Principal vs. Reaction

Wretchard at the Belmont club notes the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Lord Haw-Haw aka George Galloway.

I will not excerpt the blog, but go and read the whole thing.

It is very clear that Hitchens was making the principled debate and Galloway was trying to scare people into capitulation.

Now, don't mistake Christopher Hitchens as a right winger. HE IS NOT! He is a dedicated leftist and sees that radical utopian Islam is diametrically opposed to liberal government. Liberal government that allows for open and free debate. Liberal government based on the consent of the governed. That is, he sees radical utopianism Islam as a threat to the West that must be confronted.

Hitchen's insults were even based on substance. Hitchens responded that if he had found home in a bottle, Galloway was still traveling from one dictator to the next, looking for a kennel he could call his own. (excerpted from Galloway Versus Hitchens at the Belmont Club), whereas Galloway could only call Hitchens a drunk.

I know for a fact I will always have differences with the left. Certainly we will never agree on most economic matters, will not agree on the role of tradition and religion in our lives and so on. None the less I can not understand how so called liberals can become cheerleaders for such illiberals as Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden, et al. Yes, I know the left will say they do not support any of them but they certainly are working hard and feverishly to counteract any action against those individuals. It isn't their motives that matter it is the results of their actions that matter.