WHERE HITCH IS COMING FROM: I've been a fan of the blog Belmont Club for some time, and so I'm not surprised they have a smart analysis of the recent Hitchens/Galloway dust-up. Here's a particularly insightful snippet, wherein the writer does a nice job explaining the nature of Hitchens' oft-cited "conversion":
A lot of conservatives were cheering for Hitchens because he is on "our side". But that is coincidental. Hitchens, as will be evident to anyone who heard him address members of the audience as 'comrades' and invoke socialist solidarity is still a man of the Left who has merely remained true to the internal logic of his convictions. It puts him on the side of those fighting for republican forms against absolutist theocracies; and if that is the same camp as George Bush's then so be it. In that context, the contrast between Hitchens and Galloway is less of belief than of integrity: Hitchens opposes Al Qaeda because of his Leftist beliefs; Galloway supports Al Qaeda in despite of them; and to the traditional socialist this can only be explained by the inducement of cash. That was Hitchen's wider and subliminal reproach to the audience: what manner of men would pay to hear to George Galloway? Call yourselves anything, but don't call yourselves 'progressives'.
2 comments:
"Galloway supports Al Qaeda in despite of them"
Scott, I have to say this irritates me in the extreme. How in the world does opposition to the Iraq war equal support of Al Qaeda? You can't be opposed to an incredibly expensive (both in blood and treasure) war fought for ever-shifting reasons, with little apparant gain for the Western world without backing one of the most despised, nurderous organizations known to man?
Does Sullivan back Al Qaeda? Chcuk Hagel? What about Scowcraft? Colin Powell (my testimony was a blot on my record)?
There
BTW, I think that Galloway is an idiot. BUt to think that he supports Al Qaeda is any way is moronic.
Post a Comment