The vote at the end was sixty per cent or more for Glenn (opposing the motion) and 24 per cent or thereabouts for the motion, yet the moderator called it "A close call" or "Narrow call" or something similar. Have I got this right or did I mis-hear?

Glenn was excellent and his logic irrefutable, while Dershowitz just kept repeating the same points Glenn had previously demolished. All through Dershowitz kept hammering on about regime change, and yet when Glenn pointed out this was his real motivation in wanting to bomb Iran, Dershowitz flat out denied it, having minutes before called for REGIME CHANGE. How did a person of such stunted intellectual capacity ever become a professor at an American university? I thought even they had standards to adhere to.

And yes, the moderator was crap. It was like watching the vicar trying to run the bingo at the local church hall. (Sorry, vicar.)