Galloway vs. Hitchens Debate

[ska invita]

hitchens is a drunken mess - i saw him on newsnight the otherday, rambling with eyes as red a flintoff's. Why debate with him? Is he some far right neocon flagwaver? ... just downloading it now, so i guess ill find out!

 

[oi2002]

GiGi tramples Hitchens but is orange skinned, smug and implausable.

Hitchens occasionally torpedoed the Sweaty but ran ashore when he dandered onto the shifting sands of neocon ideas.

 

[ska invita]

If this was a boxing match (all politics aside) i think that Hitchens would have won it - he was more focussed and dealt with issues that came up thoroughly: Galloway did a fair amount of blocking and dodging, definitely threw some classic one-line-left-hooks but was a bit inconsistent overall with no big knock out punch really hitting home.

Galloway does walk a thin line sometimes, and leaves room for you to fill in what he might really think. For example he never has, as far as I'm aware, pointed to a distinction between the terrorist outrages which are the killing of innocents looking for casual work and the legitimate resistance which he supports. It is a distinction which he does himself no favours by ignoring. Partly it is because the situation on the ground is complex and Galloway seems more intent on statements that are big and bold (and shouty).

When talking about subjects in which countless people have died and continued to die I think an atmosphere of seriousness and sobreity should be kept: neither G or H seemed too bothered about leaving that at the door. It was good to hear a long debate on a subject and its a shame we dont get more of that in the media.

There were a few funny bits, from Galloway especially, but my favourite was when Hitchens was asked: (paraphrase now that you have changed your political views and crossed to the otherside of the spectrum do you find the media more friendly to you? Hitchens goes into a 3minute waffle knowing full well that he has joined the rightwing leaning media ranks, having been struggling on the otherside all those years ago.

 

[Ryazan]

It's insulting to workers who are on low incomes. Not that Galloways allies in Respect give a damn about such things..

I never thought they did. I don't feel insulted, rather indifferent to such irelevance.

 

[catch]

Not listened to it, but Radio 4 is going to change their schedule (!) to play highlights on Sunday.

 

[rebel warrior]

Todays Guardian has reports from Gary Younge (who says, rightly, GG won 'on points'), and Oona King who seems to have missed the point of going to report on the thing entirely and ends up quoting Hitchens on Galloway from previous articles and interviews...

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Listening to the mp3 of the whole thing now at work. For my money GG wins it hands down, both at the level of ideas and abuse! What is odd is how CH at times sounds embarassed by his own position, not to mention supporters. There's a point where GG is winding up the neo-cons in the crowd and CH tells him to appeal to their wallets which shed a certain light on how his thought processes are lined up on this whole thing.

Thought GG made a good comparison between CH's attacks on Jihadists and the reaction of the Bloomsbury liberals to the 1916 Easter Rising, who of course dismissed it as the work of obscurantist, priest ridden bog trotters in need of Biritish civilization. He even threw in the old one about "the sun didn't set on the British Empire, because God didn't trust the English in the dark!" Cracking stuff.

 

[ska invita]

true, But GG orates like a preacher shouting from the pulpit - CH has a more considered and thorough aproach to his arguments...not that i agreed with them.

GG failed to awnser many crucial points - not because there aren't good awnsers for them - I think may he's fatigued a little..

 

[bolshiebhoy]

True enough niksativa, GG does tend to shout his way through his answers but I thought he covered most things.

I would have said CH rambles at times rather than sounding more considered. For example he went down a little blind alley about 'Iraq Escosse' then backed out incoherently. Nor does he even answer direct questions as when he's asked point blank what he thinks about Colin Powell's statement that his UN wmd speech was a stain on his record. "I don't give a damn what Colin Powell says about anything...and you can't make me" is the considered response of the superior thinker, not.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Apparently BBC Radio 4 have changed the schedules to broadcast this. Dunno exactly when, I half heard it this morning on the Today programme but I was clanking about with kettle and teacups, so I didn't hear what time.

 

[Gavin Bl]

true, But GG orates like a preacher shouting from the pulpit - CH has a more considered and thorough aproach to his arguments...not that i agreed with them.

GG failed to awnser many crucial points - not because there aren't good awnsers for them - I think may he's fatigued a little..

I think hitchens tends to use his verbosity to twist out of a question, or to put someone on the backfoot, by changing the focus without it sounding like it. Does it in his books too.

And I quite like the guy!

 

[X-77]

There were a few funny bits, from Galloway especially, but my favourite was when Hitchens was asked: (paraphrase now that you have changed your political views and crossed to the otherside of the spectrum do you find the media more friendly to you? Hitchens goes into a 3minute waffle knowing full well that he has joined the rightwing leaning media ranks, having been struggling on the otherside all those years ago.

yeah I liked this bit too - Hitchens seemed rather defensive (again) and said to Amy 'I think I know what you're getting at' and then waffled on for ages uncomfortably. He knows full well that he is now doing the 'devil's work' to quote (or misquote??) Galloway. It's a shame that Galloway wasn't asked a similar question about the media's treatment of him as I'd like to have heard his answer.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Hitchens said in closing his reply to that question:'that was a waste of a question'. And George responded immediately 'that was a waste of an answer'.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Oona King review:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1571623,00.html

 

[audiotech]

Has anyone a mp3 link (a wma file, not real player) please?

 

[audiotech]

As you were - I've found one.
http://kpftx.org/#galloway

 

[William of Walworth]

Todays Guardian has reports from Gary Younge (who says, rightly, GG won 'on points'), and Oona King who seems to have missed the point of going to report on the thing entirely and ends up quoting Hitchens on Galloway from previous articles and interviews...

On OK's review -- you're kind of right about her missing the point, but not ALL her points are rubbish, and she clearly doesn't like Hitchens much more than Galloway ...

Judge for yourself

(Oh bollocks Udo Erasmus has already posted link ... oh well!)

Galloway got well-deserved applause when he slated Hitchens for being "a mouthpiece for those miserable, malevolent incompetents who couldn't even pick up the bodies of their own citizens in New Orleans". The cheers he got upon mention of his book, Mr Galloway Goes to Washington, were also well deserved. (He might even consider a new jaw-dropper - Mr Galloway Goes to Bethnal Green.)

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Apparently BBC Radio 4 have changed the schedules to broadcast this. Dunno exactly when, I half heard it this morning on the Today programme but I was clanking about with kettle and teacups, so I didn't hear what time.

IRAQ: THE GALLOWAY - HITCHENS DEBATE
Saturday, 17 Sep 05, 10.15pm to 11pm
Radio 4

 

[X-77]

Hitchens said in closing his reply to that question:'that was a waste of a question'. And George responded immediately 'that was a waste of an answer'.

oh yeah, liked that too would be great to be that good with the comebacks

 

[X-77]

must admit, was a bit scared for Galloway when he was talking about 9/11 and how the planes didn't just come out of 'the clear blue skies'....the audience got a bit riled up at that point, was expecting some of them to storm the stage especially with CH stirring it up saying 'you've picked the wrong city to say that in - and the wrong month'.

The passions were definitely running high on both sides that night - both got heckled at various points during the debate although couldn't make out what exactly was said (is there a transcript yet and will it include heckling I wonder?).

Be interested to know who sold most books at the end of the night...

 

[audiotech]

Christopher Hitchens argument that; those who consider the 'resistance in Iraq' to be a 'war of liberation' should be ashamed of themselves, sums it up for me.

Included in Hitchens 'cerebral points' is rather good advice as to why the zoo should calm it down, however, as he made clear, a 'popinjay' is a target to be shot at and in these circumstances he should have expected it.

Considering some of the abuse aimed at Hitchens by Galloway and his supporters, which made it difficult for Hitchens to speak some of the time, I thought that his last, five minute slot was very magnanimous and in no way was he defeated.

 

[ska invita]

just been remembering the debate - it was interesting how both GG and CH made one big faux pax (however your meant to spell it!) each.

GG said that 9/11 didnt come out of a "clear blue sky" but basically the US had it coming - boos from all corners from the NY crowd. Even if it is true its not tactfull.

Surprisingly CH got a bigger boo for saying that the Bush response to Katrina wasn't racist and was stifled by constitutional problems: I thought this was very telling of just how much US citzens are pissed off with bush regarding this, across the political spectrum. Reassuring somehow.

MC5, are you saying that CH's argument re the resistance is valid? I felt that GG should have dealt with this better - there are a variety of military attacks taking place in Iraq, by a variety of groups with differing agendas. In my view some are legitimate, others a lot less so.

It is certainly complex, and its a shame this debate didnt really debate issues like this, rather tried to score big points instead. GG's position is entrenched in the view that US motives are selfish and that they are absolutley an illegal occupying force, and intend to control Iraq once the majority of troops have left - therefore to GG a resistance movement is valid.

It is complex though, re Zakawi, clearly looking to destablise the whole region - I would suggest that Zakawi far from looking to liberate iraq from US control is looking to destabilise the entire region and profit personally from the chaos (which will stimulate a rise in extremism of all kinds). It can be argued that the US is working to a similiar gameplan to Zakawi in this respect, but with a more sophisticated military machine. No easy awnser here: but it is exactly this kind of mayhem that wad predicted by the anti-war movement.

 

[audiotech]

MC5, are you saying that CH's argument re the resistance is valid? I felt that GG should have dealt with this better - there are a variety of military attacks taking place in Iraq, by a variety of groups with differing agendas. In my view some are legitimate, others a lot less so.

I do think Christopher Hitchens argument re the resistance is valid. You have to consider Hitchens comments on Communists in both Iraq and Syria to get a feel of where he's coming from politically.

I personally don't see any progressive representation in the 'resistance', only nihilism and theocracy, which appears medieval. Therefore, I would agree with Hitchens that there is no 'war of liberation' going on in Iraq.

 

[audiotech]

Surprisingly CH got a bigger boo for saying that the Bush response to Katrina wasn't racist and was stifled by constitutional problems: I thought this was very telling of just how much US citzens are pissed off with bush regarding this, across the political spectrum. Reassuring somehow.

I too don't see the response by Bush as 'racist', incompetent yes and ideologically driven, but not 'racist'.

I noticed that when Galloway was getting quite a large boo, after his crass comments with regard to 9/11, Hitchens stepped in to tell the audience to let him speak. Galloway, on the other hand, didn't reciprocate this kind gesture.

 

[X-77]

I noticed that when Galloway was getting quite a large boo, after his crass comments with regard to 9/11, Hitchens stepped in to tell the audience to let him speak. Galloway, on the other hand, didn't reciprocate this kind gesture.

well he must have made this gentlemanly gesture after he said 'you picked the wrong city to say that in - and the wrong month', which seemed to be at the height of the boos. I thought he tried to stir it up if anything.

 

[vimto]

Got another 15 minutes or so to watch.

But what I did find in the battle was that Hutchens has most definately moved into the neo-con camp where invasions are the preferred choice

Permanent revolutionaries aint they?

Neo-cons that is

 

[ska invita]

I do think Christopher Hitchens argument re the resistance is valid. You have to consider Hitchens comments on Communists in both Iraq and Syria to get a feel of where he's coming from politically.

Yes, I agree there is a level of subtelty to his argument that goes beyond most US neo-cons: his alledged continuing support for the communist movements in both countries would no doubt get him thrown out of a few White House tea parties. I too support the work these groups are doing: but lets look at some of those groups he mentions, such as the women's communist groups of which there are several (Organization of women’s freedom in Iraq, Iraqi Women’s League).

These groups are in dispair because having enjoyed their basic human rights in a secular Iraq they are about to face a return to Islamic Law, whose role has been cemented in the consitution. Far from the invasion creating a culture with which the communist groups he supports will be happy with, Iraq is slipping further and further away from the basic fundamentals of human rights, thanks to a radicalised society and the political vacuum left by Saddam being filled with religious extremists.

CH point is, if it were not for the invasion Saddam and his sons would still be running amock in Iraq. The ant-war position that I imagine most hold to is not just, "NO" to war but yes to taking away the crippling and murderous sanctions, followed by empowering opposition groups and creating a climate whereby a natural peoples revolution can take place. Certainly thats GG position. Are these hopes impossible? No, there is much precident for it, even within the last twenty years, particularly in satellite countries to the former USSR.

Its worth looking at Iran: a country on the verge of modernising that has swung back to conervatism thanks to the threats from the US and the general instability in the area.

Or Gaddafi, another CH example - Gaddafi has been trying to make that step into the good book of the West for years - the million dollar compensation for Lockerbie was the last step in that (arguably despite the involvement of which he was accused, if I remember rightly) - his reassimilation into Western acceptability would have happened anyway.

For me CH's arguments dont quite stand up. The US invasion and the support for Iraqi communist groups dont add up. Feel free to explain it better though...

 

[audiotech]

well he must have made this gentlemanly gesture after he said 'you picked the wrong city to say that in - and the wrong month', which seemed to be at the height of the boos. I thought he tried to stir it up if anything.

As I said, it was a crass remark by Galloway and of course Hitchens would respond that way. He was angry with the remark, as were a number in the audience. I suspect Galloway supporters weren't too pleased either.

 

[audiotech]

Yes, I agree there is a level of subtelty to his argument that goes beyond most US neo-cons: his alledged continuing support for the communist movements in both countries would no doubt get him thrown out of a few White House tea parties. I too support the work these groups are doing: but lets look at some of those groups he mentions, such as the women's communist groups of which there are several (Organization of women’s freedom in Iraq, Iraqi Women’s League).

These groups are in dispair because having enjoyed their basic human rights in a secular Iraq they are about to face a return to Islamic Law, whose role has been cemented in the consitution. Far from the invasion creating a culture with which the communist groups he supports will be happy with, Iraq is slipping further and further away from the basic fundamentals of human rights, thanks to a radicalised society and the political vacuum left by Saddam being filled with religious extremists.

CH point is, if it were not for the invasion Saddam and his sons would still be running amock in Iraq. The ant-war position that I imagine most hold to is not just, "NO" to war but yes to taking away the crippling and murderous sanctions, followed by empowering opposition groups and creating a climate whereby a natural peoples revolution can take place. Certainly thats GG position. Are these hopes impossible? No, there is much precident for it, even within the last twenty years, particularly in satellite countries to the former USSR.

Its worth looking at Iran: a country on the verge of modernising that has swung back to conervatism thanks to the threats from the US and the general instability in the area.

Or Gaddafi, another CH example - Gaddafi has been trying to make that step into the good book of the West for years - the million dollar compensation for Lockerbie was the last step in that (arguably despite the involvement of which he was accused, if I remember rightly) - his reassimilation into Western acceptability would have happened anyway.

For me CH's arguments dont quite stand up. The US invasion and the support for Iraqi communist groups dont add up. Feel free to explain it better though...

I agree with your synopsis of the anti-war position, but it's difficult to see how, as Iraq descends into civil war, how this....

...empowering opposition groups and creating a climate whereby a natural peoples revolution can take place.

....can take place in the present climate? Would it not be the case that the more progressive political groups would end up like their counterparts during the Iranian, Islamic revolution?

Your right, Hitchens position on the war is contradictory, but his main point that the 'resistance' in Iraq is not a 'war of liberation' still stands in my view.

 

[spartacus mills]

It's on Radio 4 tonight.