himself in a marriage of convenience with a neocon.
Actually, I don’t know, although I gleaned hints from Trilling’s introduction to the book. Are you suggesting that contemporary criticism of Hitchens is of a similar character? Because that’s a stretch. A big stretch. :dubious:
That would be a good point if it were true. But the Iraq occupation is not doing a damned thing for social justice, and not likely to, either. Quite the reverse, in fact.
In Iraqi terms, Hussein’s regime was “normalcy.”