September 15, 2005
The Swamp Thing
Browning Porter explains in the comments why a debate between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens needed to happen.
Some of our dovish comrades are having trouble understanding the value of last nights debate. So let me explain.All true. But it’s not good enough for someone like Hitchens to publicly spank George Galloway. Left-liberals who oppose the war in Iraq need to step up and take a few cracks at him, too.There is a large element of the antiwar Left that is willing to overlook Galloway's shortcomings as a Leftist and as a human being and to make common cause with him. Don't tell me there isn't. I heard with my own ears, and read with my own eyes, all the chattering admiration for him after his congressional testimony. It's comes from the same impulse that is willing to give the demegoguery of Michael Moore every benefit of every doubt. Galloway is currently on a book tour through the US, organized by the antiwar Left, to capitalize on his "success" before congress. He is also, without apology, whipping up support for jihad in Iraq. Someone needs to expose him, especially to the Left, as the fascist-fellating fraud that he is. And that exposure has to come, to some extent, from the Left. It means nothing if Limbaugh or O'Reilley have a go at him.
Hitchens is the perfect man for the job. He's intelligent, witty, and he is not intimidated by the likes of Galloway. In every debate on the Iraq war I've heard him in, it has seemed in the show-of-hands straw polls that more people have left agreeing with him than came in.
Those of you who abhor an apostate have much to hate in Hitchens. And we can count on you to fling all manner of feces at him. (I'm taking odds back channel on how long before someone accuses him of holocaust denial, or ratting out his buddy, Sidney.) But those who can be persuaded at all by a reasonable argument may just barely be reachable by Hitchens.
For example, where Galloway has been visiting with Tariq Aziz, Hitchens has been visiting with the Kurdish resistance, and that is a hard fact for someone with any moral center at all to overlook. Hitchens has also been very critical of the Right and the Bush administration on all the right issues. You can't simply smear him, as Galloway tried to do last night, with something Marie Antoinettish that Barbara Bush apparently said about the Superdome. It won't stick.
Marc Cooper is the man for that job, and he does a fine job indeed working over the Swamp Thing from Scotland. Go read it.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at September 15, 2005 04:37 PMDidn't Wolcott call Galloway a "hero" not long ago?
Posted by: Allah at September 15, 2005 04:43 PMWhat a great fuss is being made over this. But I suppose it's mentally more comfortable than dwelling on Iraq.
Seriously. Who cares? And why?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 15, 2005 05:00 PMActually, I think Hitchens and Galloway deserve each other. Neither one holds a candle for the truth, both are drama queens, and both are sexist pigs. Considering what has happened the past three weeks on the Gulf Coast, what those two are debating just isn't that important anymore.
Posted by: Steve Smith at September 15, 2005 05:15 PMGreg Palast does a good job, too. I think its important to reiterate that Galloway is not only an apologist for Fascist murderers, he's openly pro-war. He's no pacifist. For a man who calles himself a Leftist, he sounds more like a far-right Fascist. Galloway is not friend of the Left, and the Left must stand up and say so.
Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 15, 2005 05:29 PMGalloway is not friend of the Left, and the Left must stand up and say so.
Why? And the "Left" doesn't have a consistent homogenous voice to do so. Galloway is entertainment, and is being marketed as so ("Step right up. Politician with a spine. Bring the kids"). Putting him up against Hitchens probably makes him look even better to his supporters, and Hitchins to his. May they take the act on the road and both make tons of money. But if you have serious concerns about Galloway, then just stop talking about him. He will vanish with a soft pop and a cloud of smoke.
I don't have much tolerence for defenders of the Soviet Union, unless they're charismatic relatives. But I also have zero tolerance for Trotskyists either, whether prefixed with "ex-" or not. I mean, come on, who cheers for the runner-up in a power struggle between meglomaniacs?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 15, 2005 05:38 PMNeither one holds a candle for the truth, both are drama queens, and both are sexist pigs.
Usually that kind of comment would come from a woman. Odd. And strictly speaking, "drama queen" is itself a sexist thing to call somebody.
Posted by: Carlos at September 15, 2005 05:49 PMYikes! If I'd known you were going to read my comment out loud to the whole class, I'd have written it better. "Fascist-fellating fraud?" You think you used enough alliteration there, Butch?
But, dpu, this is about Iraq. That's what we're talking about here. (And Katrina also, by the way, and the relationship between the two.) That's what Galloway's tour of the US is about. That's why elements of the Left are sponsoring him, and turning out in droves to cheer him on. If the press hadn't made a big deal about his demagoguery before Congress, and if a lot of folks on the left hadn't applauded him afterwards -- loud and long -- (dammit! stop it!) -- we wouldn't need to discuss him at all. But much of the the left has practically made him a folk hero. All those who don't wish to claim him, good for you. We have no argument.
Posted by: Browning Porter at September 15, 2005 06:27 PMThe key about the Left is an acceptance that being anti-Bush means taking sides. Michael, you are fast to try to paint Pat Robertson remarks onto all pro-Christians. (Father Sirico of Acton has a good reply.) It's always a problem with 3rd kind "friends -- enemies of my enemy."
The immediate issue is that too many Leftists think Bush is their enemy. A significant underlying feeling is the idea that "America" is an enemy.
Galloway is a "hero" for standing up, like David, against the American Goliath. Like Saddam, like Castro, like Chavez; like Che "did", a bit (see T-shirts).
The myth that the weak are morally superior because they are weaker. But they're not always.
Posted by: Tom Grey at September 15, 2005 06:27 PMTom: Michael, you are fast to try to paint Pat Robertson remarks onto all pro-Christians.
No, I don't. You just think I do. You are responsible if you feel defensive about him, not me.
Same goes with any leftists who feel defensive when someone goes after George Galloway.
Everyone who doesn't like those cretins is welcome to happily agree with me and argue with me about something else.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 15, 2005 06:36 PMTom Grey: "The myth that the weak are morally superior because they are weaker. But they're not always."
Now THERE's some excellent food for thought. I'm gonna chew on that one for awhile...
Posted by: Caroline at September 15, 2005 06:39 PMThe myth that the weak are morally superior because they are weaker. But they're not always.
Tom,
You've just destroyed the only standard by which Libs know how to make a moral value judgment. To them, the weak are always morally superior, the strong always morally inferior, i.e., America always wrong, the palestinians always right, etc., you get the picture.
Might doesn't make right, but neither does it make wrong.
Posted by: Carlos at September 15, 2005 07:15 PMSwamp Thing from Scotland
Why highlight the fact he is Scotland, Michael?
What's the relevance?
Are both sides just swapping silly insults now?
Don't get sucked into the silly abuse, Michael.
There are better things to do with your time.
Posted by: Benjamin at September 15, 2005 07:37 PMBenjamin: Why highlight the fact he is Scotland, Michael?
No reason. "Swamp Thing from Scotland" just sounded better than "Swamp Thing."
It was not a jab at Scotland. If you're from Scotland, relax!
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 15, 2005 07:58 PMWhat a great fuss is being made over this. But I suppose it's mentally more comfortable than dwelling on Iraq
Here's an Iraq-related comment:Why do you think this fairly large group of leftists were cheering?
This realisation led me to conclude, as their bout hit the two-hour mark, that I was a) bored and b) nauseated. Bored, because if last night was anything to go by, there is little purpose in such arguments. Nauseated, because there is something gut-wrenchingly repulsive about a group of effete Manhattan leftists sitting in an air-conditioned lecture hall on Lexington Avenue cheering the brigands who, that very same morning, blew up more than hundred Iraqi labourers for the crime of trying to find a job.
Posted by: mary at September 15, 2005 08:44 PM
I have quite a lot of Scottish ancestry, Michael!
Careful, now :-)
Posted by: Benjamin at September 15, 2005 08:57 PMBenjamin: I have quite a lot of Scottish ancestry, Michael!
My ancestors oppressed yours! Hoo-ah!
(I jest, I jest. My wife is half Scottish. As she likes to say, "If it's not Sco-ish, it's CRAP!)
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 15, 2005 10:02 PMMy ancestors oppressed yours! Hoo-ah!
So you use that retort too :)
Posted by: Nathan at September 15, 2005 10:38 PMI can't believe how disgusted I am with Galloway, it was painful to listen to this guy. The study that published by John Hopkins concluded 100,000 had a margin or error of 92,000
From slate quoting the study:
We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.
Sigh, I could go on. I like reading this blog and other blogs because even when people disagree with my viewpoint, they have the ability to think critically and are willing to listen to mine and argue it on its merits or lack thereof. Many anti war and pro war people in my circle of friends absolutely cannot see the world outside their own mythology.
Well, quite a few of my Scottish ancestors then went to South Africa where they no doubt oppressed quite a few people. But that's another story...
Posted by: Benjamin at September 15, 2005 11:20 PMNathan: So you use that retort too :)
Who did yours oppress?
I very rarely use that retort, actually. Some people would not find it funny at all. I figured Benjamin would, and he did seem to take it alright.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 16, 2005 12:28 AMIt's great. Very dry. Got to use it sometime.
Posted by: Benjamin at September 16, 2005 02:16 AMBroadly speaking, there are six logically consistent principles a person can take regarding the Iraq War and Occupation:
- Support the Aggressors (in this case, the United States)
- Support the Defenders (in this case, Ba'athist Iraq).
- Oppose the Aggressors.
- Oppose the Defenders.
- Support neither.
- Oppose neither.
Cases 1 and 4 could be labeled the "Strong Anti-Fascist" and "Weak Anti-Fascist" Principles. Cases 2 and 3 likewise could be called the "Strong Anti-Imperialist" and "Weak Anti-Imperialist" Principles. (See, I'm trying to be spin-neutral here.)
Cases 5 and 6 could be called Spineless and Clueless, respectively.
What is bracing about Galloway is he makes no bones about understanding the consequences of his stands. He's "Strong Anti-Imperialist" all the way. (Never mind that makes him effectively "Strong Pro-Fascist"; he's chosen a side and by Stalin he's going to stick with it.)
Likewise, Hitchens has made peace with a lot of people he'd otherwise rather not, because on the One Big Thing (anti-Fascism) his strange bedfellows are on the side of the angels.
What is perpetually frustrating about the "Weak Anti-Imperialist" argument is the deafening quiet surrounding consequences of arguing from that position. Few want to discuss the consequences of leaving the Ba'athists in power. And when they do (paradoxically) the only argument put forward is that the Ba'athists were no real threat to the Imperial power. You'd think the people opposed to overbearing America might feel some sympathy for non-Americans in general, not just when America is flexing her muscles.
And of course the Weak Anti-Fascists are just weak in the traditional sense; hey, yeah, fascists are bad, but what are you going to do about it, eh?
So yes, the argument between two Strongly Principled opponents is interesting, and it is significant, because in it we can see just what each side believes is important. And the people who'd blow the argument off as tiresome, or irrelevant, or boring, or uncivilized, are simply trying to change the subject to something the Weak can deal with more comfortably.
Let the Chickenhawk accusations begin.
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 07:57 AMThere's so much silliness here that I don't even really know where to begin, but...
"The Left", whatever that is, doesn't stand up and say "we don't like Galloway" for the same reason that we don't stand up and say "we don't like that crazy man on the street corner who's shouting that Bush put brain-control transmitters in his fillings. To the average person, these people are utterly and totally relevant. Yes, there are supporters of Galloway, and I think they're nuts - but in my day-to-day thinking, Galloway simply doesn't factor in, because there are real things to worry about - say, like the people who are actually in power and have the ability shape events by their decisions. The only way the nutjobs get an audience is if we give it to them. Nobody would have ever given a flying fuck about Ward Churchill, except for some bored college kids, if Republicans hadn't given him a vast audience.
Moving on...
Carlos, Tom just destroyed the only standard by which Libs know how to make a moral value judgment? I had no idea that my one remaining standard could be destroyed like that! Think of all the countless debates that have taken place between Left and Right, with no resolution, and just like that, poof! It's gone! Or, not. Nice try though. Strawmen, strawmen, everywhere I look.
Speaking of strawmen...all this crap about "weak anti-Imperialism" and what not...no, sorry, that's garbage.
Let's pretend, for a moment. I, personally, dislike the government of Uzbekistan. I mean, I really do. It's nasty. So let's pretend that one day, my neighbor decides that he also hates the government of Uzbekistan, and that he's going to get a plane ticket, find the leaders of Uzbekistan, and take them out in a round of fisticuffs.
No, dear neighbor! I declare. You'll just get yourself killed, failing to achieve any good!
Does this make me anti-Imperialist? Does this mean I like the government of Uzbekistan? That I'd make out with its brutal and repressive dictator if I got a chance? That I am objectively pro-massacre, that I'm working for the other side, that I hate my neighbor and want him to fail?
Of course not, and to argue otherwise is...what's that word? Ah, yes, it's assinine.
I have no doubt that there are actual, real live Americans who hate America and want us to fail. I believe they can be found on the fringes of both the Left and the Right. The key here is: fringes. They are irrelevant, despite the heated and frantic bloviations of our pundits that DOOM WILL BEFALL US BECAUSE SOME GUY HAS A WEBSITE AND SAYS BAD THINGS ABOUT AMERICA.
However, I believe that the vast amount of disagreement over Iraq is similar to what I just described about Uzbekistan and my neigbor. Two people can agree about Saddam being bad - and actually have differing opinions about what the best response to this might be. I am of the opinion that invading Iraq was not a very good way of achieving goals that pro-war folks probably agree with.
So a person can be both "anti-Saddam" and "anti-war" in the same way that I am both anti-Uzbek dictatorship and anti-my neighbor going over there and getting shot.
Comprende?
I'm not sure whether you people really believe this bullshit - that people who are critical of the war and its execution are really America-hating Saddamophiles, or if you're simply being opportunistic lying assholes - but either way, get over it, because it makes you look like jackasses, and if you ever actually did it in public (instead of in the safety of the internets) - if you actually went up to a real-live American who didn't like the war because it's a bad idea (and not because they heart Sadda), you'd get a fat lip for your troubles, because in America, we don't take too kindly to having our dedication to freedom and democracy and goodness questioned by ill-informed, smug assholes.
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 08:38 AMYou rightfully point out that Galloway is a repulsive toad, and from that basis(and a comment in the wilderness from Marc Cooper), conclude that his 'popularity' is a chimera. After all, as DPU blithely says " if you have serious concerns about Galloway, then just stop talking about him. He will vanish with a soft pop and a cloud of smoke."
No way that this cyrpto-fascist can 'represent' the engaged component of the political 'left'. It's inconceivable. He's merely an illusion, and a straw-man useful as a tool for the forces of darkness to abuse the 'left'.
Yeah, right.
It's not PC to agree with Galloway. Just not the thing that 'decent' people do. Not PUBLICALLY. But the LUNATIC CORE of the anti-war left can be found saying pretty much NOTHING about this cretinous demagogue,. That's not an accident.
What Galloway says out loud is what the majority believe in their secret selves. I can understand why the 'intellectuals' want to get as far away as possible from George. Unhappily, the greater unwashed are quite content to siddle on up and say hello, or at the very least to nod understandingly as Galloway twists reality onto its point little head. He didn't get elected by accident. He knows his target audience quite well indeed.
Why do you think this fairly large group of leftists were cheering?--Mary
Ummm--- shall we look behind door #1, and just go for the simplest possible answer rather than twist ourselves into pretzels trying to ignore the obvious?
Posted by: dougf at September 16, 2005 08:51 AMHonestly, why do you feel the need to abrogate reason?
This is something I see repeatedly. You dislike the war? Then the only possible explanation is that you hate America.
Current evolutionary theory can't explain everything? Then the only possible explanation is that God created it all.
Is this intellectual laziness? Arrogance? What?
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 09:19 AMI also love the reasoning behind this part:
"But the LUNATIC CORE of the anti-war left can be found saying pretty much NOTHING about this cretinous demagogue,. That's not an accident."
Doug, you can be found saying pretty much NOTHING about a case of genital herpes you may or may not have. That's not an accident. OR IS IT????!?
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 09:23 AMMight doesn't make right, but neither does it make wrong.
Posted by Carlos at September 15, 2005 07:15 PM
So this explains your hatred of non-Whites.
And the smell of a filthy rich person's butt on your lips.
Posted by: NeoDude at September 16, 2005 09:38 AMCommenter potty-mouths some more about anti-war and anti-Saddam, but that's only true before April 2003. (At least Pat R., who IS anti-war, says it doesn't matter what 'they' do over there, it's not our business. And he puts out the idea that assassination is better than war, something I disagree with but it's not been honestly discussed. ) The issue now is stay until democracy is stable in Iraq, or get out sooner and accept civil war or whatever. (WITH world blame)
We've seen what leaving looks like: Vietnam. Anti-war folk wanted the US out; after their policy was followed, genocide.
The issue is not merely intentions, it is results of following policy. The anti-US folk thought "anything" was better than US control/ support for a slow S. Vietnamese nation building. Galloway today supports death squad govt. He should be a sick, sad joke, but he's not. Why? Because he's against the US, and everybody who stands up against the US gets credit from the Left.
The US is #1 -- the most powerful nation on earth. But it can't do everything; and mostly doesn't want to do much except make money, peacefully and voluntarily.
The Financial Times had an article: The World Needs a Powerful but Humble America.
Humans like it when the proud and mighty fail.
[I'll check later on my "Robertson rants=all pro-Christians" accusation; of course it should be most, not all. I'm more defensive about Christianity than about Pat.]
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 16, 2005 09:39 AMMark Poling,
No Chicken Hawk, is to dignified for you...you are a wimp and a coward.
You wouldn't even sacrifice your life for your nation, even if the threats you are paranoid about were real.
Posted by: NeoDude at September 16, 2005 09:41 AMCommenter, I would call you a "Weak Anti-Fascist" but I would never call you assinine.
Overly excitble, maybe.
In my analysis above, I think there's only one group solidly behind the Iraq War and Occupation, and that's the group I called "Strong Anti-Fascist." From there it goes from worried disapproval to rootin' for the synchronized slayers of infidels and collaborators™.
And of course, the camps are nowhere near equally populated. The freaks pulling for the guys in exploding underwear are just that; statistical freaks. I include them only for completeness, and because we were, in fact, discussing Curious George. (And I don't mean curious in a good way.)
I obviously believe that certain courses of action will lead to good outcomes. You don't share my beliefs. Fine. That doesn't make you a bad American, but I will tweak you because I think you're wrong, and attempt, when couter arguments are made, to show where those arguments don't make sense. I expect the same in return.
But dude, you're posts complain that us Chickenhawks are calling you bad things, and then you call us bad things. That's not how it's done in intellectually rigorous society.
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 09:59 AMActually, Tom, I support a time-table withdrawal because I think that our military occupation - perpetual until the establishment of a stable democracy? - undermines the chances of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq.
But that's neither here nor now. What I object to, again, is the notion that there is a "Left" which supports Galloway at all, much less because he is anti-US.
Am I part of the Left? DPU? Anyone else? Raise your hands if you support Galloway. No one? What do you know! But be careful, psychics like Doug can read our thoughts and know when we're lying, even if we haven't said anything at all. He just knows.
But, again, who supports Galloway? What is the Left? Answer those, and we'll talk.
Again, people can have a serious disagreement about the appropriate use of American power - invasion, not invasion, whatever - and not be anti-American. I am enormously skeptical of the notion that American export democracy though violent invasion and occupation. I'd still like to see democracy exported - just not through violent invasion and occupation. I think this hurts American interests and whoever we're trying to help. Apparently, according to your thinking, this means I oppose America. Go figure.
Why isn't Galloway a sick, sad joke who is ignored by everyone? Because you people keep opening your mouths: why haven't you criticized Galloway yet, you America hater? Oh, you did already? Well, we all know that you're only criticizing him because it's the political thing to do, but I know in your heart you hate America! Blah blah blah.
And again, you conflate anti-Vietnam War protestors with anti-US protestors. Um, considering that the war killed over a million Vietnamese and thousands of Americans, one could make the argument that anti-war protestors thought that ending the war would be a good thing and, this is important, incorrectly forecasted the future. I know, I know, for psychics like you and Doug, that's easy, but for the rest of us, sometimes people are wrong. They saw what they thought was a bad thing, they tried to stop it, and another bad thing happened. As far as I can tell, there really wasn't going to be a good outcome from that.
But seriously...you dislike them because they were trying to stop something you said you don't like (the genocide in Vietnam). Well, lots of people were dying during the war and lots of people died after the war. Maybe they thought the killing would stop. Maybe they tought that if killing would occur, it wasn't a good idea for America to be responsible, or involved and bleeding. Maybe maybe maybe, but you know, right? Because you can read my heart and know it's filled with murderous rage. Yep, I hate America, which is why I work for the government and am getting a master's in security studies so I can better protect it. Yep...
Hell damn ass. There, I got my pottymouth quota in.
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 10:04 AMNeoDude, thank you. Always good to have an example of the Idiot Left around to hold up to Commenter as a counter-example to the argument that lefty cretins are statistical outliers unfairly highlighted by right-wing deathbeasts.
By the way, what's YOUR name, little girl?
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 10:09 AMMark,
I still believe that your categories are false, and insulting, and assinine.
Imagine, if you will, the following scenario: there are some fascists in control of Robonia. You say "I support invading Robonia, because I am a strong anti-fascist, and want to overthrow that government". I say "I support pressing this magical button, which will make all the fascists in Robonia dissapear, because I also hate them."
Is your response to accuse me of being a weak anti-fascist, because I oppose invasion? Obviously, there is no magical button - but you and I might disagree about whether invasion or another option is the best at opposing fascism.
In other words, your implicit assumption is that invasion is always the best option. I assume that invasion is rarely the best option. That's fine - disagreeing about policy options is like breathing. But disagreeing about options doesn't make somebody strong or weak or good or bad or nice or mean or fat or skinny or pro-American or anti-America.
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 10:12 AMMark Polling (search for his comment above -- the 6-point analysis) wins the prize for clearest construction of a framework of analysis of the political game.
-t
Posted by: Tom Lord at September 16, 2005 10:13 AMNeodude,
Knee-jerk personal attacks will get you banned around here, especially since you aren't contributed anything intelligent to the conversation anyway.
So knock it off or go away.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 16, 2005 10:14 AMNo, my assumption isn't that invasion is always the best option, it's that invasion is sometimes the best option. I believed at the time and still believe that invading Iraq was the best course of action to stem the tide of Islamofascism. Historians may conclude twenty years from now that those who share my belief were out of our frickin' minds.
At the time of the invasion, there was no place on the planet where potential positive outcomes of invasion were better (and still are better, in my opinion) and negative consequences more minimal. (Another generation of Husseins would not have been a wonderful thing for Iraq.)
CommenterI assume that invasion is rarely the best option.
I think that's exactly what I meant. Not referring to emotional strength, but in the belief in the potential positive use of strength itself. I was playing off the concept of "strong" and "weak" anthropic principals, and of course having a little fun with spin. Because it's been a looooooong week in Amsterdam, and Kuwait is again on the horizon...
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 10:25 AMLet's look at your categories again:
Support the Aggressors (in this case, the United States)
Support the Defenders (in this case, Ba'athist Iraq).
Oppose the Aggressors.
Oppose the Defenders.
Support neither.
Oppose neither.
Dictionary.com defines "oppose" as:
To be in contention or conflict with: oppose the enemy force.
To be resistant to: opposes new ideas.
To place opposite in contrast or counterbalance.
To place so as to be opposite something else.
I am not in contention or conflict with American troops; I am not resistent to America; I am not opposite, in contrast to, or in counterbalance of America.
I am in opposition to the policies of a number of people in the government of the US. In what way does that mean I oppose the aggressors, that is, America and its armed forces?
And yes, the categorization of people who oppose the war as being weakly anti-fascist implies that their opposition to fascism is not as good, strong, pure, whatever, as yours is, because invasion is best. Fine, you believe it's the best option - someone else might hate fascism a million times more than you, but think there is a better way of destroying fascism than invasion. Are they "weak" on fascism? Or are they "weak" on invasion?
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 10:36 AMAs a kilt-owning Glaswegian, born and bred, I'd like to quote the fine Scottish film Trainspotting:
Tommy: Doesn't it make you proud to be Scottish?
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: It's SHITE being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched miserable servile pathetic trash that was ever shat on civilization. Some people hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to get colonized by. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a shite state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and all the fresh air in the world won't make any fucking difference!And to those who say that the left must come out and condemn Galloway, I have to ask yet again "Why bother?" If people like Ward Churchill and Galloway did not exist, it wouldn't make a whit of difference, as a significant portion of the right simply believe that this is what leftists and liberals believe in their heart of hearts anyway. And, as many of the more knee-jerk comments above should display, there's not a great deal of thought going into the logic behind the anti-war == pro-fascist label.
We're all Galloways in their eyes, and I'm not interested in trying to redeem my image in the minds of unthinking assholes. Next topic, please.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 10:36 AMOh, good heavens - some principled liberals are washing their hands of a highly visible politician that seemingly holds the same views they do, but pushes it to perverse levels. If David Duke went on a national speaking tour calling for Affirmative Action's ban (I believe he did), I would expect the likes of the Wall St. Journal editors to make clear that they disassociate themselves from him, that their means and ends are entirely different. WHat's so hard to understand here?
Posted by: tsmonk at September 16, 2005 10:41 AMGalloway wiped the floor with Hitchens.
I got the impression he was the more intelligent, honest and passionate of the two.
And I like his accent...
Hitchens reeked of contempt for the audience, imagined intellectual superiority (a maladie very often affecting leftist types) and several times confusion. Hitchens made a disgonest impression on me.
Game, set and match for Galloway.
Posted by: Tatter at September 16, 2005 10:48 AMCommenter, I obviously believe my analysis is superior, or I wouldn't be defending it. You may be right; I simply don't think you are.
And of course I started out with "broadly speaking" because I was, in fact, speaking broadly.
For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with being anti-Imperialist. Damned healthy thing to be actually, and I think that's a strong thread running in your opposition to "to the policies of a number of people in the government of the US".
In other words, I think it is possible to be both "weakly" anti-Fascist and "weakly" anti-Imperialist and neither stance makes you a bad American; the few times America tried the traditional empire schtick it didn't work out so good, and I certainly wouldn't be keen on seeing us take another stab at it.
(BTW, since we're not doing this over beers I must apologise for taking the liberty of hanging any label on you at all.)
But fine, you don't like "strong" and "weak"? We could do "militant" and "consensual" instead. Those terms marginalise the ends of the spectrum and elevate the middle. At some point we get into "sticks and stones" territory, though....
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 11:02 AMBut Mark, you're still doing it - saying that those who didn't think invasion was a good idea are "consensual" - what, consenting to fascism?
In other words: I object to the automatic assumption that a person who thinks that the best way of dealing with the problems posed by Iraq was not invasion is, in some way, weakly anti-fascist or consenting to fascism. That is, the assumption is that if people have not chosen your option, then they just don't hate fascism quite as much as you do. Nothing wrong with that, freedom of choice and all...I just disagree with your choice to love Saddam Hussein, you know.
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 11:11 AMHA! "Galloway wiped the floor with hitchens"
Tatter, I did not attend the event but I am certain that a large portion of the audience deserved contempt. Your comment was the first time I have ever read or heard anyone claim that Galloway is honest. In your case I suspect that the intellectual superiority may have nothing to do with the imagination.
Posted by: Mike#3or4 at September 16, 2005 11:21 AM"Consensual" in terms of seeking a consensus. Being both "consensually" anti-fascist and "consensually" anti-imperialist is a good thing, right?
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 11:33 AMHonestly, you make less and less sense to me...what does "seeking a consensus" have to do with how strongly or weakly someone opposes fascism?
Posted by: The Commenter at September 16, 2005 11:44 AMCommentator
This is something I see repeatedly. You dislike the war? Then the only possible explanation is that you hate America.
You may have heard from time to time, but that is not the context of this discussion. Totten pointed out that this person is actively supporting the enemies of America. He is encouraging people to kill Americans. Therefore, he is an open enemy of America. Here is the kicker: He is engaged in a speaking tour of America. People on the left have spent time and money to bring this man to their communities. He is being supported by a section of the left--a section that is consequential enough to organize something like this and believes that it would further their cause. Presumably, this means convincing people of the rightness of his opinions. If those on the left who oppose him say nothing about how misguided he is, then some might be unnecessarily convinced that he is right.
This, not making stupid sweeping generalizations, is what Totten is doing
Therefore, this statement, like much of what you posted, is nothing more than a strawman.
Posted by: JBP at September 16, 2005 11:51 AMSo this explains your hatred of non-Whites. And the smell of a filthy rich person's butt on your lips.
Neodude,
it's truly an honor to be at the receiving end of your personal invective. I wouldn't say that about all Lefties by the way. But you, yes.
I'm curious though as to why it would be a race issue to you. Do you believe skin pigmentation (or money) and moral superiority/inferiority are related? I think you do, but I'd love to see it in your own words. Maybe I'm asking the wrong Leftie though as I've only seen you act the troll on this blog and never contribute a single intellectually honest idea.
Posted by: Carlos at September 16, 2005 11:53 AMHonestly, you make less and less sense to me...what does "seeking a consensus" have to do with how strongly or weakly someone opposes fascism?
I think it has something to do with the mechanics of how one goes about opposing fascism (or imperialism, for that matter, if we must deal in dualities).
To wit, I believe one of the arguments of the anti-War crowd is that the United States made war on Iraq without sufficient support of the the rest of the civilized world. In other words, they believed we needed more of consensus before we could legitimately act.
The deprecating mirror image of "might makes right" (anti-militant slur) would be "chatter makes right" (anti-consensualist slur) in this worldview.
But Commenter, we have crossed into sticks and stones territory, and truly passed anything like substance behind. If you don't like "weak" and "strong", "consensus" or "militant", fine; my point is that on either end of a spectrum (not the only spectrum, mind, but a joyfully conceded purely conceptual spectrum) are people who would take action in the face of danger (or opportunity), and in the middle are people who would rather kvetch. It's been a fine kvetch we've had, but I'm going out dancing now. Ciao.
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 16, 2005 12:08 PMSo let me get this straight. Sombunall loudmouth anti-war people (mostly Democrats or left side political folks) found a charismatic individual which fits with their current goal (pull out of Iraq, bash Bush, etc). Hrmmm, I thought that was called RealPolitik?
Wasn't the Bush Administration partners with some crazy dictator in "Third-Worldistan", because of "common cause" ie. regime change in Iraq? Is "Swamp Thing" more evil than someone who has actual blood on their hands (as opposed to being a well known loudmouth)?
Wasn't the US partners with Saddam, even after he used WMD's on his own people? Is he less reprehensibe than George?
I have always found the idea of realpolitik repulsive. I see it as a political buzzword that replaces and hides the more appropriate word, "hypocrisy".
Yet, I find most of the political world appears full of hypocrisy. Republicans spout small government and fiscal responsibility, yet in practice are neither shrinking the government in a meaningful fashion, or balancing the budget in any sort of manner. Democrats talk about being progressive and liberal, yet fail to support the idea of a progressive, liberal Iraq. Instead they seem to be supporting a bunch of conservatrive religious fanatics abroad, while fighting crazy conservative religious fanatics at home... while half the crazy religious fanatics rant about the evil crazy religious fanatics in Iraq and want rid of them... yet want more religion in politics at home.
Overall, I see no less moral justification for taking the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" on the part of the Left with Georgie, than I do for any of the other hypocritical bullshit that gets passed for Realpolitik and conservative and liberal politics in this country.
I don't support George (Galloway or Bush). I find realpolitiking of any sort to be morally disingenous and in fact, more closely allied with moral equavilancy than mosbunall of the statements that get tarred with that meme on this blog.
But what do I know?
Posted by: Ratatosk at September 16, 2005 12:17 PM
To wit, I believe one of the arguments of the anti-War crowd is that the United States made war on Iraq without sufficient support of the the rest of the civilized world. In other words, they believed we needed more of consensus before we could legitimately act.
Well, that sums up a part of my argument against the invasion (the other being that the real and worrying concern that the Bush administration would screw it up).
Can I ask a serious question? Do you (or other supporters of this war) see any benefits to seeking and achieving concensus when deciding to change a government by force? And what do you think was lost by not acheiving that concensus?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 12:21 PMCan I ask a serious question? Do you (or other supporters of this war) see any benefits to seeking and achieving concensus when deciding to change a government by force? And what do you think was lost by not achieving that concensus?--DPU
OK, where is the 'serious' question ?
While waiting for it I guess I can take a stab at this one.
A. Yes.
B. Moral support and much more importantly; MONEY,TROOPS,LOGISTICAL SUPPORT,LINGUISTIC SUPPORT,and oh yeah --- MONEY.
But --- so what ? In the best of all possible worlds, all Baathists and assorted Islamic EXTREMISTS would have magically turned a bright purple as soon as the first Coaltion forces entered Iraq. Now that would have been a momumental help.
When there is a functional World Body that actually cares about results in place, a question such as this might have some merit. In the current environment, it is like suggesting every one in your city should agree before you can call the police. Nice but hardly essential.
Posted by: dougf at September 16, 2005 12:55 PMdougf,
Actually, isn't it more like needing to get the whole city's approval before hunting down the guy who killed your friends and lynching him?
I mean, the police are put in place by the governing city officials... it's their job to respond and keep the peace. I don't recall any world officials giving the US a badge for world patrol.
I'm not saying that sometimes vigallante justice isn't appropriate, just trying to be honest about what we're doing.
;-)
Ratatosk
Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at September 16, 2005 01:19 PMWhen there is a functional World Body that actually cares about results in place, a question such as this might have some merit.
I see. And how do explain the concensus reached on Afghanistan and the Taliban?
In the current environment, it is like suggesting every one in your city should agree before you can call the police. Nice but hardly essential.
Given the ongoing catastrophy in Iraq, I think you should question your use of the phrase "hardly essential".
As far as your analogy goes, it isn't a matter of calling the police. It would be more going to a neighborhood association and proposing going over to a reputed wifebeater's house to kick the crap out of him. If practically everyone on your block thinks it's a bad idea, then you several things to consider: either (i) you aren't explaining yourself very well to them, or (ii) what you're proposing is a bad idea, or (iii) your neighbors are all fools or cowards, and you'll go ahead and do it yourself.
If you choose (iii), then you better be prepared to bear the consequences of your action yourself, and be prepared for a loss of neighbourhood leadership. A lot of the neighbors are going to be forming their own little cliques that don't include you, and you won't be invited to many barbeques. And the next time there's a bad guy down the block who kicks your dog, not a lot of neighbors are going to be there to help you out.
As a matter of fact, the whole neighborhood will start going downhill especially when everyone starts to avoid the neighborhood association because it seen as ineffective, and everyone on the block starts to get nukes and argue about who gets the diminishing oil reserves.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 01:23 PMI've noticed an on-going theme in these discussions. A motif, one might say. When someone points out one of the latest the latest idiocies worming their way into the hearts of the Left, someone invariably objects in one or all of the following ways:
1. Left? Left? What's this "Left" you speak of? That's not the 'Left." There is no "Left." And if there were that wouldn't be it. We don't got to show you no steeeenking "Left." The "Left," as such, is too broad and ill-defined a thing to criticize. (That's the genius of it really.)
2. And, also, -- while we're at it -- shame! shame! shame on you for drawing attention to this tiny, ridiculous figure of George Galloway. He's a gnat really. He's so unimportant that if you just pretended he didn't exist, he, and his nationwide book tour, and his his sold-out standing-room-only, cheering crowds of admirers, and all the media folks heaping praise on him for his brave and refreshingly truthful denunciation of the crimes of America, would just cease to exist. Poof! Like Michael Moore. Or A.N.S.W.E.R. Or Cindy Sheehan. I'm sure no one will have anything nice to say about Galloway on Kos or Air America this time. I am confident that James Wolcott will soon retract his 'heartfelt congratulations" for the man. He will admit that he was a little hasty in declaring him a "hero for our time, " if he hasn't already. And now that Galloway and Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan are all getting together to take their act on the road again, to rail against this illegal and unwinnable war, the press will keep a lid on it. No one will play those stirring clips of his congressional testimony. They will all just politely look away and cough into their fists. Or they would have. Until you had to go and open your fat mouth.
3. Okay, okay. So maybe -- yes -- this British MP is gallavanting around the States with Jane Fonda on his arm, telling crowds of admirers that Bush was right about one thing only -- that you are either with the forces of jihad in Iraq or against them -- yes, but -- here's the twist -- you should be with them. Okay. That's a bit much. So you disapprove, do you? Big whoop. Who doesn't? It's so obvious that I disapprove that I thought it beneath my mention. I didn't mention that the sky is blue either, did I. No, you won't see me stoop to mentioning something so obvious, because I am too busy cogitating about the real hard issues. But at this juncture I will take a minute out of my busy schedule to point out that your vocal disapproval of this state of affairs can only mean one thing to me: that you are to lazy or cowardly to discuss the real issues. It's clear to me that you are just trying to distract everyone from the war, and how you and your new neocon friends are going to lose it, you contemptible buffoon. As I've often said, how you can stand to look at yourself in the mirror is beyond me. So. Now that we've established that, I'll hear no more about it. Let's please move the discussion along to more important matters. I have a little analogy that you might find illuminating. Imagine if you will that Saddam Hussein beats his wife, but the neighborhood association, wisely, is reluctant to intervene...
Posted by: Browning Porter at September 16, 2005 03:08 PMAs a matter of fact, the whole neighborhood will start going downhill especially when everyone starts to avoid the neighborhood association because it seen as ineffective--DPU
Well I should hope so.Life's too short to abuse yourself unnecessarily.
So it's OK to be ineffective as long as it's not seen to be ineffective?
If it's ineffective, why should I care what it thinks or does? It's then nothing but a debating society designed to talk the issue to death,and make people believe that 'something' is being done, while the wifebeater puts his wife into the hospital or the morgue. That moral affront is bad enough but---
If it happens that the neighbourhood(and not just ME) believed at the time of my complaint that the poltroon in question also was stockpiling weapons that might well be used against ME, but not the 'neighbourhood', and the 'neighbourhood' still voted to sit this one out, it voted itself into irrelevancy. I just happened to be the proximate cause.
I'm not saying that sometimes vigallante justice isn't appropriate, just trying to be honest about what we're doing.--Tosk
;-)
I like a man who just 'describes' things without the holier-than-thou overlays. Good call. The 'International Order' IS Vigilante Justice. We simply are unable to recognise that because usually the problems don't affect us. In more 'volatile' areas of the planet, the facts are very much in evidence, and appeals to the 'International Community' are merely laughable and are treated as such.
You can certainly object to the Iraq campaign on 'practical' grounds, and make the case that it was ill-advised. But to object because the League of Nations(2) failed to endorse it, is not a serious arguement. It is just wish fulfillment seeking an outlet.
Re Browning Porter
Your comment was magnifique . Just the right touch of wit, made all the more palatable by just a soupcon of outright sarcasm.
Left? Left? What's this "Left" you speak of? That's not the 'Left." There is no "Left." And if there were that wouldn't be it. We don't got to show you no steeeenking "Left."
Priceless.
Posted by: dougf at September 16, 2005 03:32 PMIf it happens that the neighbourhood(and not just ME) believed at the time of my complaint that the poltroon in question also was stockpiling weapons that might well be used against ME, but not the 'neighbourhood', and the 'neighbourhood' still voted to sit this one out, it voted itself into irrelevancy
If you thought that a guy down the street was stockpiling weapons to be used on you, the neighborhood wanted proof of this before dealing with the guy, and just you went over to his house and shot him because you didn't want to pander to a bunch of irrelevant sitarounds, and then it turned out, oops, that there were no weapons, then your ass would be in jail. As it should be.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 03:54 PMAnd this is why "argument by analogy" is frowned upon by the Internation Association of Logical and Reason.
Posted by: Browning Porter at September 16, 2005 04:16 PMAnd this is why "argument by analogy" is frowned upon by the Internation Association of Logical and Reason.
The IALR also frowns on lengthy multi-point strawmen arguments as well.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 04:45 PMIt's not enough to simply chant "strawman" and wave your hands. You have to show how your arguments differ from my characterization of them. (Granted my depiction was a bit snarky. Thanks for the props , dougf, but let's face it... If that was soupcon of sarcasm, what would the big guns look like?)
So, sorry, dpu. Still, all snark aside, I think I summed it up pretty nicely, but I can be more pithy than that if you like.
1. You can't pin Galloway on the Left because the Left cannot be defined. There is no "Left" as such to reject him, or embrace him, and therefore no one on the "Left" is obligated to criticize him.
2. You only promote Galloway by criticizing him. If it weren't for his critics, he'd vanish. (I wish I could claim to have thought up the "poof of smoke." Very evocative. But no, the credit for that little rhetorical gem belongs to you.) No doubt you feel the same way about Pat Robertson or the Swift Boat Vets.
3. You only criticize Galloway because he is an easy target. Ergo, to criticize Galloway is to do nothing but expose your own moral and intellectual short-comings.
Now if you would care to draw a distinctuion between these arguments and those you've made on this thread (and others have made on a gazillion other ones) I'm all ears. Perhaps I've misunderstood you.
But I think they are the arguments you made, and I think they are shoddy and tiresome.
Posted by: Browning Porter at September 16, 2005 05:19 PMIt's not enough to simply chant "strawman" and wave your hands
To respond to charge of using a strawman argument with yet another strawman is stunning in its audacity.
You have to show how your arguments differ from my characterization of them.
No I don't. If I post a bunch of nonsense in which I imply your tone, facial expression, or gesture in a way that was unflattering to you, why should you have to prove that the caricature didn't fit?
1. You can't pin Galloway on the Left because the Left cannot be defined. There is no "Left" as such to reject him, or embrace him, and therefore no one on the "Left" is obligated to criticize him.
If this is in reference to one of my earlier comments, I was responding to a suggestion that the Left needed to criticize Galloway. My response is that the Left is a pretty broad group, and didn't have a single voice to do so. It's like leftists who claim that the Right doesn't stand up and condemn Coulter or O'Rielly, despite many members of the right doing so. Why? Because no matter how many do, it isn't all of them.
If individual leftists want to criticize Galloway, great, more power to them. It won't make a whit of difference to most members of the right, however, as many on the right seem to desperately need to believe that Galloway is the darling of the left.
2. You only promote Galloway by criticizing him. If it weren't for his critics, he'd vanish. (I wish I could claim to have thought up the "poof of smoke." Very evocative. But no, the credit for that little rhetorical gem belongs to you.) No doubt you feel the same way about Pat Robertson or the Swift Boat Vets.
Yes, I do, actually. In carnivals of the last century, sideshow geek biting the head off a live chicken were used to draw a crowd, which could then be steered to the paying acts. It would have been a bit hypocritical of some to start demanding that others in the crowd condemn the geek. When people stopped paying attention, they stopped being used.
(And yes, I suspect that the "debate" had about as much behind it as some poor sap in a cage with a chicken's head in his mouth. But I have yet to watch it)
3. You only criticize Galloway because he is an easy target. Ergo, to criticize Galloway is to do nothing but expose your own moral and intellectual short-comings.
Not sure where you pulled that one from, but sure. Criticizing an easy target is much harder than actually dealing with the issues that are fuelling the controversy. That's why Ward Churchill was so popular among the right, despite most leftists thinking "Who the hell is Ward Churchill?" A living, breathing strawman that confirmed their own personal mental conception of leftists.
But I think they are the arguments you made, and I think they are shoddy and tiresome.
Whatever.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 06:00 PMMe: Criticizing an easy target is much harder than actually dealing with the issues that are fuelling the controversy.
Make that "easier." Stupid tricky adjectives.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 16, 2005 06:04 PMBrowning,
I'm all too familiar with DPU's "strawman". It's his response to everything.
Posted by: Carlos at September 16, 2005 07:02 PM"Whatever"
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You know, it wouldn't be that hard for you to just agree that Galloway is an asshole, and that those who call him a hero and applaud his blustering are fools, and maybe, optionally, even express a little embarrassment that your putative comrades can be taken in so easily. You could leave it at that. That would be good enough for me. That's all I'm saying. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We could get back to painting the lamposts, and clipping the hedges on your little toy neighborhood analogy. "Chief Inspector Blix told Mayor Annan that he was satisfied that Mr. Hussein would soon give him full access to his basement rec room..."
But no.
If someone steps up and says, ""Hero? Do you hear what this guy is saying? Have you listened to what their applauding?", then, sure enough, guys like you come along and with your oh-so-snide-above-it-all posturing and insult us for saying what what needs to be said, what you consider it beneath you to say.
I think it's a cheap way to attack the critics of allies you find too distasteful to defend directly. And I'm sick of it. It's cheesy and arrogant and intellectually lazy and part of the problem.
And it's not just Galloway. It's Ted Rall, and Michael Moore, and Arundhati Roy, and James Wolcott, and ANSWER, and Cindy Sheehan and the list goes on and on. Hell, it's every other opponent of the war I talk to in real life spouting this kind of nonsense in one form or another. I keep think, "Man, this thing sure has a lot of fringe on it."
Not sure where you pulled that one from...
How about your first post on this thread: But I suppose it's mentally more comfortable than dwelling on Iraq.
Yeah, that's it Dr. Ungood. When I hear my erstwhile comrades on the Left calling Galloway a hero, it's just like curling up in it like a big fluffy comforter with hot cup of hate, because now I don't have to think about the scary war anymore.
Alright. I'm done. As you say, "Whatever.'
Posted by: Browning Porter at September 16, 2005 07:17 PMWe could get back to painting the lamposts, and clipping the hedges on your little toy neighborhood analogy. "Chief Inspector Blix told Mayor Annan that he was satisfied that Mr. Hussein would soon give him full access to his basement rec room..."--BP
Now that's sarcasm. --- LOL
And I just cannot resist posting this quote from a hero on the frontlines, fighting the GOOD fight.
-- Col. McMaster said soldiers captured some associates of lead terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi(in Tal Afar). "They are some of the worst human beings on the face of the Earth," he said. "There is no really greater pleasure for us than to kill or capture these particular individuals."
Works for me.
Posted by: dougf at September 16, 2005 07:33 PMBrowning Porter,
Not only did your comments make my front page, they made Christopher Hitchens' front page as well.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 16, 2005 07:38 PMHere's another one of those "strawmen":
"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power."
~~Cindy Sheehan
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=503
I don't think the debate would have shifted opinions very much. The really depressing thing for an old lefty like me was the change for the worse in CH - after all many of us know GG and his history of duplicity, etc. The CH who wrote "Letter to a Young Contrarian" surely would not have made those ridiculous comments to his young audience telling them to be careful as they could be seen on TV, and to GG that he should be careful what he says about 9/11 in this city in this month. Has he now become so reactionary that he wants to supress free speech?
Posted by: barshara at September 17, 2005 01:11 AMGood Read!
Posted by: F14 Pilot at September 17, 2005 01:41 AMHas he now become so reactionary that he wants to supress free speech?
If someone tells you that your fly is open before you're about appear on live TV, is that suppression of free speech?
If you criticize someone and they criticize in return, is that suppression of free speech?
Should apostasy be punished?
Do you have any idea what the first amendment is about? From what you've said here, I doubt it.
Posted by: mary at September 17, 2005 06:52 AMYeah, that's it Dr. Ungood. When I hear my erstwhile comrades on the Left calling Galloway a hero, it's just like curling up in it like a big fluffy comforter with hot cup of hate, because now I don't have to think about the scary war anymore.
Look, BP, I suspect that your motives may be great, and you're concerned that some that you know on the left are wholeheartedly embracing Galloway and ignoring the warts because he's outspoken, and loudly and angrily saying some of the things that they wish they could say. It's well and good that someone like yourself and others on the left loudly point out some of the other things that he's said and believed in that is of concern.
But you seem to want a bit more than that.
You want me to agree that Galloway is an asshole? You got it. Galloway is an asshole. Now, what do you think of this presidency, and what is happening in the sad land of Iraq? Because that, comrade, is the goddamned issue, not a posturing British leftist on a speaking tour. He may be entertaining for some on the left, but he's an extremely useful distraction for many on the right.
Also, beware the love of the right for a leftist apostate. It's fickle, and it's hard to go home again.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 17, 2005 07:03 AMAlso, beware the love of the right for a leftist apostate. It's fickle, and it's hard to go home again.--DPU
Considering from whence and from whom one would have come, who in his right mind would want to?
Comrade.
Posted by: dougf at September 17, 2005 07:22 AMConsidering from whence and from whom one would have come, who in his right mind would want to?
Ah yes, the partisan semi-thought that there is no honourable people on the other side of the political fence, nor anything of value there.
Rah-rah team.
Posted by: d at September 17, 2005 07:27 AMPosted by d at September 17, 2005 07:27 AM
"d", of course, being me expecting my browser to fill in the rest.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 17, 2005 07:29 AMAlso, beware the love of the right for a leftist apostate. It's fickle, and it's hard to go home again.
..the partisan semi-thought that there is no honourable people on the other side of the political fence, nor anything of value there.
Rah rah team.
dpu, do you think apostasy should be punished?
Posted by: mary at September 17, 2005 08:23 AMdpu, do you think apostasy should be punished?
No, I do not. And that's clearly not what I said.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 17, 2005 08:51 AMdpu, do you think apostasy should be punished?
No, I do not. And that's clearly not what I said.--DPU
Well then what exactly DID you say? What precisely did you mean when you postulated that "it's hard to go home again."? Why should it be 'hard' unless:
A. Being on the outside looking in,you grasp the bankruptcy of the groupings you had previously detached yourself from, and just don't have the stomach to return. This would be my 'semi-thought' contribution to the review. or
B. The inhabitants of the swamp you wish to rejoin are vindictive creatures ,and don't readily welcome deviations from the true faith? Hence the difficulty of renewing camradely acquaintances without at least a lengthy period of 'self-criticism'.
I'm sure you have a better explanation of your words, but the "I DID NOT say that", line is a triffle old at this point.
Posted by: dougf at September 17, 2005 09:21 AMDid anyone else catch Galloway starting to defend Zarqawi during the debate (and then think better and drop it)?
He said something about it being rediculous to equate Zarqawi with Al Qa'eda - something about Zarqawi disagreeing with Bin Ladin..
Posted by: Joshua Scholar at September 17, 2005 05:55 PMdougf: I'm sure you have a better explanation of your words, but the "I DID NOT say that", line is a triffle old at this point.
Even if both the points you extrapolate were true, doug, where does that imply that I think apostates SHOULD be punished. The very least you could assume is that I'm pointing out that apostates ARE punished, but not my feelings on it.
As it is, I got to express my opinion thanks to Mary's direct question.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 18, 2005 10:15 AMHitchens is fundamentally right about the war, and of course I was rooting for him over the venal Galloway, whom I have had the displeasure of hearing speak in the flesh. I don't think I have seen that degree of brutal, clever demagoguery since I went to hear Jean-Marie Le Pen speak in Paris in 1984 (I did not go out of any attraction to his revolting politics, but only to determine first-hand how dangerously attractive he might prove to segments of the French electorate.....).
By way of background, I was by no means opposed to us (the UK) going in with the Americans, since they were going in anyway, and in any event, we have to stand up to dangerously unhinged mass-murderers like Saddam.
Things have, of course, gone very poorly -- and much of that is due to the bungling, ineptitude, hubris and venality of the people running the war on the US side (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney) --- and I expressed precisely those misgivings prior to the invasion, notwithstanding my support for it. For the record, I opposed the war in Vietnam as well as the reversal of the Allende government, opposed the support for the Contras and the invasion of Grenada, and supported intervention in Bosnia and in Rwanda long before those views were endorsed by Western governments. I have, moreover, for over two decades supported complete Israeli withdrawal from the OTs, and the creation of a Palestinian state in those territories with East Jerusalem as its capital. So those are my not very "neo-con" credentials.
So I do think a properly-handled reversal of Saddam was justified. By the way, as a lawyer and former diplomat, I am not particularly convinced that the invasion was contrary to "international law". I appreciate that some will differ on that point, but that's my view.
But whilst I am largely on Hitchen's side (and as far from the venal Galloway's as can be), I do wonder sometimes about the points Hitchens makes. He stated in the debate that Professor Juan Cole "has never set foot" in the Middle East although claiming to speak Farsi, Arabic and other regional languages. However, Cole, on his website, claims a total of 7 years' residence in the region. Is Hitchen's right? If so, is Cole simply lying about where he lived for 7 years? If Cole is not lying, I start to worry about Hitchens' argumentative style, and that, of course, would impinge on his reliability and credibility. I hope I am wrong about that.......
Andrew Halper
London UK
Even if both the points you extrapolate were true, doug, where does that imply that I think apostates SHOULD be punished. The very least you could assume is that I'm pointing out that apostates ARE punished, but not my feelings on it.--DPU
Fair enough. I don't think you fit into the true-believer category at any time anyway. I am more interested in the points being true(which at least 1 of them,and probably both, must likely be,)than in your feelings towards them.
Thanks for the logical details anyway.
Posted by: dougf at September 18, 2005 12:04 PMI am more interested in the points being true(which at least 1 of them,and probably both, must likely be,)than in your feelings towards them.
Note that what you say about treatment of apostates is applicable to both the left and the right. I cite John Cole and Andrew Sullivan as examples where refusal to toe the party line has resulted in savage condemnation by their own side.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 18, 2005 12:09 PMI finally did catch the debate this afternoon on C-Span. There were several points that Galloway made that were inconsistent with eachother but that Hitchens didn't take a bite at.
Galloway stated that our invasion of Iraq had drawn thousands of jihadists to Iraq, who weren't there before (this is hard to argue with). But GG also tried to defend the "resistance" (he made his support of the "resistance" quite clear) by stating that it was largely home-grown. He mocked the idea of "foreign fighters" - claiming that we were the real foreign fighters. He is trying to have it both ways as far as I can tell. He wants to bash our policy on the charges that it has brought thousands of terrorists to Iraq (as evidence that it was bad policy) but then sets aside this very claim about the nature of the "resistance" itself when he turns around and lends it support, claiming that it is a legitimate national resistance. The bottom line seems to be that he knows that the resistance consists of a lot of jihadists and he supports them outright (despite his claims to be supporting a legitimate national iraqi resistance). But then he inadvertently gave his reasons for that too when he said that sometimes one has to choose between the lesser of 2 evils (this claim was made in the context of Saddam vs the US but his own sympathies indicate that it actually extends as far as the jihadis vs the US). Bottome line is - Clearly he views the US as the greater evil in any context, even when compared to the jihadis.
Towards the beginning of the debate, Galloway said that America had brought 9/11 on itself, due (besides its support for Israel) - to our historical support for dictators in the region. One of Osama's big grievances. (This got some big cheers IIRC). Of course Saddam was one of the worst dictators we had supported and GG blasted us for that. So - we remove Saddam. One would think GG would think that was a good idea, given that he cited it as one of our worst sins. He seemed to try to get around this intelligent move on our part by then stating that we had installed a "puppet" regime in Iraq. (He did in fact use that term "puppet".) But then later, he points out that the result of our invasion was to strengthen an Islamist like Sistani (this is true). But then that leaves me confused. Is he implying that we intentionally selected as our "puppets" - Islamists?? That wouldn't make any sense. Which must mean that the Islamists have achieved their power via free democratic elections and not, in fact, by our installing puppets. But by invoking Sistani, Galloway was mocking everything the invasion had achieved. He does have something of a point there. But it's probably not the point he desires to make. Obviously overthrowing Saddam and having elections, has led to the ascendancy of Islamists. But we didn't install them as puppets. That's what the Iraqis chose. I agree with Galloway that that isn't a good outcome of our policy (he emoted loudly here and made it very clear that he thought this was a terrible outcome) but the implication is that to avoid Islamists coming to power, we need to prop up secular dictatorships in the region. Folks like Saddam, or Mubarak. Is that the point that Galloway wants to make? It may be true, but then what of his whole argument blaming 9/11 on us for propping up dictators in the region?
In short, it seems that Galloway opposes dictatorships when we are supporting them, supports dictatorships when we are opposing them, supports Islamists (jihadist foreign fighters) when we are opposing them and opposes Islamists (e.g. Sistani) when we are supporting them. In other words, the only logical consistency in his arguments, is opposition to the U.S. He has to twist himself all over the place to maintain that position - but it is that very twisting about which reveals what his underlying position is. Opposition to the U.S., no matter what.
Hitchens didn't address these inconsistencies. For good reasons I imagine. It's hard to argue that 2 consequences of our invading iraq aren't exactly what Galloway pointed out - bringing a whole lot of jihadists to Iraq, and strenthening Islamists through democratic elections. Hitchens held his head down several times and I think these may have been the points when he did so (I'd have to watch a second time to check). But what Hitchens did make very clear on several occasions was that he was on the moral side of the fight. That the aims were just and that it was the moral duty of the left to support the various democratic and secular forces that are fighting on OUR side - the secular Kurds, the women, the trade unionists and so on. He acknowledged their uphill fight against the Islamists. He made very clear that his support for the Kurds was unconditional and based on moral principles. (I would be inclined to agree with him on that but I still want an explanation for why the Kurds prevented the Assyrians from voting - cause if we're going to support the Kurds as a minority then I want to see that the Kurds are worthy of that support by extending the same rights to the even more minority Christians.)
I think about all those New Yorkers cheering Galloway on. How perverted they are. Don't they understand that we obviously CAN lose this fight? Hitchens tried to ask them to do what they could to support the liberal voices in Iraq. But Hitchens was trying to appeal to reason. He looked so nervous throughout much of the debate, visibly shaking. Doesn't the audience understand how fragile those liberal voices are? Can't they differentiate the good guys from the bad guys? Don't they see that Galloway and Sheehan and all the rest will simply support whatever side is against the US no matter what they actually stand for? Apparently not. Hitchens kept telling them to be aware that they were on TV. I did find it a bit offputting but maybe he had a small point. I mean, there were a bunch of New Yorkers eagerly lapping up the propogandistic rhetoric of some asshole telling them that they deserved to be blown to bits! And they're hooting and hollering and clapping for the guy who tells them so - the guy who stands for anyone BUT THEM. Cause they're always evil just because they're Americans. Don't they get it? Meanwhile, their joyous, idiotic masochism is all caught on film!
P.S. Mary - were you sitting directly to the right of Pamela? Cause if so - I saw you on TV twice!
Posted by: Caroline at September 18, 2005 03:43 PMCaroline's comment of 18 September is spot-on!
Posted by: andrew at September 18, 2005 11:05 PMdpu, Sorry I haven't addressed your reply until now. Been busy.
"But you seem to want a bit more than that," you say. I'm not sure what you mean. Although maybe it's this:
It's not enough, for me, that you grudgingly concede that maybe it's not such a bad thing for me, or Hitchens, or Totten, to criticize Galloway. I don't even care that much if you feel disinclined to criticize him yourself. But I would ask that in the future you refrain from impugning the motives of those of us who feel it necessary to criticize him. There's no need for you to engage in this cheap amateur psychoanalysis by saying: "Well, I suppose talking about Galloway is easier than facing up to the war." Frankly, that pisses me off.
I think you have confirmed that I have not engaged in strawman arguments. At worst, I've paraphrased in an unflattering way the arguments that you acknowledge represent you're own thinking. This is not really debate by Marquis of Queensbury Rules, it's true. In my defense, I'll say that the flaw in your reasoning seemed self-evident to me, and so I felt at liberty to ridicule it. I just restated your arguments with some sarcastic topspin. Maybe too much. Perhaps this was unfair. Perhaps the flaw in them is not so clear to everyone. Perhaps I should spell out my objections more methodically.
You say, (1) no one on the Left is beholden to criticize Galloway because "the Left is a pretty broad group, and [doesn't] have a single voice to do so." However, (2) anyone who does criticize Galloway only exacerbates matters, and the best course of action is to ignore him -- in other words "just stop talking about him. He will vanish with a soft pop and a cloud of smoke." Furthermore, (3) if you fail to heed this advice, it must be because " it's mentally more comfortable than dwelling on Iraq" because "criticizing an easy target is much easier than actually dealing with the issues that are fuelling the controversy."
I'm using your own language -- fairly I think -- so no strawman objection, please, without a clarification on what I've misrepresented.
My problem is this: If we were all to follow your advice, then Galloway would be immune from criticism. After all, elements of the nebulous "Left" are at liberty to bankroll his propaganda tour and applaud his demagoguery, but, according to you, no one on the Left has any moral obligation to call them out on it. Oh, sure, you'll allow that it's "well and good that someone like yourself and others on the left loudly point out some of the other things that he's said." But we all know that "well and good" is an idiomatic code phrase for "watch this space for a caveat." And you've made it clear that you think Galloway's notoriety is the fault of his critics, and, if they supported the liberation, then their motives for such criticism are suspect. In short, no one who was opposed to the war need object to Galloway, and no one else may do so without inviting this kind of facile opprobrium from you and your ilk.
But let's be honest, please. It's the Left who have called Galloway a hero. It's the Left that has brought him back to the States and are promoting his tour of speaking engagements. The debate was presented by The New Press, International Socialist Review, The Center for Research and Social Change" and co-sponsored by The Nation, and I listened to the webcast thanks to KPFTx, a leftwing radio station that practically vibrated with admiration for the man. I don't think they did so because they think he's "mere entertainment" or a "circus geek."
If you aren't happy with this situation, then come right out and say so. Don't made snide insinuations about Galloway's critics. Grow a backbone and tell your friends on the Left the truth -- that they make a grave mistake by making common cause with this guy. I could respect that. It might even make me want to take you a little more seriously in general.
I think you've also inadvertently conceded that there is, at least on some level, such a thing as the Left after all -- at least enough of one that it might, in some semblance of a unified voice, decline to welcome "home" an apostate. But if that's so -- if Hitchens (or Totten or I) might not be invited to return "home" -- then perhaps Galloway might not, and ought not, to find a "home" there either. Or maybe a "home" that can welcome and applaud him is not the home I knew when I was coming up in the world, and no place I want to be anyway.
Posted by: Browning Porter at September 19, 2005 05:41 AMgalloway is a criminal and should never have been permitted entry into the US; another homeland security shortcoming.
Posted by: paine at September 19, 2005 07:58 AMRegarding the Browning Porter comments that
"Hitchens in the perfect man for the job" and
that "Hitchens has also been very critical of the
Right and Bush administration on all the right
issues."
Hitchens is not critical of the Bush administration
on all the right issues. It is exactly on the
crucial issues of sovereignty and support for
Iraqi democrats and trade unionists that Hitchens
is silent. He has almost nothing to say about Bremer's laws, the privatization, the ongoing
use of Hussein's anti-union laws, etc. He is more
interested in attacking his political opponents
than supporting trade unionists in Iraq.
The debate was pretty much a waste of time, except
for its high entertainment value, but there was
one point of interest when Galloway mentioned
forced privatization and the IPR seed issues.
Hitchens of course had nothing to say about this,
and indeed on the cspan broadcast (but not the Democracy Now video), the camera cut to Hitchens
immediately following Galloway's remarks on this,
and by the disgusted shrug that Hitchens made,
the impression seemed to be that he didn't really
care much about the issue.
In contrast, you can look at the United for Peace
and Justice position on ending the war and see:
The Iraqi people, not foreigners, should make the decisions about the future of their country, including security. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq's reconstruction. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed.
I would have more respect for the arguments of the
prowar leftists/liberals/centrists/whatever if
they could say the same and still make their
prowar position. I suspect the reason they
cannot is that it then must be acknowledged that
the folks running the occupation do not care about
democracy and sovereignty for Iraqis (and indeed
have never cared), and this is part of the reason,
why things have gone so badly. It is not just
"mistakes" or "blunders".
Seth, as in Germany and Japan, there will come a time when Iraq can be as free of "corporate invaders" as they wish to be. In the meantime, to get from a point where the Ba'athists effectively owned everything to your ideal dictatorship of the proletariat, there will be steps B, C, D, E, etc. etc.
In the meantime, the pictures of the party when the Party's wall came down still sting, don't they?
Posted by: Mark Poling at September 19, 2005 10:10 AMMark Poling: In the meantime, the pictures of the party when the Party's wall came down still sting, don't they?
Working overtime for the Department of Non Sequitors, Mark? What did that have to do with anything? Do you have some clarvoiancy talents that give you inside info on Seth's feelings about the failure of the Soviet Union? Or are you under the mistaken and boneheaded opinion that everyone on the left was goosestepping around Red Square?
Browning Porter - I apologize for being unclear in my initial statement, as has occurred to me on reading your last comment. I was addressing our hawkish blogger siblings' fevered occupation with Galloway instead of having to deal with the bitter pill that Iraq has become. I certainly wasn't being critical of leftists, liberals, and the anti-invasion camp publicizing some of the more unpleasant stuff to come out of Galloway.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 19, 2005 03:53 PMDPU: "I was addressing our hawkish blogger siblings' fevered occupation with Galloway instead of having to deal with the bitter pill that Iraq has become."
And you don't think that the jihadists and Baathists blowing up Iraqis and Iraq's infrastructure on a daily basis - the very folks that Galloway is very PUBLICLY and VOCALLY supporting and inciting - have anything to do with the "bitter pill that Iraq has become"? Or do you think that Iraq has merely become a bitter pill in a vacuum?
Posted by: Caroline at September 19, 2005 05:27 PMDPU:
"Working overtime for the Department of Non Sequitors, Mark? What did that have to do with anything? Do you have some clarvoiancy talents that give you inside info on Seth's feelings about the failure of the Soviet Union? Or are you under the mistaken and boneheaded opinion that everyone on the left was goosestepping around Red Square?"
Seth Kulick:
"The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed."
"....the folks running the occupation do not care about democracy and sovereignty for Iraqis (and indeed have never cared), and this is part of the reason, why things have gone so badly. It is not just 'mistakes' or 'blunders'."
If it walks like a goose and honks like a goose....
As to bitter pills associated with the practical consequences of political/economic philosophy in action, I'll swallow right-wing Iraq if you'll swallow managed-economy Zimbabwe.
Yeah, I know; how do you know collectivism doesn't work until you've tried it n+1 times? I mean, sure, people tend to starve, but it beats having corporations pulling the strings behind the scene. C'mon.
Posted by: at September 20, 2005 10:53 AMDPU, when will you learn???
When will you learn that being critical of Bush means that you're an America-hating pro-Mugabe jerk? I mean, seriously! Even though nothing you've ever said indicates a preference for collectivism or a managed economy, I think it's pretty obvious.
When will you learn that Galloway, thanks to all the coverage he gets by conservatives who can't stand how much coverage he gets, is an important player in Iraqi politics? When will you learn that it's not the people in charge - not Zarqawi, not Bush, not the Iraqi government, and certainly not the Iraqi people themselves - but rather people who have no power beyond the public forum are the ones who are causing this mess? When will you learn to stop blaming those with actual power to implement policies, and instead turn your wrath against idiot blowhards who have no real power? WHEN WILL YOU LEARN, DPU, WHEN WILL YOU LEARN????
Posted by: The Commenter at September 20, 2005 11:14 AMAt what point does it become racism to deny agency/responsibility for the "troubles" in Iraq to the actual (brown) people who are consistently, intentionally murdering large quantities of civilians, instead insisting that all culpability lies with the (mostly white) American administration?
Posted by: Bezuhov at September 21, 2005 02:17 AM
