Google Blog Search Engine / Hitchens - Galloway Cage Match Debate
Google has just launched a blog search engine which is to be found hereI stumbled on it while on blogger.com, and found it to be both quick and accurate in a raod test. It digs deep. It found the wonderful View from 103 and Bay Ridge Blog first shot, even pages within them, instantly.
---
I just finished listening to the Hitchens - Galloway debate as it was broadcast on the web. To tell the truth, it was dissapointing. A lot of ad hominem attacks, only nuggets of substance.
Some nuggets:
Galloway more or less openly supports the attackers of US / British coalition troops in Iraq. He had no criticism at any time for any of their actions. He referred to them always as " the resistance ". Resistance my ass. The Saddam / Islamofascist resistance that the Kurd / Shia majority utterly despises.
Hitchens referred to the Iraq war as " just and necessary ". He said that if the US had not invaded, Iraq would have been invaded by Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Not sure I follow this. Iran, maybe. Turkey, do not think so--though Hitch said they would in order to put a lid on the Kurds.
The Saudis could not fight their way out of a wet burka.
But Hitchens raised a lot of valid points about Iraq being a menace to all of its neighbors, and a slaughterer of its own people.
The moderator made an immense error by bringing up New Orleans, which led to a very long off topic discussion. This really killed the debate. Not that it was so great to begin with. Again, a lot of personal attacks. Abd the usual Halliburton arguments. And animal noises from the Galloway supporters.
I think Galloway is a liar and crook both, but he is a fearless and a good debater. Hitchens is a very strong writer, and was good on night when I wish that he had been great.
I agree with Hitchens that the war was and is justified. The world is a better place with Saddam powerless and in prison.
This will be worth watching on C-SPAN this weekend--I want to see how it comes off on tv.
---
I just finished listening to the Hitchens - Galloway debate as it was broadcast on the web. To tell the truth, it was dissapointing. A lot of ad hominem attacks, only nuggets of substance.
Some nuggets:
Galloway more or less openly supports the attackers of US / British coalition troops in Iraq. He had no criticism at any time for any of their actions. He referred to them always as " the resistance ". Resistance my ass. The Saddam / Islamofascist resistance that the Kurd / Shia majority utterly despises.
Hitchens referred to the Iraq war as " just and necessary ". He said that if the US had not invaded, Iraq would have been invaded by Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Not sure I follow this. Iran, maybe. Turkey, do not think so--though Hitch said they would in order to put a lid on the Kurds.
The Saudis could not fight their way out of a wet burka.
But Hitchens raised a lot of valid points about Iraq being a menace to all of its neighbors, and a slaughterer of its own people.
The moderator made an immense error by bringing up New Orleans, which led to a very long off topic discussion. This really killed the debate. Not that it was so great to begin with. Again, a lot of personal attacks. Abd the usual Halliburton arguments. And animal noises from the Galloway supporters.
I think Galloway is a liar and crook both, but he is a fearless and a good debater. Hitchens is a very strong writer, and was good on night when I wish that he had been great.
I agree with Hitchens that the war was and is justified. The world is a better place with Saddam powerless and in prison.
This will be worth watching on C-SPAN this weekend--I want to see how it comes off on tv.
