Pour être plus clair : Galloway est un populiste fascisant de la pire espèce. Et dangereux, en plus. Hitchens est juste un sophiste dont l'honnêteté intellectuelle est à peu près égale à zéro (cf son jugement méprisable sur l'étude du Lancet ou son argument absurde selon lequel les opposants à la guerre en Irak étaient nécessairement contre l'intervention au Kosovo ou en Afghanistan). Ce qui fait qu'au total je suis complètement d'accord avec Greg Palast :
"This is not about George Galloway, but about us. What's Left? Are we about standing for the defenseless -- or the cruel and senseless?
A couple of months after the invasion of Iraq, I was in Los Angeles and some drunk accosted me, saying, "George Bush was right about everything he said about Iraq!" -- weapons of mass destruction, the al-Qaeda connection and more. It was Christopher Hitchens, "debating" me, and furious. His confusing our President's assertions with reality was a verbal pie he threw in the air and caught on his face.
He was flustered not because I disagreed with him - he enjoys that, being the look-at-me bad boy - but because I agreed with him: Saddam was a monster and Iraqis, overwhelmingly, wanted him gone.
But I could not, like Hitchens, shill for Mr. Bush's war of "liberation." I could see where it would end. When a snake devours a rat, it doesn't liberate the captive mice. The mice are "saved" -- for lunch.
But it is not good enough for the Left to oppose Mr. Bush's re-colonization of Iraq. We needed to have actively supported Iraqis fighting to remove their Mesopotamian Stalin. And now, we'd better come up with something a little less nutty than a recent suggestion by one otherwise thoughtful writer that we, "unconditionally support the insurgency" of berserker killers and fundamentalist madmen. If that's the Left's program for Iraq, count me out."
]]>