Someone called this a debate between a Trotskyite and a Stalinist. It was a Left vs. Left debate. Neither side was standing up for the Bush administration, although Galloway tried to tar Hitchens with that brush.

The subject of the debate was supposed to be about whether the March 2003 war against Iraq was "necessary and just". Despite that, it was mostly about establishing Leftist cred. Much of Galloway's time was spent accusing Hitchens of being an apostate, and much of Hitchens time was spent wondering why Galloway and his supporters refused to condemn the nihilists and jihadists who target working-class civilians.

Like many leftist gatherings it was a mostly white, middle aged (or older) crowd. Although it was held at Baruch College, there weren't many students.

Before the debate our group met at the Grand Saloon for pre-debate drinks. Fellow Harry's Place pamphleteer David Adler, a war opponent, blue-stater and culture writer who believes that Galloway and his ilk are a "disaster for the left." showed me an article by Greg Palast that fairly effectively eviscerates Galloway:

.. 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.

We can't define ourselves as the "anti-Bush," blindly supporting those he opposes, and thereby letting the nitwit Napoleon in the White House pick our enemies for us. Nor can our revulsion for Bush's horrors throw us into the arms of swamp-things like George Galloway.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike Hitchens, I cannot support the Prevaricator-in-Chief, the President who ordered Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, to march to his death in Najaf. But I'll be damned if I'll cheer some rich white Brit-hole who brings joy to Casey's killers.

The line of ticket-holders waiting for seats in front of Baruch was huge. I was the only member of our group who had neglected to pick up tickets beforehand, so I waited in the shorter line for my tickets, resigned myself to a standing room only balcony seat, spotted Hitch mingling with the crowd and took a picture. Everyone in the ticket-getter line was grumbling about the long wait they'd have to endure. A young Brit in front of me said: " This is how it was when I was with the Left. No organization".

He was right about that. When I picked up my ticket they let me right into the auditorium and gave me a totally undeserved choice of the best first floor seats. Meanwhile, everyone who planned ahead was stuck outside sweating in the thickly humid heat. There's one appeal of the Left - when it comes to a contest between ants and grasshoppers, grasshoppers usually win.

I grabbed the choicest center row places I could find, and saved all of the surrounding seats I could. Since I got in early, I missed the chance to distribute anti-Galloway leaflets, a chore that Judith shared with Hitch outside. She, like Pamela, got a chance to meet him. I also missed the tie-up at the metal detectors and the rumors that right wing web sites had infiltrated the debate. Since anyone to the right of Michael Moore is classified by this crowd as "right wing", I guess they meant me.

We rightwing infiltrators were scattered throughout the crowd. Judith, Irwin sat on the first floor on the left side. Mara sat near the press, including the BBC. I sat with Rona, Bruce W. and Pamela, a very enthusiastic Hitch supporter. Judging from the stern looks the people in front of us threw our way, they were mild-mannered Galloway supporters. The guys behind us, greying, rumpled academic types, were definitely Galloway dittoheads. Some were downright rabid. When Hitchens requested a moment of silence for the Iraqis who were sadistically murdered by the insurgency, they were among those shouting "NO! NO!" When Hitch praised the US for making life better for the Afghan people, they shouted "Who Cares?" When Galloway said that the 9/11 hijackers emerged out of a swamp created by us, their cheers didn't turn to boos.

One of them hurled the worst epithet he could think of at Pamela - he called her a zionist. She said, "yes, I am a Zionist." Flabbergasted, he had no comeback.

Professorial and calm, Hitchens was the perfect representative of the liberal, 'fascism means war' Left.

Galloway was the perfect representative of the totalitarian thug. If Galloway had been speaking German his delivery would have mirrored Hitler's from the rally at Nuremburg. He used the same gestures, the same barking, bombastic style, shouting into the microphone, jabbing the air with muscular authority. Hitch said of Galloway, "The man's search for a tyrannical fatherland never ends!" It seems that Galloway plans to create his own.

Perhaps this observation occurred to moderator Amy Goodman. After Galloway's first bombastic segment, she suggested that he move the microphone away from his face. Of course, that didn't work, he just crouched down to yell into it.

The question is, why was Hitch debating this thug at all? Why were Leftists and New Yorkers cheering for a politician who said that he had "a very, very profound connection" with Confederate Civil War general Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who fought to preserve slavery, which he considered ordained by God?

Robert Paxton, in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism" observes that when a political group loses power and feels humiliated or victimized, they can begin to lose faith in the democratic process. They become more willing to abandon democratic ideals.

Galloway got the most cheers from the non-rightwing infiltrator crowd when he condemned President Bush or mentioned his "victory" in Washington. They cheered when he demanded that we "rid the world" of George Bush and Anthony Blair. He also got cheers when he called the U.S. and Britain the biggest rougue states in the world today, that no tinpot dictatorship in the Middle East could cause more damage than an invading imperialist superpower. People were cheering for the idea that genocidal, oppressive tinpot dictatorships could never be as bad as our democracy.

Fascist ideals don't appeal to the poor or the oppressed, but they do appeal to the members of the wealthy and middle class who feel that they should (or must) have more power than they already do. Wealth and prosperity don't discourage fascism - as we've seen in the Middle East, wealth causes fascism to thrive.

Greg Palast believes that George Galloway is a temporary phenomenon:

He's just another self-promoting fart. Six months from now, even his smell will be gone.

Via Harry's Place: Hear the debates in MP3 form. Part 1 and Part 2

Judith, Pamela, alcibiades, Oxblog , the Drink-soaked Trotskyite Popinjays and Tiger Hawk have more.

David Adler had this to say:

..last night’s issue was Iraq, and I concur with Ben, a correspondent over at Harry's Place. The sight of these comfortable Manhattanites applauding Galloway’s unequivocal support for the Iraqi "resistance" made me despair for the left, and quite frankly, for our species. The term "people of goodwill" came into my head; alas, there weren't many of them in the room. This is now the litmus test for the decent left. Galloway and his cheering section have flunked it spectacularly.