George Galloway fans check in here :The Squawk in Noo York.

'Sinister Piffle'
Christopher Hitchens "debates" a demagogue.

BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, September 16, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

If I had to choose two words to sum up the overwhelming impression left by this week's raucous "debate" over the Iraq war between polemicist Christopher Hitchens and British MP George Galloway, I'd have to choose the ones that came straight from Mr. Hitchens's mouth: "sinister piffle." Mr. Hitchens was of course referring to everything Mr. Galloway had said up to that point, a verbal burble that unfortunately defined too much of the evening.

The activist crowds had been salivating over this event for weeks. Two Brits, both famed for their oratorical skills, meeting in New York for a death match over bombs and dictators. One, Mr. Hitchens, a former Trotskyist and staunch supporter of the war, in part on the grounds that it rid the region of a demonic autocrat. The other, Mr. Galloway, a thuggish Scotsman who in May had won media plaudits for berating the U.S. Senate for the Iraq invasion. And just to make it that much juicier, two men who openly despise each other, frequently hurling personal insults ("popinjay," "drink-sodden," "vulgar") both in person and in print.

What a letdown. Mr. Hitchens, it should be said, gave it his best shot. Famous for his erudition, the writer came armed with facts, figures and inescapable logic. He kept to the formal debate style--"we on this side of the House hold . . ."--and gently waved down those of his supporters who would heckle Mr. Galloway. He picked apart his opponent's positions and did it with wit and humor. If this had been a true "debate," any Plato, Disraeli or Webster would have handed Mr. Hitchens the win on a plate.

But this was no debate. A debate, by definition, requires two people to defend their convictions. Mr. Galloway has no obvious convictions, or at least none that are defensible. This is a man who is antiwar, yet supports those who fight war against us. He accuses America of supporting dictators, yet in July traveled to Syria to praise its tyrant, Bashar al-Assad. He claims to have known that Saddam massacred his own people in 1988, yet went to Baghdad six years later to "salute" the monster for his "courage" and "strength."

Nor is Mr. Galloway in any way a debater. His talent--if that's what you'd call it--is in whipping mindless crowds into furious hysteria over perceived bogeymen. There are historical precedents here, and let's just say that as the waves of Galloway outrage and anger ripped across the auditorium I half-expected his acolytes to break into a "Heil!" or two.

To take but one example. Mr. Hitchens asked Mr. Galloway and the crowd how it was possible for a man who in Syria had praised the Iraqi terrorists to come to New York and evoke Cindy Sheehan, whose son was murdered by said terrorists?

Good question.

Mr. Galloway's response was typical. He began by railing that "neo-con rot" had seeped into people's souls. He lamented that he had to put up with this "hypocrite Hitchens." He ranted that Mr. Hitchens was friends with people who owned "Tomahawk" missiles, thus allowing him to segue into a tirade about America's treatment of its Indians (I'm not making this up). And as if to show that there were no depths to which he would not proudly sink, Mr. Galloway finished his "answer" to Mr. Hitchens's question by announcing that the planes that brought down the World Trade Center were the direct result of "hatred created by the U.S." and by appealing to anti-Semites with a few risible remarks about Israel.

It says something about those in attendance that these Sept. 11 remarks--uttered in New York, just a scream away from Ground Zero--earned Mr. Galloway wild applause. Another crowd highlight was the response to Mr. Hitchens's opening request for a moment of silence to remember the 160 Iraqis who'd been brutally murdered in Baghdad earlier that day. One man immediately shouted "No!" as comrades began jeering and booing the journalist. America, meet your "antiwar" activists.

All of which gets back to Mr. Hitchens's incredibly insightful phrase, "sinister piffle." It'd be nice, and easy, to write off Mr. Galloway. After all, he wields no power in British politics and is widely viewed by serious people as ridiculous.

But there are always those who aren't serious. Mr. Galloway's speechifying contained no merit, ergo piffle. Yet to the extent that it demagogued Israel or President Bush or Halliburton, or that it legitimized terrorists and mass murders--all in the name of stirring up anger and hatred and giving the masses targets on which to unload their fury--it was sinister.

There isn't much for it, of course. Mr. Galloway is more fortunate than the Syrians who live under his buddy Mr. Assad and is free to speak his mind. But my advice, should Mr. Hitchens ever be asked for a repeat performance? Don't waste your time.

Ms. Strassel is a senior editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal.

MP3 audio clips can be found ... HERE.

thnks tico

strassel is obviously desperate

even oona king said galloway won