Grapple in the Big Apple

As mentioned previously, 14th September promised a barnstorming public spectacle: Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway debated in New York. Here's the transcript, or just watch event video.

Update: People in the US can watch the debate on C-Span 2 at 9pm Saturday 17th September.

Update 2: Follow the events at Third Avenue, and Clive Davis

My Verdict: A clear victory for Hitchens. Galloway's vociferous, booming oratory was undermined and outplayed by Hitchen's subtle goading and interplay with the crowd. Ironically, Galloway's strategy was to concentrate on Hitchen's reliability, constantly referring to past incidents - the same strategy that Geroge W. Bush used against John Kerry in the US election! This time, however, the debate wasn't between two political candidates, and the fact that Hitchens changed his mind is largely irrelevent. We shouldn't base foreign policy on the consistency of Christopher Hitchens!
Galloway deflected most issues of substance, and was less entertaining. That said, Hitchens failed to ram home the two killer points that undermine all Galloway stands for:

1. Galloway can NOT simultaneously defend the terrorist activity in Iraq, whilst acting as moral guardian of the memory of US casualities. If he accepts Bush's distinction of either being for or against the US - which he does - then he is an enemy of the USA armed forces.
2. The foreing invasion is NOT an occupation of a free people. The Iraqi people were not free under Saddam, and are not free now. The issue is which of these conditions is most likely to lead to future freedom.

Both men have flawed positions, but how rare and spritely to watch such a debate.

Comments

[Fozzy]

Baloney. Galloway does not defend "terrorism". He OPPOSES Al Qaeda. His party Respect is an alliance with Muslims, Jews and Christians who are against this stupid mindless adventure that is the Iraq war. He defends Iraqis and ordinary muslims who want to live in peace and to rebuild their lives and countries. But Bush won't let them. He invades their countries and will only ever leave Iraq on his own terms--those dicatated by Western oil corporations. And so a WHOLE SPECTRUM (not just fundamentalists) of Iraqis have had to wage a guerrilla war of liberation.

The US was occupied once upon a time by the Brits. Was George Washington a terrorist for fighting to kick them out of the US? "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, we will fight them in the hills--we shall never surrender"--was Churchill a terrorist because he was preparing the Brits for a guerrilla war against a Nazi invasion and occupation?

There is no contradiction whatsoever between supporting the Iraq liberation struggle and supporting US and UK troops by campaigning with their families to get them out of the Middle East. In all nations, ordinary working people are being shafted by the same idle rich parasites like Bush and his Middle Eastern creeps and hangers on: the venal Saudi Royalty, the feckless Emirs, the greedy, unspeakable butcher Sharon. And Saddam was one of them until he fell out of favour. During the Ian Iraq war Saddam (and bib Laden) was the the US's best friend. Rumsfeld even shook hands with him. What a hypocrite.

Our loyalties must be with the Western and Israeli peace movements, the Iraqi malitia that bravely defend their communities from massacre and torture (Falluja, ABU GHRAIB, Guantanamo) and the working class cannon fodder in the US, UK, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and internationally. My nation is not the US or the UK. My nation is my class.

Many peace loving people in the US would fight if their country was attacked.

[AJE]

You're implying that Iraqi's lived in peace prior to the US/UK invasion. That's wrong.

I completely stand by my claim that we have to compare two different forms of occupation.