Watch Hitchens and Galloway
I generally think that allusive references to Hitler in order to demonize one's ideological opponents is an over-used and usually unthinking tactic. However, having seen Galloway in action in the past, I must say that Strassel's observation seems pretty appropriate to me.But this was no debate. A debate, by definition, requires two people to defend their convictions. Mr. Galloway has no obvious convictions, or at least none that are defensible. This is a man who is antiwar, yet supports those who fight war against us. He accuses America of supporting dictators, yet in July traveled to Syria to praise its tyrant, Bashar al-Assad. He claims to have known that Saddam massacred his own people in 1988, yet went to Baghdad six years later to "salute" the monster for his "courage" and "strength."
Nor is Mr. Galloway in any way a debater. His talent--if that's what you'd call it--is in whipping mindless crowds into furious hysteria over perceived bogeymen. There are historical precedents here, and let's just say that as the waves of Galloway outrage and anger ripped across the auditorium I half-expected his acolytes to break into a "Heil!" or two.
5 Comments:
George Galloway is, without a doubt, the most dangerous man in the Western world. His enabling of world terrorism is akin to the speeches of Lord Haw Haw during the Second World War.
Pity that the UK does not have the death penalty. Galloway would then be arrested, convicted of treason, and hanged like the scumbag that he is.
Galloway's chutzpah just takes the breath away. Anyone who can say and do the things he does is sociopathic. As it is he is a narcissistic egomaniac. Hitchens' rational, coherent analytical superiority demonstrated just what a lowlife GG truly is. Hope the meeting that Hanoi Jane will attend is also broadcast. Another mistake she'll be apologizing for.
Has anyone else seen the article in today's Drudge report of Tony Blair's shock at the hateful BBC coverage of Katrina? It's in today's FT. I hope this is taken up by Biased BBC and made a fuss over.
It's also on the BBC website, although at only 46min long (vs nearly 2hours), they have cut out some stuff. This includes the introductions and I guess some of the crowd interuptions. If so I think this is a pity because part of what Gallagher is, is the crowd he attracts.
Sorry people but don't you think it's time to get real on this one. Galloway is long term socialist scum from way back and Hitchens is more of the same. In true socialist fashion they're both happy to hitch their wagon to any cause if it furthers their ends. Just because in this case Bush serves Hitchen's purpose doesn't mean Hitchen's become a born again republican. Listen to the debate as in true lefty fashion it degenerates into trading invective. A lot of Galloway's taunts re Hitchen's past allegencies are spot on. Remember that the left has supported some of the nastiest regimes the world has produced including Hitler until he bit the hand that fed him, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and murderers like the PLA IRA and any other combination from the alphabet you care to name. Just because Hitchen's backs the war doesn't mean he wants to see capitalist libertarian democracy throughout the world. He still wants a socialist 'utopia' ruled by his fellow 'Hitchenses' but unlike Galloway doesn't see Muslim nutters as a way to achieve it.
The best historic parrallel for Galloway is probably Oswald Mosely who similarly exploited the east end voters for his own ends. It is said that he was ultimatley brought down by PG Wodehouse lampooning him as Roderick Spode. Ridicule is probably the best weapon. Perhaps a spoof weekly diary from an anti war MP in one of the nationals?
Post a Comment
<< Home