Hitchens v. Galloway

Conservatives love Christopher Hitchens because Christopher Hitchens loves America. He is one of the few remaining leftists whose thought is not dominated by the fundamental assumption that the United States is evil. More than that, he actually believes his adopted homeland is one of the greatest forces for good in the world. He is funny, quick-witted, and sharp-tongued. Come to think of it, he would have been the perfect replacement for Ann Coulter at Harding University. It would presumably have made Mark Elrod happy, though I can’t decide whether Mike Cope would protest.

I was delighted to learn that Hitchens recently debated British MP and crackpot demagogue George Galloway. I would love to have witnessed it in person. You can download the audio here (click on “Direct Links” three and four). I’m going to listen now, and if warranted, comment later.

In the meantime, check out these links:

• George Galloway Is Gruesome, Not Gorgeous
• A Slobbering Slugfest
• Galloway and Hitchens get down and very dirty

UPDATE:

Hitchens said that French President Jacques Chirac is so corrupt that he would gladly pay for the pleasure of selling himself.

UPDATE: Hitchens charged Galloway with praising the murderers of Casey Sheehan in Damascus and then appealing to the emotions of his grieving mother in America.

By the way, if you think it is impolite to criticize the anti-American tendencies of the left, then read this article and tell me why statements like these should be ignored. At a Galloway speech in Boston on Tuesday night, a Boston city council member was cheered by the crowd when he said:

The reality is, we have to cleanse the soul of America. Our soul is covered in militarism, economic exploitation and racism. We need to cleanse ourselves. We need to acknowledge the obscenity that America is. We need to acknowledge that people around the world acknowledge that America the beautiful is America the obscene…we are obscene, we are a joke to the rest of the world.

Let’s not question anyone’s patriotism, though. That would be “divisive.”

UPDATE: Galloway’s primary “argument,” when he wasn’t launching silly ad hominem attacks, was to point to Hitchens’ hypocrisy for having opposed the 1991 Gulf War and then supporting the recent “invasion.” Hitchens brilliantly conceded the point and agreed that Galloway should be congratulated for being absolutely consistent in his support for unspeakable thugs and dictators.

UPDATE: Here’s a transcript from Seixon and a video (Real format).

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 15th, 2005 at 12:27 am and is filed under The Left, Global War on Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.