The Hitchens - Galloway Debate

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

Ah. So if it’s just anti-Blair positioning, perhaps you can explain his support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? And his opposition to the U.S. invasion of the same country? Or his toadying for Saddam all through the 90’s?

Enemy-of-my-enemy principles. From the Wikipedia article on Galloway – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Political_views:

In an interview with the Guardian [7], Galloway outlined his political views in relation to the Soviet Union:

“I am on the anti-imperialist left.” The Stalinist left? “I wouldn’t define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe.” [6]

And you know what? He’s probably right about that.

[New_Iskander]

@BrainGlutton

If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

We’d still be talking about mutual assured extermination as the only alternative to tolerating communist enslavement of Russia and Eastern Europe.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

Enemy-of-my-enemy principles. From the Wikipedia article on Galloway – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Political_views:

And you know what? He’s probably right about that.

So it was okay for the Soviet Union to rampage around the globe, because it kept the Americans from doing it? And you really think that’s a reasonable position?

Do you have any idea what the Soviets did in Afghanistan? Anyone who supported that, or who would try to draw even the faintest of moral equivalence between that action and what the U.S. did in Afghanistan or Iraq has moral blinders you could fit on a horse.

Face it - Galloway didn’t just support the Soviets because he is anti-imperialist. He supported the Soviets because he would rather have had them ‘win’ than the U.S., because they fit more closely with his socialistic beliefs. He’s also a supporter of Castro and of Chavez in Venezuela.

Galloway also supported Milosovic against Clinton. He supports Syria today. He opposed the overthrow of the Taliban.

And Galloway gets standing ovations everywhere he goes on tour in America. It makes me sick. What makes me even sicker is that he went to Syria and publically praised the insurgents that killed Cathy Sheehan’s son, and then had the nerve to join her on stage in America in a show of ‘sympathy’. How can you remotely defend an unconscionable hypocrite like that?

Oh, yeah. Because he hates George Bush. The enemy of my enemy, and all that.

In another thread the question was asked why some of us defend Bush after all the mistakes he’s made. My answer: because the other side has too many people willing to march in lockstep with groups like ANSWER and depicable thugs like Galloway.

Imagine what you’d think of the Republicans if they routinely held marches in which swastikas were prominently displayed, and they allowed the KKK to organize marches for them. Imagine what you’d think of them if they put David Duke on a speaking tour around the country and gave him standing ovations wherever he went because he was bashing Clinton.

That’s what too many Democrats are doing. You can’t have a good Democratic rally without some red stars and Che Guevera posters flying in the breeze. And before the Soviet Union fell, there were hammers and sickles in abundance. People like Galloway are treated as stars, and stalinists like ANSWER and the Worker’s World Party are tolerated and even embraced simply because they know how to organize a good protest.

Until they stop that nonsense, they will get no support from me.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

So it was okay for the Soviet Union to rampage around the globe, because it kept the Americans from doing it?

No, I merely acknowledge the USSR’s existence did, to a very limited extent, restrain the U.S. from rampaging around the globe, and its fall is to be regretted at least in that one particular respect.

@Sam Stone

Do you have any idea what the Soviets did in Afghanistan?

A much better idea than you, apparently. We’ve discussed this in this thread.

@Sam Stone

Face it - Galloway didn’t just support the Soviets because he is anti-imperialist. He supported the Soviets because he would rather have had them ‘win’ than the U.S., because they fit more closely with his socialistic beliefs. He’s also a supporter of Castro and of Chavez in Venezuela.

I won’t defend Castro, but what’s wrong with supporting Chavez? :dubious:

@Sam Stone

Imagine what you’d think of the Republicans if they routinely held marches in which swastikas were prominently displayed, and they allowed the KKK to organize marches for them. Imagine what you’d think of them if they put David Duke on a speaking tour around the country and gave him standing ovations wherever he went because he was bashing Clinton.

That would . . . it would . . . well, actually, I’m not sure we’d notice the difference.

@Sam Stone

People like Galloway are treated as stars, and stalinists like ANSWER and the Worker’s World Party are tolerated and even embraced simply because they know how to organize a good protest.

ANSWER is not a Stalinist organization. :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER And the Workers World Party are Trotskyist-Maoists, the poor dears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

Do you have any idea what the Soviets did in Afghanistan?

See here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5913528&postcount=39. And cites already provided.

[New_Iskander]

We can also have a ‘conversation’ how “Since 1992, the United States has spent $7 billion, under the so-called Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, to help Russia and the former Soviet states dismantle and secure their weapons sites.”

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

We can also have a ‘conversation’ how “Since 1992, the United States has spent $7 billion, under the so-called Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, to help Russia and the former Soviet states dismantle and secure their weapons sites.”

. . . . . . Sounds like a good idea . . . So . . . how would Hitchens and Galloway line up on that?

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

No, I merely acknowledge the USSR’s existence did, to a very limited extent, restrain the U.S. from rampaging around the globe, and its fall is to be regretted at least in that one particular respect.

And the U.S. restrained the Soviet Union. That was what detente’ was all about. And which side did Galloway choose in that struggle again? Oh yeah… The one with the gulags.

I won’t defend Castro

But you won’t condemn Galloway for doing so. Ever read Amnesty’s report on the conditions in Cuba’s jails? Anyone who can call Fidel Castro a friend and fellow traveler while screaming about the injustices in Guantanamo is a moral imbecile.

, but what’s wrong with supporting Chavez? :dubious:

Chavez == Castro lite. He’s another totalitarian thug. Again, you’re quick to attack things like the Patriot Act, which have had little to no effect on civil rights, while singing the praises of Chavez, who has shut down dissent, closed media, expropriated property, etc.

That would . . . it would . . . well, actually, I’m not sure we’d notice the difference.

And if you believe that, there’s not much I can say. I don’t live in your world.

ANSWER is not a Stalinist organization. :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER And the Workers World Party are Trotskyist-Maoists, the poor dears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party

Yes, the poor dears. Oh, those poor, misunderstood tyrant lovers. And the KKK really just like wearing the natty sheets.

[New_Iskander]

@BrainGlutton

. . . . . . Sounds like a good idea . . . So . . . how would Hitchens and Galloway line up on that?

I suppose, according to Galloway, US financing Russian disarmament would be ‘rampaging around the globe’.

[New_Iskander]

From the latest Hitchens column in Slate:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

ANSWER is not a Stalinist organization. :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER And the Workers World Party are Trotskyist-Maoists, the poor dears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party

If you read that Hitchens article, he gives a little history on the Worker’s World Party. Yes, they are an offshoot of the Trotskyists - their schism came because the WWP supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary when the majority of Trotskyites didn’t. Isn’t that lovely?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

Chavez == Castro lite. He’s another totalitarian thug. Again, you’re quick to attack things like the Patriot Act, which have had little to no effect on civil rights, while singing the praises of Chavez, who has shut down dissent, closed media, expropriated property, etc.

Chavez has not expropriated property, probably because he doesn’t need to – the oil industry (state-owned since the 1970s) provides all the revenue he needs. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310630 And I’d like to see some cites re. closing media, etc. Also, bear in mind that Chavez survived a coup attempt in 2002. The astonishing, even disturbing, thing is how many of the coup plotters are still free. They would not be, if the failed coup had happened in Canada, the U.S., or practically any other Latin American country.

Oh, and by the way, it was a U.S.-backed coup attempt. See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html; and especially http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=153&row=4. It might have succeeded if Ali Rodriguez, the secretary general of OPEC, had not given Chavez advance warning.

[Plan_B]

@BrainGlutton

On the website of the Project for a New American Century, it’s hard to find anything that reflects any overriding concern for the poor. The Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) speaks of spreading “economic freedom,” which is not the same thing at all, at all. As for the Libertarian Party, see here: http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml

Terrible example, at least from your point of view. Actually it proves my point that libertarians do care about poor and oppressed. Within less than two minutes I found the following article on the first website you mention. BTW, do any leftists care about the massacre in Darfur?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/darfur-20040922.htm
Followed by an even worse example, again from your point of view. Within two minutes fo opening the website I found:

http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml

This article describes a few original approaches to ending poverty. You may disagree whether these ideas will help the poor, but how can any literate person doubt the sincerity?

My challenge is not to find a single page without direct references to the poor and oppressed; that’s easy. But can you find an entire libertarian website where it isn’t a major concern?

Of course it’s impossible to prove a negative. Perhaps such a website is out there; I can’t prove it isn’t. But I obviously respect your energy and commitment to winning debates. So if you can’t do it I’ll take it as proof enough for me.

[BrainGlutton]

@Plan B

BTW, do any leftists care about the massacre in Darfur?

Ayuh.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050516/grahamfelsen

Genocide in Darfur

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050328/abbas

The Outrage Deficit

The Outrage Deficit

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050516/grahamfelsen

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/oncoming_catastrophe/

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/too_little_too_late/

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/deathly_silence/

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/black_muslims_and_the_sudan/

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/despairing_for_darfur/

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/genocide_by_attrition/

@Plan B

Followed by an even worse example, again from your point of view. Within two minutes fo opening the website I found:

http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml

This article describes a few original approaches to ending poverty. You may disagree whether these ideas will help the poor, but how can any literate person doubt the sincerity?

:rolleyes: That page was my example, if you’ll recall – and yes, I really, really doubt the sincerity. To put it mildly.

@Plan B

My challenge is not to find a single page without direct references to the poor and oppressed; that’s easy. But can you find an entire libertarian website where it isn’t a major concern?

I’ve never, ever seen any libertarian website, magazine, book, or pamphlet in which relieving the suffering of the plain ol’ poor (as distinct from the politically oppressed) is a major concern, compared to other matters with which the libs are more urgently concerned.

And I repeat my earlier assertion: It is flatly impossible to be a libertarian and a neocon. The agendas are too fundamentally incompatible. You’d do better trying to be a Marxist paleocon.

[JohnBckWLD]

23 October 2003: Labour tosses Galloway out of the party on his ear: The charges: - Inciting Arabs to kill British troops

• Inciting British troops to disobey orders
• & Some other intra-party hullabaloo2 Years & 2 Days Later: Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, itemizes charges to be published by the (US) Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

1. Between 1999 and 2003, Galloway personally solicited and received eight oil “allocations” totaling 23 million barrels, which went either to him or to a politicized “charity” of his named the Mariam Appeal.

2. In connection with just one of these allocations, Galloway’s wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received about $150,000 directly.

3. A minimum of $446,000 was directed to the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned against the very sanctions from which it was secretly benefiting.

4. Through the connections established by the Galloway and “Mariam” allocations, the Saddam Hussein regime was enabled to reap $1,642,000 in kickbacks or “surcharge” payments.

Mr. Galloway, you claimed you worked for the downtrodden, you’re now working to amass a fortune in blood money and damn you. You are a slug who’s now done something unique in natural history: you are responsible for the first ever metamorphosis of a univalve into an insect larva; whose hunger for the green exceeds that of the most ravenous caterpillar. Slime…indeed.

[Banquet_Bear]

@JohnBckWLD

23 October 2003: Labour tosses Galloway out of the party on his ear: The charges: - Inciting Arabs to kill British troops

• Inciting British troops to disobey orders
• & Some other intra-party hullabaloo

…and just two years later, running as an independent, the **people **reelect him to parliament…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4521627.stm

2 Years & 2 Days Later: Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, itemizes charges to be published by the (US) Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on InvestigationsMr. Galloway, you claimed you worked for the downtrodden, you’re now working to amass a fortune in blood money and damn you. You are a slug who’s now done something unique in natural history: you are responsible for the first ever metamorphosis of a univalve into an insect larva; whose hunger for the green exceeds that of the most ravenous caterpillar. Slime…indeed.

…Christopher Hitchens parrots the allegations made by the Senate? I must tell you, I’m absolutley SHOCKED. Floored, I must say. Never thought I’d see the day. :rolleyes:
After having read the report, I must say that the evidence is extremely weak. The United Kingdom Charity Commission accepted that any monies received by Galloway from the Mariam Appeal were related to expenses only. Cite.
So the most money, according to the Senate Report, that Galloway could have recieved, would have been $150,000, and that money went to Galloway’s soon to be divorced wife. There is plenty of evidence that Zureikat was involved in lots of moving money around, but nothing on paper to say that Galloway got any of it.

So the evidence really come down to the word of two unnamed oil traders,the testimony of the Vice President of one of the “Axis of Evil”, a boxload of documents found in the burnt-out looted remains of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wire transfers to everybody BUT Galloway, and thats about it. In the meantime, still no word on any Senate investigation into the 9 Billion dollars that went missing during the CPA’s year of administering Iraq’s finances. If I was Galloway, I’d be dead keen to have another go at this “slam-dunk” evidence…

[tagos]

Yes - I hate the guy but I don’t think he is corrupt. If the Senate are so sure of themselves let them bring charges and expose their evidence and witnesses in open court. Galloway is up for it, he’s begging them to charge him. I predict now they won’t do it becuase they know the evidence won’t stand up. This has all the hallmarks of another pathetic smear of the kind he’s been subjected to repeatedly and fought off.

And excuse me if I put precisely zero weight on the word of Aziz, a captive of the USA subjected to who knows what pressure and ‘treatment’, validating incriminating documents as genuine. Yea, riiight. He’s certainly established himself as a reliable sort of cove. :rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

@tagos

Yes - I hate the guy but I don’t think he is corrupt. If the Senate are so sure of themselves let them bring charges and expose their evidence and witnesses in open court. Galloway is up for it, he’s begging them to charge him. I predict now they won’t do it becuase they know the evidence won’t stand up.

I predict the Senate will not “charge” Galloway because it has no authority to bring indictments – that would be up the Justice Department – and because all accusations against Galloway relate to acts alleged to have been committed by foreign nationals in foreign countries, so the Justice Department couldn’t indict him either. Could it?

[casdave]

So you mean that its a win-win situation for the senate commission, they cant have the foundations of their lousy case examined and scrutinised in a court because there is no mechanism to indict Galloway.

It means that they can smear Galloway all they like, without any fear at all of being held accountable.

It also is a nice distracting sideshow, seeing as how Guantanamo hunger strikers are being allegedly force fed, and US lawyers are demanding greater access.

Wouldn’t make as good a story as the nasty Scottish bogeyman on a quiet day.

[BrainGlutton]

@casdave

It means that they can smear Galloway all they like, without any fear at all of being held accountable.

And without power to do anything about it. This would be for domestic consumption if anything – how many Brits care what the Senate says about Galloway? For that matter, how many Yanks care?

Furthermore, for the U.S. to indict a sitting Member of Parliament, even an opponent of the government, would really strain U.S.-UK relations. I don’t think it’s ever been done.