Don’t forget to tune in today to listen to Christopher Hitchens debate the always odious George Galloway.
You can listen to it here.
by John Cole| 61 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Media, Politics
Don’t forget to tune in today to listen to Christopher Hitchens debate the always odious George Galloway.
You can listen to it here.
Comments are closed.
slide
It’ll also be on C-Span2’s Book Notes show at 9pm Saturday. My Tivo is already programmed.
KC
One drunkard facing off with another. That sounds fun.
slide
yes, but incredibly articulate drunks…. AND they dont’ like each other very much. Hmmmm.. mouth is watering already.
Stormy70
This will be fun to watch. In case of slurring, turn on closed captioning. Always a help for the British mumblerers (?!) who like the occassional drink, or ten.
slide
I see that the debate is tonight. The C-Span2 broadcast on Saturday is a re-broadcast. Does anyone know if it will be broadcast live on any TV station?
farmgirl
Galloway is a creep most of the time, I agree. But it was sooooo goooooood watching him hand that Senate committe their asses. Those things needed to be said, and the condescending Scottish accent was icing on the cake.
Bruce from Missouri
Two always odious people in a debate…
Maybe someone can set fire to the building?
SeesThroughIt
It would be fun if they just quit the political debate pretense and turned it into a drinking contest.
KB
“One drunkard facing off with another. That sounds fun.”
Only one overweight lefty drunkard , i’m afraid. Galloway is a teetotaller.
linda
i actually have a ticket to this, purchased pre-katrina. maybe the spectacle of hitchens’ getting thumped upside the head (rhetorically speaking) will put me in a better mood.
Doug
The drunk v. the skunk. But yeah, the can of rhetorical whoopass Galloway opened on Norm Coleman was fun. Sure, I would have preferred that St. Peter came down from Heaven to deliver the shots to Sen. Coleman. But, I’ll take what I can get.
slide
I’m jeolous. All I got to see this summer was Avril Levign. Its a bitch having a teenage daughter.
I’m with you though, if Hitch gets his ass whooped I want a blow by blow (figuritively speaking) here tomorrow morning.
DougJ
I would have to rephrase this: “the always odious Hitchens will debate the always odious Galloway.” I have no love for mumbling, alcoholic, former Trotskyites. Actually, I could probably do without any Trotsyites, former or current, alcoholic or tee-totaling, mumbling or clear speaking. They’re all nuts.
DougJ
Wow, I hadn’t read other peoples’ comments but it’s amazing how much in agreement with them I am. I was just going to say something about close-captioning when I read Stormy’s comment. Right on, Stormy.
Whenever I see Hitchens on t.v. I think of Kevin Cline saying “My name is Mr. Manfred Sinjin…sin…jin” in a Fish Called Wanda.
Slartibartfast
Odd seeing all these Galloway-philes gathered here. You’d think he wasn’t completely unhinged.
tBone
I agree. Those two bloviating gasbags deserve each other.
Cyrus
Slarty,
What Galloway-philes? I see one guy saying he’s an incredibly articulate drunk and another saying he’s not really a drunk, which looks like damning with faint praise to me.
And then there’s one guy saying “Galloway is a creep most of the time, I agree. But it was sooooo goooooood watching him hand that Senate committe their asses. Those things needed to be said, and the condescending Scottish accent was icing on the cake,” and DougJ saying the same thing only even more critically. Saying that they agree with Galloway on one issue, even on several, is hardly a personal endorsement. I mean, I agree with Bush on his policy of not bombing Canada, his brave opposition to slavery, his support of the Seventh Amendment…
So where are these Galloway-philes? Why do you say there are any around here?
Also, with a name like you’re using, what did you think of the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” movie? I just saw it last night, as soon as it came out on DVD. Oddly enough, I think I liked the new parts better than the parts that were faithful to the book/radio show. Then again, maybe that’s just because one of the new parts was John Malkovich.
Slartibartfast
I dunno, Cyrus, I guess crediting Galloway with “rhetorical…whoopass” is giving the guy far too much slack. Any approval at all for Galloway’s rather petulant defense of himself in front of the Senate is also giving him too much of a break.
Haven’t seen HHTTG yet; will see as soon as I’ve time. You’d think with a name like mine…but I’ve been burned a few times too many at the theater. I haven’t even read Adams’ The Salmon of Doubt yet, so color me a not-entirely-with-it fan.
Slartibartfast
Um, to clarify: after looking again, Galloway-philes was pretty far off target.
tBone
You missed another roasting by not seeing HHTTG in the theater, IMO. I thought it was almost as painful as the old BBC show.
HH
Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast was pretty good and anything with Zooey Deschanel is never all bad. It’s just too bad that the dolphins were the best part and that was in the first three minutes.
Otto Man
Zing! I’m looking forward to seeing the captioner have to type “[sound of vomiting]” when things get too out of hand for Hitch.
Jackmormon
Slart, if you’re willing to go into it with limited expectations, you might enjoy it. The Volgons were terrific, the dolphins sublime, Ford Prefect understated but v. cool, and your namesake very very funny. (OTOH, Trillian blew, as did Zaphod’s second head effects. Ignore those parts.)
tBone
I thought the cast was almost uniformly excellent. The script and the direction, on the other hand . . .
Harry Atkinson
Ah, you guys are just upset at Gorgeous George for hammering a pound of cheddar cheese up Normie Coleman’s back patio.
Why this is I don’t know. After all, Normie didn’t seem to mind.
Mac Buckets
Geez, they’re starting only an hour and 45 minutes late. An extra two hours for those two to drink scotch. Great. My prediction: Galloway will rabble-rouse, Hitchens will become disgusted and be perceived as the loser for not engaging in the worst part of rhetoric.
DougJ
I hate them both.
It’s funny how the Mac Buckets of the world are so happy to fellate the former Trotskyite Hitchens now that he’s on their side.
Were you ever a Trotskyite yourself, Mac Buckets? I wonder.
Krista
Cyrus –
Give it time…he’ll find a reason.
DougJ
That’s right, Krista. Neighbors to the north, my ass.
Mac Buckets
As I predicted, two minutes in, Galloway’s called Hitchens a slug and a chickenhawk, cited the bogus Lancet study, brought up Cindy Sheehan, and called out the “rogue state,” “incompetent” US for the bodies in New Orleans.
I’m just never wrong. We’ll see how Hitchens responds. I’m guessing with reserved indignation and droll wit, which may or may not be deemed effective.
Mac Buckets
Georgian rhetoric. I hardly “fellated” him, Doug GallowayJ. I support his views when he’s on the right side of an issue.
Wonder no further. I don’t even know what a Trotskyite might believe. I’ll look it up on Wikipedia later.
Krista
That’s gotta be some kind of record.
Boronx
I thought the cast was almost uniformly excellent. The script and the direction, on the other hand . . .
My sentiments exactly. It seemed to bog down whenever they strayed too far from the original story line.
Brian
Galloway sounds like an unhinged demagogue. Hitch, typically sarcastic, still has the edge.
Gallows can’t get respect. He sounds like a drunk at the local pub, ranting uncontrollably at world affairs and how he could do such a better job of things.
Mac Buckets
Galloway is getting routed. Hitchens isn’t some first-term senator to be bullied.
DougJ
They’re both complete jack asses. I would think you’d be able to relate to both of them, Mac.
Also, Mac, I like the way you wear your wear your ignorance like a medal. You’re true Rovebot.
Stevo
Oh, please. Oh, Please. Oh, Please.
Some one please post a transcript.
Mac Buckets
Back to being a straight-up prat, DougJ? Which one of your unhinged personalities am I talking to now? I said I’d read up later, not that I was proud of my ignorance of the term. See, I’m an adult, and that’s how adults handle that sort of thing, rather than lying in order to toss witless insults.
Mac Buckets
Archive will be up on kpftx.org soon, they say. It’s put on by Stop The War Productions, so the commentary is superleft, pro-Galloway.
Bob
Why all the hostility against Galloway?
jobiuspublius
Oh great Scholarly ones, does it make sense to wonder how Kelo and Inter-State Commerce might interact?
Brian
I personally don’t have any real hostility toward Galloway. I do take issue with his decisions on political allies, and how he has positioned himself as an apologist for everything we’re fighting against. I suspect he’s getting some serious money under the table for his efforts, but I have no proof of this; I just can’t see how the man would be such a consistent, loud, and tireless soldier for such causes. He strikes me as a bit of a boob.
Mac Buckets
Easy! He hates the US, and he supports almost anyone that opposes US interests. Galloway is pro-Palistinian (he’s married to a Palisitinian), and his hatred for Israel is self-evident. He was a pro-Soviet Communist when they were the main US “opposition.” He was pro-Viet Cong when they were the US’s declared enemy. Now he’s trying clumsily to walk the thin line between being anti-US “imperialism” and being pro-terrorist Islamofascist. His name appeared, according to reports by ABCNews, on two different bribe-lists in Saddam’s oil ministry, although I don’t really think Galloway was bribed, in that Saddam had his support anyway — call it a reward-list in George’s case.
Top that off with charges of voter-intimidating bully-boys roving his (heavily lower-income and Muslim) district of Bethnal Green and Bow in the East End of London, and you have a rabble-rouser of a fellow who many, self included, have a hard time tolerating, despite his overall insignificance in the big picture.
DougJ
Where do I start?
I’m guessing if you don’t already hate him, you’re probably moderate-to-left leaning, so I’ll give you this one: he described Teri Schiavo’s death as “judicial murder”. He’s also a big apologist for Syria.
I can tell you why I hate Snitchens too if you like.
DougJ
Mac, I’m sorry I’m being so tough on you. I’m sure you mean well. But Hitchens is scum. I hate Galloway too.
You should read Hitchens’ hatchet job on Reagan (an incredibly mean-spirited piece written days after Reagan died).
DougJ
We’re supposed to hold that against him? That he married a Palestinian? You’re worse than I thought. I don’t like Galloway but that is a particularly idiotic cheap shot.
Mac Buckets
You’re not being hard — you were lying and being an a-hole. “Hard” I could stomach without comment. Apology accepted, though.
Hitchens is a The Nation liberal, old-school stylie — though his reluctance to toe a Party Line has estranged him from that group. I hold no brief for him (though I had read that piece on Reagan at the time and didn’t think it was that far out of the mainstream of moderate-liberal thought), but I give him full marks for independence of opinion, and on this issue, he’s one of the most eloquent voices on the “pro-war” side.
You probably know this already, but his recent epiphany on matters of Islamofascism is the result of his personal acquaintance with some of the players involved (for example, he’s a good friend of Rushdie). Galloway clumsily wasted most of his time making the point tonight that Hitchens was a lot different in 1991 than he is now, and said a lot of different things then. Well, no kidding, Hitchens was the first to admit that circumstances had changed his attitude toward Islamofascism. The Kerry crowd used to call it “growth” and “nuance,” although now they’d be the ones hypocritically waving sandals in the air.
Hitchens can be petulant, rude, and not-quite-able to concel his self-belief, but compared to the lunatic across the stage from him, he looked liked Michael Parkinson.
Mac Buckets
You’re not supposed to hold it against him. It only illustrates that he is no doubt more personally attached to the Palestinian question than most on the left. There are plenty of more heinous issues to hold against him than that.
DougJ
I bet you could.
DougJ
Mac, that piece on Reagan was full of cheap shots. “Senile fury”, come on. Who else said that the day after the man died?
Mac Buckets
I was channeling Charles Nelson Reilly there, I guess.
DougJ
You have a good sense of humor, my friend.
garhane
Galloway has the usual Scot style of fierce confrontation such that you have to get it together to say anything at all. I do not know why the Scots are often like that, it may be due to a natural uneasiness, if not shame, in their national failure to contest the Saxon occupation in the only way that counts, as the Irish have done. But when he confronted your millionaire legislators of the Senate he sure did expose the political fraud that such hearings really are. This Canadian was gratified to see the front men for a totally dishonest and greedy bunch of bandits clearly exposed.
So lots of luck to Mr. Galloway. His opponent, of course, is just a fat bag of guts staggering off to the gutters of his fate. Bad cess to him.
John S.
Hitchens is a liberal like David Brock is a conservative.
Another Jeff
Trying to take sides in Hitchens against Galloway is somewhat similar to the way i felt this past Saturday watching Notre Dame against Michigan.
Mac Buckets
You’re confusing “liberal” with “Party Line Democrat,” I think.
David Brock was a flash-in-the-rightwing-pan, One-note Johnnie who was more of a gossip columnist than a conservative thinker. He’s not much of a thinker still.
Hitchens has been a publishing champion of liberal thought for 30 years, and still retains the majority of his liberal views. The left cannot tolerate disloyalty on any issue, though, and Hitchen’s “republican” views on Islamofascism have goaded people like you (and Cockburn, et. al.) into dismissing his copybook and his still-held views like those against religion and for absolute secularism. If anyone ever could lay claim to the textbook title of “liberal,” it would be Hitchens. Half the time, I can’t stand the guy, but even I admit that he’s a true product of the Enlightenment.
Cyrus
Mac Buckets Says:
I find that hard to believe, both in the case of Hitchens in particular – I mean, I think you’re wrong about why he’s so disliked – and in the case of liberal treatment of disloyalty.
As for close-minded liberals, it’s hard to believe we’d all single out Hitchens when there are a number of other liberal hawks who aren’t hated. Matthew Yglesias, Josh Marshall – they both supported the war, and neither of them is a pariah these days, far from it. Others too, I’m sure, but those are the two I read regularly.
And as for Hitchens, I think the reason he gets treated differently is because he still supports the war. I could be wrong because I don’t read much of him, but as far as I know he’s still saying the same stuff now as he was in 2003 and repeating the most offensive anti-liberal talking points. This is even after a whole lot of Republicans have noticed that Iraq is a hellhole and Bush’s “management” looks like a game of Risk. Support it in 2003? Fine, people should be able to agree to disagree. Vilify anyone who doesn’t? Well, that’s low, but you could be charitable and assume it’s a matter of style rather than message. Don’t change your tune after all the changes of the past two years? Ummm… fine, if you want to act like a less bigoted Limbaugh, we’ll treat you like one.
Jesus, please tell me I’m misreading that and you aren’t really saying you can’t stand products of the Enlightenment.
Mac Buckets
Believe it or not, Hitchens divorce with The Nation and the LEFT-left came from a dispute about a war much less controversial than that against Iraq. That divorce happened after 9/11 and the war against Afghanistan, when Chomsky and Cockburn turned against him, and he against them.
While Hitchens is no apologist in terms of management of the Iraq reconstuction, Hitchens would tell you that his reasons for agreeing with the overthrowing of Saddam haven’t changed, so his attitude hasn’t changed, either.
He would argue with you as to whether Iraq is more a “hellhole” now or under Saddam, as would the Iraqi populace. But that’s another topic.
Yes, that’s a misreading.
skip
Hitchens is an opportunist, plain and simple. When savaging Mother Theresa and the recently deceased Reagan didn’t get him the TV face time he craved, he astutely attacked the Muslims. While he had once ably defended the Palestinians (cf his “Dead Souls”), he finally realized he didn’t wish to share the fate of Fullbright, von Hoffman, McCloskey, Finley and anyone else who challenges the Sharonista media.
It is a basic truth of journalism in DC that an established writer CAN get almost anything printed on a controversial subject, but if it is critical of Israel the Middle East it will be the LAST thing you get printed.
This bothers me in the abstract, but the real problem is with how much ink is wasted on the subject as a whole.
Sean P
Skippy, your supposed to wrap the tin foil around your HEAD, not your neck. You better take it off before the brain damage is permanent.
Tammy
Christopher Hitchens tells it like he sees it, even when his view is unpleasant. Of course one wishes that our President Reagan and Mother teresa had been greater than they truly were. But I’d not blame Hitchens for that.
I watched the Hitchens-Galloway debate – Galloway is capable of occasional a propos and funny lines, but he is, at the core, a hypocrite, an opportunist, a demagogue. Hitchens swats him like a small mosquito.