George Galloway (who?) lays the smackdown concerning the Middle East.

I think he's even better here, giving it to an American Senate hearing, but especially one senator. I wish I could get the rest of this.


I got a hundred dollars the senator on the other end of this lashing is a Republican. Any takers?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk&NR

 

I watched this guy and CHristopher Hitchens going at it on C-Span last year...

 

Wow, that was amazing. The news reporter should call the police, because to put it crudely she was violated on live tv.

 

He makes some good points...

 

This guy is very well rehearsed, knows how to interrupt the other person to prevent them from making their point and is very good at pointing out failures. The failed Israeli invasion will give this guy enough material to talk non-stop for 2 straight weeks. He's like a machine gun.

 

It's difficult to imagine two individuals with more radically different views than Hitchens vs. Galloway...they're like polar opposites.

 

I'll take "The Rapist" for $500, Trebek.

 

Did anyone notice, that the Sky News started playing sounds of the other screen whilst Galloway is speaking? It seemed like they were trying to drown his voice down since they were caught in a jam.

 

Sky News is an exact replica of Fox News here in the U.S.

 

That was awesome, and truthful as well, no peace for Israel until they are willing to truthfully pull back into their own country.

DD

 

The guy made some good points, but it isn't nearly as simple as he says. He is a skilled debater who has memorized each and every "autoreply" on his side. Just like some of the Israeli guys do.

 

I actually had the pleasure of watching that as well. I think Hitchens won the debate based merely on the fact that he, the former Trotskyite turned neocon, doesn't stand for anything and can't really be attacked on any views.

 

All the hatred of Hitchens baffles me. The man is calm and logical, not some froth-mouthed Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps the far left feels betrayed by him, but having listened to him a little bit after reading people speak about him around here I was shocked.

At least he doesn't resort to patriotic calls for vengeance or any other emotional ploys in debate. He is also very articulate in what he stands for and so is someone that can be debated. From what I heard he was very clear in discussing what he stood for. He was also very clear and articulate in discussing the philosophical point which caused his split with the left. Furthermore he was downright polite and gracious when discussing his 'former allies' considering how they speak of him. It really from my view makes the people who are attacking him seem petty and small.

I find Mr. Galloway's arguments here which center around rushing to the maternity ward to see his baby being born during a previous war to be much more emotional, and more akin to neo-con radio host style arguments than what I heard from Hitchens. I wanted to like Galloway just for his ultra-cool Scottish brogue, but basing his arguments in the emotional way he did turned me off. How is his argument different than the far right who conjure images of the World Trade Center as the centerpiece of their discussions?

Perhaps I just haven't listened to Hitchens or Galloway enough.

Anyway if anybody really wants to hear Hitchens explanation of his positions I'll see if I can find the radio interview and transcript. It was on NPR, IIRC.

 

Wow. "Four week memory" indeed.

I think the US equivalent is about a four day memory, what with all the breaking news of child beauty queens still being dead and all.

If you found that clip inspiring, here's Galloway's "Giuliani in Drag" counterpoint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMZWxPUC_c

He went on Big Brother UK to broaden his reach, but thanks to British broadcasting's equal time rules (remember those?) everything political/interesting he said was cut out. This, and him playacting the role of a kitten drinking milk, was all that was left.

Hitchens v. Galloway video
Hitchens delivered some body blows with Galloway's past deference to the Hussein regime, ala the Rumsfeld handshake, but I scored it more of a draw. Although, Hitchens does deserve style points for being able to deliver complete sentences in debates (not so much this one, but I've seen other interviews where Hitchens' speech is pronouncedly slurred) while apparently blotto. He still justifies the Iraq war for the very reasons he once opposed the Vietnam version (Galloway did effectively crush him on that front), yet because he's able to rattle off witty rejoinders while slurring Hitchens often gets graded on a curve.

 

Forgot: also, anyone who stands before the Vatican to denounce Mother Theresa during her sainthood process can't be all bad.

 

Tell that to the people in the audience who regularly booed him.

 

I agree completely with you Ottomaton. Giddyup, the only reason the audience booed him was, if I recall, he continuously provoked them when they began to boo, so they increased it as the debate went on. I think Galloway has great oratory skills but he's not very substantive at all and as Ottomaton said, most of his speeches appeal to emotion and imagery. Hitchens on the other hand, while I absolutely disagree with his stance, is INCREDIBLY substantive, calm, and collected. I think he obliterated Galloway in that debate based on substance alone, but to some it may seem Galloway won as he was basically just shouting over Hitchens and using his far superior speaking skills and charisma. Also, like I said, it's difficult to attack Hitchens, because you can't really get a grasp on his views. I haven't read much of his stuff, but from what I understand, he's a former leftist turned neocon, yet at the same time he distances himself from this administration...?

I don't agree with him the least bit, don't know exactly where he stands, but I definitely respect him as an intellectual.

As far as Galloway, he's just a motivational speaker to get a crowd riled up.

 

I just re-read what I wrote and it sounds like I am endorsing Hitchens' views. This is not the case at all.

Here is a link to a page at NPR where you can listen to a brief interview/bio on Hitchens.

He sort of comes across like drunken lively William F. Buckley.

 

Excellent comparison.

That reminds me of this video (loads at bottom of page), in which Buckley defended police brutality at the '68 DNC against Gore Vidal, and the debate soon devolved into threats of violence and insults of "crypto-Nazi" and "queer." Hilarious.

What's interesting, to me, is that Hitchens doesn't need Galloway to debate. Sort of like the Daily show Bush vs. Bush clips, the Hitchens of 6-10 years ago is a perfect stand in for Vidal in this debate, and you're right, the Hitchens of today is a Buckley surrogate (although, famously, even the actual Buckley came out a few months back and decried the Iraq fiasco: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.")

What amazes me is Hitchens' complete 180. 9-11 can't explain all of it. The same thing happened to Dennis Miller, though no one has ever accused him of having Hitchens' intellect. The only thing that comes close in life-altering reversals is George Foreman, and at least he had a lifetime of blows to the head to effect that change.