Galloway v Hitchens debate on Iraq fails to rise above insults

[T_i_B]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/16/wgrap16.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/16/ixportal.html

It was billed as the Grapple in the Big Apple and two of Britain's leading political bruisers did not disappoint as they traded punches in a heavyweight debate in New York.

In the red corner, acknowledging the cheers of the crowd, was the new darling of America's Left, George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. Coming at him from the blue corner was the columnist and apostate from the Left, Christopher Hitchens. It was not going to be a clean fight.

"You did write like an angel," Mr Galloway told his opponent as they exchanged insults over the war in Iraq. "You're now working for the Devil and damn you."

"The battle over which of us can be the ruder - I have already conceded that to him," parried Mr Hitchens. "The battle over which of us is the more cerebral he has already conceded to me."

[matcom]

1. Hitchens Is A Drink-Soaked, Former Trotskyist Popinjay

nothing more ;)

[ClintonTyree]

4. I was going to ask.........

how did they dry Hitchens out enough to get him to appear? He's a normal drunk at the best of times, a raving, incoherent, bar-stool orator at his worst. Which one showed up?

[WhiteTara]

12. watch for yourself...CSPAN Sat 9/17 at 9pm edt

I have the recorder set. It should be wonderful to watch.
:popcorn:

[DS1]

5. So, wanna meet for lunch?

:toast:

[matcom]

7. heh - can't today

next week?

[Reverend Smoothfield]

23. just out of interest

was "popinjay" in your vocabulary before Galloway taught it to you?

[geckosfeet]

27. Inquisitive minds must know,,,,

Just out of interest, what is the relevance of your interest?

[Reverend Smoothfield]

33. you mean the relevance of my question?

i was trying to determine whether matcom's remark was an actual opinion or just a mindlessly parroted talking point--while simultaneously telegraphing my suspicion that it was the latter.

[FredScuttle]

46. BRAAACK! Talking point! BRAAAACK!

Welcome Rev....may your stay be long and fruitful

[geckosfeet]

60. Telegraphing. Yes, Telegraphing. With great subtly I might add. n/t

[Dutch]

63. May be he just thought it was funny

Jeez you Hitchens fans are sensitive (to everything other than the man himself's increasingly indefensible positions).

[bullimiami]

2. yes there were insults but there was also substance.

and galloway did not fail to deliver.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

29. a bit of that substance....

at 52:30 (video)

Galloway: “Western Policy has created this swamp of hatred against us and it won’t matter how many fly-swats we invest in, how many Patriot Acts we pass, how many anti-terrorist measures we pass. If you live beside a swamp, no amount of fly-swats will protect you from the monsters who will come out of that swamp. We have to drain that swamp by stopping that support for Sharon’s Israel, his apartheid war, his crimes against the Palestinian people. We have to stop” (jeers and applause)

“I have to tell you, not many supporters of the Palestinians in you’re ranks tonight Mr. Hitchens.”

“ I think unless we stop propping up these dictators in the Muslim world, none of whom would last 5 minutes if it were not for the military, political and financial support of countries like yours and mine! Unless we stop invading and occupying Arab and Muslim countries, then we will be forced to endure the atrocities that took place in NY on 9/11 and in London on 7/7. Over and over again! So if I can’t reach your heart, let me at least reach your heads. In your own interests (Hitchens interrupts again) , in America’s own interests, reverse your policy towards Israel and Palestine! Reverse your policy towards dictators in the Muslim world! Reverse your policy towards war and occupation, and we can all be safer! (applause drowning out jeers)


on edit - DemocracyNow! has links

"Grapple"
British MP George Galloway v. Christopher Hitchens:
A debate on the Iraq war moderated by Amy Goodman
http://www.democracynow.org/

direct links
video
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/sept/video/grapple.rm
download mp3 audio
http://www.archive.org/download/grapple-in-the-big-apple/grapple-in-the-big-apple_64kb.mp3

[bpilgrim]

3. ------------- --------- -------- --------- --------- > MP3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/galloway_hitchens/galloway_hitchens.mp3
(missed the opening & the audio drops out in a couple places)

CH got his ass kicked.

peace

[Gregorian]

30. Thanks for the link.

Wow. I'm not missing this on cspan tonight.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. For people who don't want to sit through the full 2 hours

BBC Radio 4 are broadcasting highlights at 2215 BST Saturday 17th (replacing a 45 minute repeat of something else, I think). Available on the net too, at that time, I presume - and maybe as "Listen Again" afterwards.

[Briar]

24. Oh - so they are selecting bits are they?

The hope the Beeb's reins in its bias against Galloway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. I'd never sit through 2 hours of traded insults

there'd have to be some editing to do. Given that it's a single subject (or meant to be, anyway) and just 2 people, 45 minutes seems plenty.

[rocktivity]

8. Well, OF COURSE it failed to rise above insults

That's what made it fun!!!

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[jmatthan]

9. If you understand debating

this was great as they traded insults but in-between THE LINES that they were giving their facts.

Galloway won hands down as Hitchen had to resort to flyers and other non-debating tactics to try to get his point across. (Silence for the wrong group, throwing insults at the audience, etc.)

The use of the English language by both was excellent.

HITCHENS LOST, GALLOWAY WON. No doubt about that.

[Barrett808]

11. Did somebody score the debate? Was there a clear winner under usual rules?

I know there are folks who formally score debates. Any on hand for this one?

[Psephos]

15. Depends how you want to score it

Hitchens won on points; Galloway on emotional appeal. Galloway pretty much ignored questions he didn't like. Hitchens pretty much ceded gut appeal to Galloway.

To my ears, the difference between Hitchens and Galloway is less one of beliefs than it is of integrity. Both men are leftists. Both men are pro-war; they merely support opposing sides in war. It seems clear that Hitchens opposes Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists because of his left beliefs; Galloway supports Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists in spite of his beliefs.

Seems to me that, practically speaking, ideas are less important in politics than emotions, so I guess Galloway came out on top. However, in a traditional debate format, following traditional debate scoring rules, Hitchens would have won rather decisively. Points are subtracted for ad hominem attacks and for failing to neutralize an opponent's accusation; by my informal count, Galloway had three of these infractions for every one that Hitchens had.

Count for yourself if you want. Here's a BitTorrent for the entire debate in mp3:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/110272

Peace.

[Barrett808]

19. Thanks for the summary

I only heard the first few minutes of Hitchens, and I was underwhelmed. The usual charges, handily rubbished by Juan Cole and others.

[Gregorian]

10. If you missed it, it'll be on C-span Saturday night.

I hope Hitchens got his clock punched.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

14. Hitchens was brilliant, and won clearly

Galloway simply declined to answer most of Hitchens's points and spent most of his time pointing out that Hitchens opposed the 1991 Gulf War, and calling his change of heart "hypocrisy." It was pathetic. The guy's an evil buffoon.

[Voltaire99]

16. LOL. Hardly.

Points? Hitchens fulminated to no avail, sounding ever more the spent, confused drunkard. The end of the night found his nerves shattered as he was reduced to lashing out at the audience in Orwellian fashion, warning it not to oppose US troops because everyone was "on camera."

Galloway was impressive, however, enumerating the many reasons why Iraq is a disaster--and not sparing either the complicity of Hitchens or the gullibility of Hitchens' followers.

Video feed and mp3 downloads here: www.democraticunderground.com

[Reverend Smoothfield]

17. Did you miss the part where they announced the topic?

The topic of the debate was not "This house believes Christopher Hitchens is a drunk" or even "...that the Iraq war is a success." It was "...that the Iraq war was just and necessary."

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that Hitchens did begin the debate by saying why he thought the war was just and necessary.

Galloway's response was to accusing Hitchens of having opposed the 1991 gulf war, of having once been a butterfly...but now being a slug, of being a drunk, a sell-out, a "popinjay" etc. And on it went. I'm not an expert in scoring debates but surely Failure to Even Address the Topic is a pretty serious demerit.

[lockdown]

18. See #8

Screw sober debate and scorecards, bring on the popinjay abuse.

Getting paid to insult Christopher Hitchens.. nice work if you can get it! He doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

20. Would you say that if he opposed the war? nt

[lockdown]

25. Yes. nt

[Reverend Smoothfield]

31. nt

[lockdown]

34. You put up better arguments than Hitchens at least... nt

[Reverend Smoothfield]

36. and i drink more than he does

in fact i once sat next to a drink-soaked hitchens at a van morrison concert. he actually heckled, if you can believe it. fortunately van morrison was even drunker, eventually having to be carried off the stage after a 20-minute acappella version of Mary Had a Little Lamb.

[lockdown]

37. I can believe it!

He likes picking on nuns and short blokes normally, no wonder he shit himself when Galloway barked at him before the Senate hearing!

[TankLV]

56. How can anybody claim a war BASED ON LIES is just?

The was was never justified, let alone "just".

Those that support it are WAR CRIMINALS.

Period.

[Demonaut]

45. Galloway lost the debate, no question...Hitchens, the fuckwad

that he is, had the upper hand in tone, temperament and intellect.


















I'm sorry but if our side lost a fair fight why not admit it:shrug:

[radio4progressives]

59. Hitchens shown himself as the insecure pompous ass - hardly cerebral

cutting through all the fancy rhetoric and loaded phrasing - (camouflaging as "cerebral") Hitchens merely revealed the depth of his own insecurities and lack of self confidence while clinging to his hopelessly misguided rationalizations arguing in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (note: Hitchens never uses the term "invasion" or "occupation" - he uses the term "intervention" which further illuminates the thin layer of confidence he seemed to hold in the beginning (pre-war). And Hitchens' demonization of Cindy Sheehan in this debate was not only beyond the pale, it was also very revealing of his inability to debate his position in an intellectually honest manner.

So much for cerebral.

While Galloway on the other hand scored several factual points, (appreciated by audience and observers) on the merits of the argument in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, he no less disappointed me as well - (note I admired him greatly in the Senate hearing a few months ago - and thought he handled that brilliantly and honestly)

But mainly I was very disappointed with Amy Goodman and what is apparently an inability on her part to understand how to facilitate a debate. Though I am a frequent listener and supporter of democracy now, and place a high value on the program that she hosts in terms of content and guests, Goodman often disappoints me in the way that she conducts her interviews - or on air "debates".

In striking contrast - a debate on the very same subject was held a couple of years ago (summer of 2003) held on the UCLA campus during their annual book fair. The debate was primarily between Hitchens and Robert Scheer (of the Los Angeles Times) and two other people (whose names escape me at the moment). I can not remember who the facilitator was but it was a riveting debate, very stimulating which Robert Scheere won hands down.

What's interesting is that debate took place a few months following the invasion, right around the time when everyone was still looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but "major combat operations had ended". Hitchens simply parroted the party line on Iraq as he has done since 9/11 - (i recall articles by him arguing essentially (talking points)the principles of the neo-con PNAC's papers)as he does now, and he was just as wrong then as he is now.

I long to see that particular debate repeated and do wish that Amy Goodman learn to conduct these in a similar manner.

[Stockholm]

62. Yes,

Hitchens is the shit and Galloway is an "evil buffoon". :crazy:

[Tiggeroshii]

13. Christopher Hitchens... interesting guy

But wrong. Think he'll ever learn?

[Reverend Smoothfield]

22. Oh yeah.

If we ignore his arguments and keep yelling that he's a drunk and a slug and a popinjay he'll surely come around.

[Tiggeroshii]

39. my point exactly....

:-)

[confludemocrat]

41. nice coup de grace, Tiggeroshi on that exchange w/ the Hitchens fan here

[Tiggeroshii]

43. I have an equal respect for both.

Galloway's response in front of the Senate was beatiful, but Hitchens does deserve far more respect from us here. He is a liberal, after all. The Iraq war is just something I- and most of us here, disagree on with him. But from what i've seen of him, he does argue very clear, concise points that are very thoughtprovoking if not wrong. A liberal, but not the "jump on the bandwagon and buy into the every day medium dissent" kind of liberal. He has a mind of his own.

[FredScuttle]

47. How about when he calls us racist?

My mouth just about dropped when that whisky-sodden gasbag had the audacity to label those who critize Bush for the (non)response to Katrina as racist against Arabs. Who the hell does he think he is...Sean Hannity?

Hitchens makes about as much sense as Limbaugh after a Hillbilly Heroin bender...but he's so erudite with that faux-Eton accent, isn't he?

[Reverend Smoothfield]

49. i think you missed the point

what hitchens was saying was: now that we know that there were plenty of troops here in the states who could have responded post-katrina--had bush/FEMA cared enough to send them in--those who continue to make the argument "because the troops were in iraq, they couldn't be in new orleans" are essentially appealing to pure, "racist" nationalism. that particular argument only still has force if you believe american lives are worth more than arab lives, and that the simple fact of US troops helping arabs while americans died at home is an ispo facto travesty. again, you can disagree with hitchens, but don't accuse him of hannitized ravings. he was actually making a point.

for the record "whisky-sodden" and the faux-Eton thing strike me as cheap shots. he was clearly not drunk during the debate, his voice is his voice...what's the relevance?

[FredScuttle]

52. WHO'S making that argument??

Name me one prominent progressive/liberal/Democrat/et. al. who's said "Our boys are over defending Arabs instead of back home defending Americans"....go ahead, I'll wait.

It's a strawman! Hitchens is inventing so-called "liberal" talking points out of thin air! He must have learned well at the feet of the right-wing fellow travelers he so cravenly ran to post-9/11.

I do disagree with Hitchens and I WILL accuse him of Hannityesque travesties when it's clear to any rational person that he's committing them.

And cheap shots? I should only hope to aspire to the master's level of cheap shot artistry that Hitchens attained. Hitchens loves to dish it out (see the Clintons, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana, et. al.), but as clearly seen during the debate, he turns into a whiny baby when confronted on his bullshit. "The cameras are on you"....what a laughable performance.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

53. thanks for waiting

here's a bunch of columnists

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0831-27.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0509010009sep01,1,6491327.story?coll=chi-news-hed

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7131

and here's howard dean on CNN:

BLITZER: What about the Democratic governor of Louisiana, and the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, how much responsibility should they have for what happened to those poor people who suffered in the immediate aftermath of those levees collapsing?

DEAN: As you know, Wolf, as you know, I was governor more almost 12 years. I think we had seven or eight nine emergencies during that time, states of emergency, under three presidents. And I can tell you that what you need when there's an emergency is the National Guard. The National Guard was in Iraq.

BLITZER: Well -- a third of the National Guard troops of Louisiana were, approximately, were in Iraq.

DEAN: And the equipment was in Iraq.

[FredScuttle]

54. Nice try

There isn't a single quote from any of those sources explicitly saying we should fighting for Americans instead for Arabs. That's what Hitchens said, plain as day, in the debate.

Go on defending Hitchens' execrable misrepresentation of the point being made by Dean, Molly Ivins, et. al.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

55. your turn to research

go find me the plain-as-day quote from the debate, and i will painstakingly explain to you that what hitchens was doing was CHARACTERIZING one of the anti-war post-katrina arguments, rather than quoting a specific individual. again, you're perfectly free to DISAGREE with hitchen's characterization of that argument, but this exchange began with you saying that he wasn't even making sense. the fact that you're now describing hitchens's point as a "misrepresentation" rather than a non-sequitur represents progress, i reckon.

[FredScuttle]

61. He wasn't CHARACTERIZING an "anti-war, post-Katrina argument"

he was INVENTING it out of thin air, most likely after his second fifth of Glenfiddich that day. Since you can't provide me one single quote from an Iraq war critic specifically saying that the National Guard should be defending Americans instead of Arabs (as Hitchens so lovingly described), I'll assume that you agree with me that Hitchens, like so many other craven right wing cheerleaders for this war, makes up the facts to suit his argument when the truth and reality don't quite support it.

Hitchens doesn't make sense to me because I'm baffled how someone of his intellect and cognition could be turn into such an embittered, choleric apologist for *. As far as I'm concerned, he's a pathetic drunkard who should follow Joe McCarthy's example and let the bottle finish the job that shame couldn't.

Oh, and the relevant quote is here:

"But I will have to add, that for people to start pumping out propaganda before the bodies have even been uncovered in New Orleans saying, and to make points, demagogic often, they wouldn't be dead if they weren't black. But people haven't been identified yet, whose parents don't know where they are. And to say this wouldn't have happened if we weren't wasting money on Arabs? That, that is an appeal to the most base, provincial, isolationist, and chauvinist mentality."

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/09/galloway_vs_hit.html

I ask again...which critic of the war said anything remotely approaching what that delusional souse stated there? And, while we're at it, who's been pumping out the propaganda "before the bodies have even been uncovered"? Who's leaking lies to the press about the actions of the mayor and governor?

[brentspeak]

21. Galloway embarrased himself.

I can turn on Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh if I wanted to hear someone throw insults as part of a debate. Not a good way for the anti-Iraq War side to be represented. Why do DUers think this guy is something special?

[Demonaut]

44. I agree completely, Galloway lost that debate,,,unfortunately

[TankLV]

57. It's too bad if that seems to be true. There is so much to work with

without resorting to insults.

But when someone is as deluded as Hitchens, having lost all sense of reason, and has fallen for the continually moving reason of the moment for invading, then it is exasperating and understandable to be tempted to resort to insults.

The war was based on lies. Period. It can never be justified after the fact.

The initial reasons all turned out to be lies.

The current reason of the moment would not have been given time of day, and bushco wouldn't have been given permission to go in if those were the reasons they gave for the invasion.

Changing excuses after the fact does not change the facts.

The bushwar is criminal. It can NEVER be justified.

End of debate as far as we are concerned.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Hitchens is a moron. John Stewart wiped up the floor with him on

the Daily Show, and Stewart is a comedian for Christ's Sake. Hitchen's has got this "I'm gonna drawl like William F. Buckley so that everyone will think I'm profound" shctick going on, but he is a bag of hot air and ego who thought that Bill Clinton getting a blow job was in some way significant for the fate of man. Anyone who allowed himself to be distracted by Bill Clinton's sex life is, by definition, stupid to the nth degree, and Hitchen's recent performance just proves my initial impression of the man.

Hell, Pat Buchanan is way smarter than Hitchens. Why doesnt the right wing clone Buchanan and just send him out to do all their talking?

[Kolesar]

51. Jon did not even stay on subject and overran CH with what JS wanted to say

It was hardly a battle of wits. JS just controlled the time clock and talked right over him. Not that I have any like for Hitchens.

[WhiteTara]

32. I for one, look forward to Hitchens being

insulted! He is really beyond the pale of humanity.

[TankLV]

58. So do I. But I think the point that those reviewing the debate are

correct in makeing is that insults do not make for debating points.

I wish we had somebody with both the passion of Galloway and the faculties for enunciating the facts that are all available. I'm not a good debator either. I let my anger and contempt of these aholes get the better of me.

[Edgewater_Joe]

35. Maybe So - But MAN, It's Fun To Listen To!

And haven't we all gotten the right to get at least a LITTLE pure silly entertainment in this brutal world?

[despairing optimist]

38. There was a rather large claque of Young Republicans in the hall, I think

A number of them seated next to me, dolled up in cheapish business suits while the rest of the audience was either dressy casual or in jeans, shorts, and t-shirts. They were there to harass Galloway and psych out the rest of us. I would have loved it if someone onstage had reminded them how welcome they were to express themselves as opposed to how unwelcome liberals and leftists were at the carefully screened GOP gatherings. And it was a pity that no one brought enlistment forms from military recruiters since they so obviously loved Bush's war in Iraq and I can't imagine why they wouldn't sign up on the spot for it.

As the evening progressed, if that's the right word for it, it became clear that both Hitchens and Galloway were damaged goods, and thus the debate would have no clear winner since neither could be completely trusted to believe firmly in anything. I thought Galloway landed the strongest blow close to the end of the evening, after Hitchens started sounding like Scott McClellan in the White House press room. Galloway cornered Hitchens by saying that he couldn't distance himself enough from al-Bushda to support the war without supporting the most reactionary, oppressive administration in US history and sounding like an apologist for it. That brought people to their feet for a standing ovation.

Largely, though, it was more of a dual rant than a debate, and Vince McMahon would have been a better choice than Amy Goodman for referee. The commotion in the audience was suppressed in the video, so people who weren't there might think things were much calmer than they actually were. At one point I feared that fights might break out, but it was just very raucous. I felt the YRs were there to try to provoke something but didn't succeed in disrupting as much as they might have hoped to.

A much better debate, IMO, would have pitted Hitchens against Noam Chomsky. I can't imagine Chomsky has any demagogue in him at all, and he's a lot cleaner opponent than Galloway in many ways. Hitchens would have been destroyed by Chomsky's calm recitation of history and facts, and truly a joy to behold. As it is, though, the debate last Wednesday went on too long and had Americans watching two Brits debating issues that deserved American participation, and since even the boldest fireworks extravaganza becomes a bore if it goes on for too long, even the bombastic exchanges weren't enough to keep people interested, let alone inclined to change their opinions of two hours earlier.

[Barrett808]

40. Thanks for the first-hand account

All this talk has made me less inclined to watch the archived video.

[despairing optimist]

42. There are a couple of compelling moments but it's like a long drive

on an interstate. Next rest stop: 120 miles. A long way between stops, but you could catch the opening statements and forward to the final 20 minutes or so, I guess.

[Carolab]

48. Anyone know if it will be repeated on C-Span? n/t

[T_i_B]

50. The big showdown

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1572389,00.html

Outside the Mason Hall in Gramercy Park, Manhattan, a long line of people stretched around the block as they queued for the sold-out showdown between Christopher Hitchens, the English journalist and essayist domiciled in America, and George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. Billed as the Grapple in the Big Apple, this two-Brit debate on the Iraq war had galvanised and divided New York's political classes in a manner that perhaps no native orators could achieve. For fans of a certain kind of muscular polemic, Hitchens v Galloway was the equivalent of an historic heavyweight prize fight. Indeed, so oversubscribed was the event that some were suggesting, not entirely in jest, that it should have been moved to Madison Square Garden, scene of countless boxing epics. As it was, in the more claustrophobic setting of a community college, tempers were running high.

'This country is the most evil empire the world has ever known,' announced Bill Mann, a short stocky man with a flat nose and a Brooklyn accent that made Tony Curtis sound like Gregory Peck. Mann informed me with unshakeable confidence that there would not be a single Hitchens supporter in the audience. 'I support Hitchens,' said David Katz, a rather lugubrious-looking character standing directly behind Mann. Suddenly a street-corner argument was served up like an undercard bout before the main event. Mann presented his thesis that America had killed more people than any other nation and that the Soviet Union liberated Europe. 'Yeah, tell that to the Poles, and the Czechs and the Romanians,' said Katz, as he defended America's global record on fighting for freedom. Katz's speech did not go down well with the crowd and one woman, who told me that she was a 'progressive egalitarian humanist', became so exasperated that she stormed off. 'It's OK,' explained Katz, 'that's my wife.'

Buried beneath the accusations and counter accusations, the sense of fringe politics betrayal and disloyalty, this dispute in a college hall also pointed to the heart of much larger issues such as anti-imperialism and principled intervention, totalitarianism and democracy, jihadi terrorism and American militarism. Thus it was a kind of theatrical representation of the disagreements that are currently reshaping, splitting and even destroying what was once known as the Left.

Given that neither Hitchens nor Galloway are men who recoil from the sound of their own voice, and both have a persuasive talent with words, it would be a challenge to invent two more contrasting personalities. Hitchens is a former public schoolboy who went to Oxford, while Galloway attended grammar school in Dundee and graduated with honours from the uncompromising study that is the Scottish Labour Party. Both were drawn to the far left, Hitchens to the Trotskyist International Socialists, which he soon quit, and Galloway to what was effectively the Stalinist wing of the Labour movement. He is careful not to praise Stalin the man but rather his achievements in 'industrialising' the Soviet Union - a process that led, of course, to millions of deaths. But perhaps their most commented-upon difference is that Galloway is a teetotaller, while Hitchens, to put it at its mildest, is not.