| | Alec,
Thanks for sharing this. Given the two participants, it was interesting to watch. However, a substantive discussion of ideas was lacking throughout much of the debate due to the fact that it descended into ad hominem at nearly every turn. Both Hitchens and Galloway were guilty of it.
Galloway revealed that he is a commie without a cause, and that if he is among the very best that the organized anti-war movement can put forward, that movement shouldn't be expected to affect change anytime soon. On the other hand, Hitchens runs into problems by not providing an addequate defense of Western civilization per se as the framework for his world view. Also, his rhetoric still attempts to validate many repugnant Leftist and Trotskyite ideas.
|
|
