New York bust-up

Late last night I got round to listening to the Hitchens-Galloway confrontation. No one's going to expect of me that I will think Galloway came out of it best, and I won't disappoint them. He didn't. It is, however, a matter of astonishment to me that anyone not comprehensively crazed, and partisan against the pro-war case though they may be, could have heard that debate and honestly say otherwise. What Galloway gave was insult, a relentlessly shouting and hectoring delivery, and failure to respond with actual argument to any serious point that was put to him.

Andrew Anthony has a discussion of the event and its context in today's Observer. He says:

Opinion was divided over who triumphed, though from where I sat Hitchens won on points.

He also reports an amusing exchange on the street outside the hall - and this, from an interview he did with Hitchens beforehand:

'What would it take for me to desert [the Iraqi secular and democratic forces]? Well... there is no way. It's like saying, "Oh I couldn't very well be your friend after you'd gone broke and been mugged, and after that burglary at your home."'
.....
'It's not really an argument about the facts of the matter. It's an argument about the mentality.'

Whatever patience or sympathy he once had with the outlook that sees the West only as the problem and never the solution had been exhausted.

That's too one-sided. There are some important arguments about the facts of the matter - but, yes, the mentality as well.