Hitchens to Debate Galloway
It’s been in the makings for quite some time, but liberal hawk Christopher Hitchens is set to debate anti-war loon George Galloway tomorrow. Hitchen’s take on the event can be found here. Behold, a sample:
Can I convey the deep sense of delight that stole over me when I learned that George Galloway and Jane Fonda were to go on an “anti-war” tour together and that the idea of this perfect partnership had come from Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues?
The pure silliness and risibility of the thing would have been quite beyond one’s power of invention. And, oh, just to be present when they finally meet. Jane can shyly tell George, who yells daily about the rape of Jerusalem by Zionism, of the brave days in 1982 when she and Tom Hayden went to entertain Gen. Sharon’s invading troops in Lebanon. He can huskily and modestly discuss (he says he’s a great admirer of her role in Barefoot in the Park) his long record as one of Britain’s leading pro-life politicians, and his more recent outrage at the judicial “murder” of Terri Schiavo.
That’s just it, Casey: whoever is in charge of a country DOES have to rationalize these deals with the devil.
Whereas the peanut gallery is free to pick and choose whatever is their view of the morally cleanest foreign policy. So why let Galloway, a member of said peanut gallery, off for choosing the morally dirtiest? It makes no sense.
(Also, regarding the peanut gallery: Not that you or I will ever be President, but I guarantee you’d ditch the Pat Buchanan school about 5 hours after your inauguration. What would Pat Buchanan do at Yalta? And if it’s really “America first baby!”, and the best thing for America at a given time is a temporary alliance with a murderous despot, why are we arguing?)
Hey, rationalize it anyway you want. Personally, I don’t see how you can draw a distinction between the Sauds and Sadamn (who Rummy held hands with not too long ago) other than the Sauds have more shit we collectivley want. Then again I’m from the Pat Buchanan school of foreign policy. America first baby!
Casey, however galling the tighty-tight relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Royals may be, as a general matter it is a diplomatic impossibility for the United States to be tough on every repressive regime at once. Reality dictates that the enemy of your enemy must sometimes be your friend.
Galloway, however, is not the leader of a nation; it is not necessary for him to make nice with the occasional maniac. Rather, he seems to take a perverse thrill in cozying up to whoever happens to be worst at the time: the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, Syria, Hezbollah, al-Zarqawi . . . unfailingly, he favors repression over freedom. An odd, dare I say, looney position for a democratic politician to take.
Yes, because sucking up to the Saudis is exactly the same as telling Saddam: “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.”
Sucking up to the Saudis is, at least, the traditional passtime of all world-leaders.
I don’t think Galloway is the only politician supporting repressive regimes. Who was that guy that W was holding hands with in Crawford again?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html
Charlie In The Trees!
Perhaps it’s only a matter of time before Jane is doing photo ops with insurgents’ rocket launchers– didn’t she promise not to concern herself with matters like these when she begged the American public’s forgiveness for laying about on VietCong tanks back in her glory days?
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to call someone who supports the Assad family a loon. You’d have to be crazy to think that such an incredibly repressive regime is good for the Syrian people and world community as a whole. Well, either that or a financial beneficiary.
Dan: according to Urban Dictionary it’s a “senseless fucker tryin to diss ya out.
Casey: Galloway is a loon and worse. (When I say “loon” I mean that he is a proponent of political ideologies I find repugnant. I don’t mean, for instance, that he would be mentally incompetent to stand trial.) From an American standpoint, it’s easy to find him voguish and titillating – after all, he’s anti-Bush, right? – but I think this would be a serious error for reasonable Americans to make. Here are a few pointers.
It’s an over-used saying, but I really think it holds for Gorgeous George: he’s not anti-war, he’s just on the other side.
Well, Casey, if only all Galloway had to say was “Iraq was a bad idea.” That I can get with, but that’s not the looney bits, is it?
Galloway is no more a “loon” than Hitchens is. Say what you want about Galloway, but so far, nothing that has happened in Iraq has proved wrong his opinion that it was a bad idea. I don’t think Hitch could say the same.
Before this round begins, could Olly please help us ‘Merkuns to understand what “popinjay” means?