Discussion:
Galloway gives it to the US - both barrels
(too old to reply)
oO
2005-05-17 22:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Anyone got a full transcript?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486025,00.html

George Galloway today accused US senators of manufacturing "the mother of
all smokescreens" as he defended himself from charges that he profited from
Iraqi oil sales.
The anti-war Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, in east London, told the
Senate subcommittee it had made a "schoolboy howler" in its investigation of
illegal Iraqi oil sales. He said it was attempting to divert attention from
the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

In a defiant performance on Capitol Hill, Mr Galloway said senators had
confused the dating of evidence against him and relied too much on the
testimony of a former Iraqi vice president held prisoner in Abu Ghraib.

"I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington,
but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he
told Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican subcommittee chairman.

"I am here today - but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced
my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question,
without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or
telephoned me, without any contact with me whatsoever - and you call that
justice."

Mr Galloway's testimony rested on two key points: that the documents naming
him in the senate report were the same documents the Daily Telegraph had
relied upon in a story he later successfully sued over, and that the
subcommittee had no evidence he had made the financial gains from Iraqi oil
that it alleged.

"What counts is not the names on the paper. What counts is where's the
money, senator? Who paid me money, senator? Who paid me hundreds of
thousands of dollars?

"The answer to that is nobody - and if you had anybody who paid me a penny,
you would have produced them here today."

The senate report claimed Mr Galloway and Charles Pasqua, the former French
interior minister, were given potentially lucrative oil allocations as a
reward for their support in calling for sanctions against Saddam Hussein's
regime to be loosened. Mr Pasqua also denies the claims.

Mr Galloway told the senators they had made a "schoolboy howler" in dating
their evidence against him to almost a decade earlier than the Daily
Telegraph and a period from 1992-93 when the UN oil for food programme - the
centre of the investigation - was not even in existence.

The MP, elected to parliament on May 5 on an anti-war ticket in the former
seat of Oona King, a Tony Blair loyalist, said the Christian Science
Monitor, which used documents from the same period had retracted its story
and admitted the documents were fake.

"It is a proven fact these forged documents existed and were being
circulated among rightwing newspapers," Mr Galloway told Sen Coleman.

"You have nothing on me, senator, except my name on lists of names from
Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet
government in Baghdad," he said.

One of the main allegations in the senate report is that Mr Galloway
received oil allocations with the help of Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian
businessman and chairman of the Mariam appeal set up by the MP to help a
4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukaemia.

The allegations of oil trading links between the two men - denied by both
parties - formed the bulk of the questioning of Mr Galloway after he had
finished his opening statement.

He told the senators: "I can assure you Mr Zureikat never gave me a penny
from an oil deal, a cake deal, a bread deal or from any other deal."

When not defending himself against the senate report's allegations, Mr
Galloway attacked the morality of the post-Gulf war sanctions on Iraq and
the wisdom of the 2003 US-led invasion.

He described the sub-committee's claims as the "mother of all smokescreens",
intended to divert attention from the "crimes" committed in the invasion of
Iraq.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right and you
turned out to be wrong - and 100,000 have paid with their lives, 1,600 of
them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies," Mr Galloway
told Sen Coleman.

He insisted he had been a longer-standing opponent of Saddam Hussein than
anyone questioning him.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when the British and American
governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas," he told the
subcommittee.

"I have a better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do."
nom de guerre
2005-05-18 01:51:59 UTC
Permalink
it's about time.


it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing

much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self esteem
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...

and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.

...
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486025,00.html
George Galloway today accused US senators of manufacturing "the mother of
all smokescreens" as he defended himself from charges that he profited from
Iraqi oil sales.
The anti-war Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, in east London, told the
Senate subcommittee it had made a "schoolboy howler" in its investigation of
illegal Iraqi oil sales. He said it was attempting to divert attention from
the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
In a defiant performance on Capitol Hill, Mr Galloway said senators had
confused the dating of evidence against him and relied too much on the
testimony of a former Iraqi vice president held prisoner in Abu Ghraib.
"I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington,
but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he
told Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican subcommittee chairman.
"I am here today - but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced
my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question,
without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or
telephoned me, without any contact with me whatsoever - and you call that
justice."
Mr Galloway's testimony rested on two key points: that the documents naming
him in the senate report were the same documents the Daily Telegraph had
relied upon in a story he later successfully sued over, and that the
subcommittee had no evidence he had made the financial gains from Iraqi oil
that it alleged.
"What counts is not the names on the paper. What counts is where's the
money, senator? Who paid me money, senator? Who paid me hundreds of
thousands of dollars?
"The answer to that is nobody - and if you had anybody who paid me a penny,
you would have produced them here today."
The senate report claimed Mr Galloway and Charles Pasqua, the former French
interior minister, were given potentially lucrative oil allocations as a
reward for their support in calling for sanctions against Saddam Hussein's
regime to be loosened. Mr Pasqua also denies the claims.
Mr Galloway told the senators they had made a "schoolboy howler" in dating
their evidence against him to almost a decade earlier than the Daily
Telegraph and a period from 1992-93 when the UN oil for food programme - the
centre of the investigation - was not even in existence.
The MP, elected to parliament on May 5 on an anti-war ticket in the former
seat of Oona King, a Tony Blair loyalist, said the Christian Science
Monitor, which used documents from the same period had retracted its story
and admitted the documents were fake.
"It is a proven fact these forged documents existed and were being
circulated among rightwing newspapers," Mr Galloway told Sen Coleman.
"You have nothing on me, senator, except my name on lists of names from
Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet
government in Baghdad," he said.
One of the main allegations in the senate report is that Mr Galloway
received oil allocations with the help of Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian
businessman and chairman of the Mariam appeal set up by the MP to help a
4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukaemia.
The allegations of oil trading links between the two men - denied by both
parties - formed the bulk of the questioning of Mr Galloway after he had
finished his opening statement.
He told the senators: "I can assure you Mr Zureikat never gave me a penny
from an oil deal, a cake deal, a bread deal or from any other deal."
When not defending himself against the senate report's allegations, Mr
Galloway attacked the morality of the post-Gulf war sanctions on Iraq and
the wisdom of the 2003 US-led invasion.
He described the sub-committee's claims as the "mother of all smokescreens",
intended to divert attention from the "crimes" committed in the invasion of
Iraq.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right and you
turned out to be wrong - and 100,000 have paid with their lives, 1,600 of
them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies," Mr Galloway
told Sen Coleman.
He insisted he had been a longer-standing opponent of Saddam Hussein than
anyone questioning him.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when the British and American
governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas," he told the
subcommittee.
"I have a better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do."
it's about time.


it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing

much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self esteem
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...

and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.

--
the senate and the house of representatives are
the ones allowing the administration to get away with all the murders,lies
and violence towards other peoples
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
2005-05-18 05:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
oh shutup, McCarthy did the right thing in getting rid of the filthy
communist scum which would have gladly sold Europe and America into
decades of backward misery and hell, just like the poor people in
Russia and East Europe had to endure.

Galloway gutting the Senate out about their illegal war, fighting to
clear his name and generally humiliating the liars in front of the
whole world is equally excellent.
Don Ocean
2005-05-18 05:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
oh shutup, McCarthy did the right thing in getting rid of the filthy
communist scum which would have gladly sold Europe and America into
decades of backward misery and hell, just like the poor people in
Russia and East Europe had to endure.
Galloway gutting the Senate out about their illegal war, fighting to
clear his name and generally humiliating the liars in front of the
whole world is equally excellent.
Agreed! Kudos!
nom de guerre
2005-06-18 14:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
oh shutup, McCarthy did the right thing in getting rid of the filthy
communist scum which would have gladly sold Europe and America into
decades of backward misery and hell, just like the poor people in
Russia and East Europe had to endure.
bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Post by nom de guerre
Galloway gutting the Senate out about their illegal war, fighting to
clear his name and generally humiliating the liars in front of the
whole world is equally excellent.
good.
but how you fit the two statements together in a sane world view is
beyond me.



=)
B***@isp.com
2005-05-19 07:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
The "Only American" that you referred to was the lawyer
Joseph Welch and it was in response to McCarthy looking
for commies in the legal profession. Welch had an assistant
"Fred Fisher" who was a member of an organisation
named as a communist front - The National Lawyers Guild.
It turned out that the jew Fisher *was* a commie
and the NLG *was* a commie front organisation.
So you will have to decided for yourself where McCarthy
was right after all in that particular instance.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486025,00.html
George Galloway today accused US senators of manufacturing "the
mother of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
all smokescreens" as he defended himself from charges that he
profited from
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Iraqi oil sales.
The anti-war Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, in east London,
told the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Senate subcommittee it had made a "schoolboy howler" in its
investigation of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
illegal Iraqi oil sales. He said it was attempting to divert
attention from
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
In a defiant performance on Capitol Hill, Mr Galloway said senators
had
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
confused the dating of evidence against him and relied too much on
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
testimony of a former Iraqi vice president held prisoner in Abu
Ghraib.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
"I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in
Washington,
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of
justice," he
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
told Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican subcommittee chairman.
"I am here today - but last week you already found me guilty. You
traduced
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
my name around the world without ever having asked me a single
question,
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me
or
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
telephoned me, without any contact with me whatsoever - and you
call that
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
justice."
Mr Galloway's testimony rested on two key points: that the
documents naming
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
him in the senate report were the same documents the Daily
Telegraph had
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
relied upon in a story he later successfully sued over, and that
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
subcommittee had no evidence he had made the financial gains from
Iraqi oil
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
that it alleged.
"What counts is not the names on the paper. What counts is where's
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
money, senator? Who paid me money, senator? Who paid me hundreds of
thousands of dollars?
"The answer to that is nobody - and if you had anybody who paid me
a penny,
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
you would have produced them here today."
The senate report claimed Mr Galloway and Charles Pasqua, the
former French
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
interior minister, were given potentially lucrative oil allocations
as a
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
reward for their support in calling for sanctions against Saddam
Hussein's
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
regime to be loosened. Mr Pasqua also denies the claims.
Mr Galloway told the senators they had made a "schoolboy howler" in
dating
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
their evidence against him to almost a decade earlier than the
Daily
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Telegraph and a period from 1992-93 when the UN oil for food
programme - the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
centre of the investigation - was not even in existence.
The MP, elected to parliament on May 5 on an anti-war ticket in the
former
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
seat of Oona King, a Tony Blair loyalist, said the Christian
Science
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Monitor, which used documents from the same period had retracted
its story
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
and admitted the documents were fake.
"It is a proven fact these forged documents existed and were being
circulated among rightwing newspapers," Mr Galloway told Sen
Coleman.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
"You have nothing on me, senator, except my name on lists of names
from
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of
your puppet
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
government in Baghdad," he said.
One of the main allegations in the senate report is that Mr
Galloway
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
received oil allocations with the help of Fawaz Zureikat, a
Jordanian
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
businessman and chairman of the Mariam appeal set up by the MP to
help a
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukaemia.
The allegations of oil trading links between the two men - denied
by both
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
parties - formed the bulk of the questioning of Mr Galloway after
he had
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
finished his opening statement.
He told the senators: "I can assure you Mr Zureikat never gave me a
penny
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
from an oil deal, a cake deal, a bread deal or from any other
deal."
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
When not defending himself against the senate report's allegations,
Mr
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Galloway attacked the morality of the post-Gulf war sanctions on
Iraq and
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
the wisdom of the 2003 US-led invasion.
He described the sub-committee's claims as the "mother of all
smokescreens",
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
intended to divert attention from the "crimes" committed in the
invasion of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Iraq.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right
and you
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
turned out to be wrong - and 100,000 have paid with their lives,
1,600 of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies," Mr
Galloway
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
told Sen Coleman.
He insisted he had been a longer-standing opponent of Saddam
Hussein than
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
anyone questioning him.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when the British and American
governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas," he told
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
subcommittee.
"I have a better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you
do."
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
--
the senate and the house of representatives are
the ones allowing the administration to get away with all the
murders,lies
Post by nom de guerre
and violence towards other peoples
nom de guerre
2005-05-20 21:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
The "Only American" that you referred to was the lawyer
Joseph Welch and it was in response to McCarthy looking
for commies in the legal profession. Welch had an assistant
"Fred Fisher" who was a member of an organisation
named as a communist front - The National Lawyers Guild.
It turned out that the jew Fisher *was* a commie
and the NLG *was* a commie front organisation.
So you will have to decided for yourself where McCarthy
was right after all in that particular instance.
"was right"...

you will have to decide for yourself if you understand the
basic principles of freedom and democracy.

by the way: why on earth do you feel it is it nessesary
to point the religous orientation og fisher???
i.e.: that fisher was a jew ????


great society. not illegal to be a fuckin KKK Nazi, but
be a socialist, social democrat or the likes and you're
branded a commie and for some reason do not have
human rights. morons.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486025,00.html
George Galloway today accused US senators of manufacturing "the
mother of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
all smokescreens" as he defended himself from charges that he
profited from
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Iraqi oil sales.
The anti-war Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, in east London,
told the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Senate subcommittee it had made a "schoolboy howler" in its
investigation of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
illegal Iraqi oil sales. He said it was attempting to divert
attention from
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
In a defiant performance on Capitol Hill, Mr Galloway said senators
had
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
confused the dating of evidence against him and relied too much on
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
testimony of a former Iraqi vice president held prisoner in Abu
Ghraib.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
"I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in
Washington,
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of
justice," he
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
told Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican subcommittee chairman.
"I am here today - but last week you already found me guilty. You
traduced
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
my name around the world without ever having asked me a single
question,
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me
or
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
telephoned me, without any contact with me whatsoever - and you
call that
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
justice."
Mr Galloway's testimony rested on two key points: that the
documents naming
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
him in the senate report were the same documents the Daily
Telegraph had
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
relied upon in a story he later successfully sued over, and that
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
subcommittee had no evidence he had made the financial gains from
Iraqi oil
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
that it alleged.
"What counts is not the names on the paper. What counts is where's
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
money, senator? Who paid me money, senator? Who paid me hundreds of
thousands of dollars?
"The answer to that is nobody - and if you had anybody who paid me
a penny,
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
you would have produced them here today."
The senate report claimed Mr Galloway and Charles Pasqua, the
former French
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
interior minister, were given potentially lucrative oil allocations
as a
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
reward for their support in calling for sanctions against Saddam
Hussein's
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
regime to be loosened. Mr Pasqua also denies the claims.
Mr Galloway told the senators they had made a "schoolboy howler" in
dating
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
their evidence against him to almost a decade earlier than the
Daily
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Telegraph and a period from 1992-93 when the UN oil for food
programme - the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
centre of the investigation - was not even in existence.
The MP, elected to parliament on May 5 on an anti-war ticket in the
former
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
seat of Oona King, a Tony Blair loyalist, said the Christian
Science
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Monitor, which used documents from the same period had retracted
its story
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
and admitted the documents were fake.
"It is a proven fact these forged documents existed and were being
circulated among rightwing newspapers," Mr Galloway told Sen
Coleman.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
"You have nothing on me, senator, except my name on lists of names
from
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of
your puppet
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
government in Baghdad," he said.
One of the main allegations in the senate report is that Mr
Galloway
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
received oil allocations with the help of Fawaz Zureikat, a
Jordanian
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
businessman and chairman of the Mariam appeal set up by the MP to
help a
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukaemia.
The allegations of oil trading links between the two men - denied
by both
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
parties - formed the bulk of the questioning of Mr Galloway after
he had
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
finished his opening statement.
He told the senators: "I can assure you Mr Zureikat never gave me a
penny
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
from an oil deal, a cake deal, a bread deal or from any other
deal."
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
When not defending himself against the senate report's allegations,
Mr
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Galloway attacked the morality of the post-Gulf war sanctions on
Iraq and
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
the wisdom of the 2003 US-led invasion.
He described the sub-committee's claims as the "mother of all
smokescreens",
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
intended to divert attention from the "crimes" committed in the
invasion of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
Iraq.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right
and you
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
turned out to be wrong - and 100,000 have paid with their lives,
1,600 of
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies," Mr
Galloway
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
told Sen Coleman.
He insisted he had been a longer-standing opponent of Saddam
Hussein than
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
anyone questioning him.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when the British and American
governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas," he told
the
Post by nom de guerre
Post by oO
subcommittee.
"I have a better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you
do."
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
--
the senate and the house of representatives are
the ones allowing the administration to get away with all the
murders,lies
Post by nom de guerre
and violence towards other peoples
B***@isp.com
2005-05-21 03:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he was.
The "Only American" that you referred to was the lawyer
Joseph Welch and it was in response to McCarthy looking
for commies in the legal profession. Welch had an assistant
"Fred Fisher" who was a member of an organisation
named as a communist front - The National Lawyers Guild.
It turned out that the jew Fisher *was* a commie
and the NLG *was* a commie front organisation.
So you will have to decided for yourself where McCarthy
was right after all in that particular instance.
"was right"...
you will have to decide for yourself if you understand the
basic principles of freedom and democracy.
There is no freedom and democracy under communism.
Post by nom de guerre
by the way: why on earth do you feel it is it nessesary
to point the religous orientation og fisher???
i.e.: that fisher was a jew ????
The fact that he was a commie and a member of a communist front
organisation would make it obvious that he was a jew,
so in that instance, you are right, I had no need
to point it out.
Post by nom de guerre
great society. not illegal to be a fuckin KKK Nazi, but
be a socialist, social democrat or the likes and you're
branded a commie and for some reason do not have
human rights. morons.
The loyalty of a communist was to the USSR, *not*
to the nation in which they claimed citizenship.
*That* was the problem during the Cold War as we
saw with the Rosenbergs and all those other
traitors, whether they worked in Hollyvood or
on atomic bomb installations.
jon
2005-05-23 02:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
it's about time.
it's about time someone told the entire US senate off
for their leniency to the right wing
much like Joseph McCarthy long overdue at last was told off
by the only american (it seems) who remembered his pride and self
esteem
Post by nom de guerre
and had strong enough integrity to stop that dirty liar...
and show him as the shameful smearer and mockery of a statesman
and as the travesty of a representative to his constituency he
was.
Post by nom de guerre
Post by nom de guerre
The "Only American" that you referred to was the lawyer
Joseph Welch and it was in response to McCarthy looking
for commies in the legal profession. Welch had an assistant
"Fred Fisher" who was a member of an organisation
named as a communist front - The National Lawyers Guild.
It turned out that the jew Fisher *was* a commie
and the NLG *was* a commie front organisation.
So you will have to decided for yourself where McCarthy
was right after all in that particular instance.
"was right"...
you will have to decide for yourself if you understand the
basic principles of freedom and democracy.
There is no freedom and democracy under communism.
Post by nom de guerre
by the way: why on earth do you feel it is it nessesary
to point the religous orientation og fisher???
i.e.: that fisher was a jew ????
The fact that he was a commie and a member of a communist front
organisation would make it obvious that he was a jew,
so in that instance, you are right, I had no need
to point it out.
"you're a moron" (c) Bill Hicks,1992 Texas.

and you're a fascist racist child.

which makes you a idiot to boot

bye bye.
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by nom de guerre
great society. not illegal to be a fuckin KKK Nazi, but
be a socialist, social democrat or the likes and you're
branded a commie and for some reason do not have
human rights. morons.
The loyalty of a communist was to the USSR, *not*
to the nation in which they claimed citizenship.
*That* was the problem during the Cold War as we
saw with the Rosenbergs and all those other
traitors, whether they worked in Hollyvood or
on atomic bomb installations.
it seems this individual doesn't see the difference between
supporting political views and those groups working for
betterment of their own conditions as a worker
through unions and other means whatever you call it
and that of supposedly being a supporter of a dictatorship
that had nothing to do with communist ideals, but all the same
branded by the right wingers as "communist"


--john (nom de guerre)

check it out: "Bill Hicks - the Gulf War.mp3"
"you're a moron" (c) Bill Hicks, 1992 Texas.
Sky King
2005-05-23 10:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Christopher Hitchens has the best take on Saddam's Galloway:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp

Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens

05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
Josh Dougherty
2005-05-23 18:53:00 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How pathetic.
Sky King
2005-05-23 19:28:50 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How pathetic.
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad news
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
j***@yahoo.com
2005-05-24 00:15:58 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How
pathetic.>
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad news
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
It doesn't matter much what Galloway is, although I see no
reason to trust a turncoat and sellout like Hitchens. The
important thing is that Galloway cleverly suckered the U.S.
Senate into letting him tell them, accurately, what _they_
are -- liars, war criminals, religious fanatics, thieves and
time-servers. And once he started, they didn't know how to
stop him and get a good old Senatorial kangaroo court going.
The whole world got to watch a magnificent performance.

It gives me the idea that in spite of the fact that they
and their great leader in the White House lead an army of
morons, they can be had. Not just defeated in elections,
but put on trial for their innumerable crimes in fact as
they certainly will be in history.
Sky King
2005-05-24 01:13:36 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How
pathetic.>
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad news
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
It doesn't matter much what Galloway is, although I see no
reason to trust a turncoat and sellout like Hitchens.
Well, you are a little sucker, aren't you? Your little world where
ideaology trumps ideas so that Hitchens is a "turncoat" rather than one
who has used his intellect to arrive at conclusions based on reason and
experience must be treasonous.

My, haven't you outed yourself, little one.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
The
important thing is that Galloway cleverly suckered the U.S.
Senate into letting him tell them, accurately, what _they_
are -- liars, war criminals, religious fanatics, thieves and
time-servers.
There is reason to question the advisibility of letting a pimp for
Saddam, one kicked out of his own party for treachery, into the Senate
floor to begin with. But to fall for the delusion that Galloway said
anything approaching the truth is only testament to how gullible his
flock is, sheep following the liar anywhere he choses to go.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
And once he started, they didn't know how to
stop him and get a good old Senatorial kangaroo court going.
The whole world got to watch a magnificent performance.
Performance is the key, isn't it? A grand performance like Joe
McCarthy, for instance. There are gullible people everywehere and you
exemplify how easily gullible people are when presnted with their
"savior."
Post by j***@yahoo.com
It gives me the idea that in spite of the fact that they
and their great leader in the White House lead an army of
morons, they can be had. Not just defeated in elections,
but put on trial for their innumerable crimes in fact as
they certainly will be in history.
I am sure you are proud of uttering pure nonsense. As reality and truth
passes you by, don't whine that you were not warned how infantile your
blind devotion to leftist dogma is.

It's the nature of the beast.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-05-24 14:59:42 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How
pathetic.>
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad news
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
It doesn't matter much what Galloway is, although I see no
reason to trust a turncoat and sellout like Hitchens. The
important thing is that Galloway cleverly suckered the U.S.
Senate into letting him tell them, accurately, what _they_
are -- liars, war criminals, religious fanatics, thieves and
time-servers. And once he started, they didn't know how to
stop him and get a good old Senatorial kangaroo court going.
The whole world got to watch a magnificent performance.
It gives me the idea that in spite of the fact that they
and their great leader in the White House lead an army of
morons, they can be had. Not just defeated in elections,
but put on trial for their innumerable crimes in fact as
they certainly will be in history.
I was particularly amused by this bit of Hitchens' blithering,
with which he ends his deposit:

"And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media
in London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination."

I guess Hitchens doesn't get it -- you can't be a paid mouthpiece
of the established order and still get that old-time leftie thrill
of speaking the truth to power.

But maybe the money's good.
Josh Dougherty
2005-05-24 01:58:43 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How
pathetic.
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad news
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
I don't know what the "bad news" is. Since he's being called before the
Senate and grilled, one would think he's charged or accused of some crime.
Reading the transcript, I can't figure out what the supposed crime is.
Reading Hitchens lame and empty smear piece, I can't figure out what it is.

Apparently Hitchens, and Norm Coleman, don't like that Galloway said a
positive phrase about Saddam Hussein in 1994. Ok, still waiting to find out
what the crime is. (and wondering what relevance this has to be taking up
time and such prominence in Coleman's hearings).

The other Senator is very concerned if Galloway would feel "troubled" if he
knew that his friend had profited from some illegal contract for oil. Ok,
regardless of the outcome of this oh so important question, I'd still be
waiting to find out what the crime is.

etc. etc.

Hitchens just wrote an empty smear piece, indistinguishable from other smear
pieces you find in similar rags, in which he never clarifies what crime
Galloway is accused of. He just attacks Galloway in general because he
differs with Hitchens' political views, got everything right that Hitchens
got wrong regarding Iraq, hasn't been running around openly supporting war
crimes and imperialism like Hitchens...etc., This is all the same reasons
why he was called before the Senate to be attacked and vilified over
nonsense: smokescreen and political witchhunt.
Sky King
2005-05-24 12:21:36 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How
pathetic.
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad news
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
I don't know what the "bad news" is. Since he's being called before the
Senate and grilled, one would think he's charged or accused of some crime.
Reading the transcript, I can't figure out what the supposed crime is.
Reading Hitchens lame and empty smear piece, I can't figure out what it is.
Apparently Hitchens, and Norm Coleman, don't like that Galloway said a
positive phrase about Saddam Hussein in 1994. Ok, still waiting to find out
what the crime is. (and wondering what relevance this has to be taking up
time and such prominence in Coleman's hearings).
The other Senator is very concerned if Galloway would feel "troubled" if he
knew that his friend had profited from some illegal contract for oil.
Ok,
Post by Josh Dougherty
regardless of the outcome of this oh so important question, I'd still be
waiting to find out what the crime is.
etc. etc.
Hitchens just wrote an empty smear piece, indistinguishable from other smear
pieces you find in similar rags, in which he never clarifies what crime
Galloway is accused of. He just attacks Galloway in general because he
differs with Hitchens' political views, got everything right that Hitchens
got wrong regarding Iraq, hasn't been running around openly
supporting war
Post by Josh Dougherty
crimes and imperialism like Hitchens...etc., This is all the same reasons
why he was called before the Senate to be attacked and vilified over
nonsense: smokescreen and political witchhunt.
Josh, you've already revealed you extreme prejudice on the matter,
(smear pieces in neocon rags), as if The Weekly Standard isn't a
widely-read source for rational criticism of the Left's self-indulgence
and self-induced decay (see
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL),
so it's unlikely that you have read the basis for the the Senate
hearings, http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTPasquaGalloway.pdf.

No matter if you find that too laborius, we can recall Galloway's proud
statement in January 2005, "Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not
target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the
resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the occupation."

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/01/19/galloway_resistance_does_not_target_its_own_civilians.php

To underscore the point the latest car bombing in Baghdad today
targeted a girl's school.

Perhaps it is best to let Galloway speak for himself on the importance
of moral equivalency in the real world, a sermon with which I would
guess you would agree:

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=372#
Josh Dougherty
2005-05-24 17:14:19 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags. How
pathetic.
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad
news
Post by Josh Dougherty
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
I don't know what the "bad news" is. Since he's being called before
the
Post by Josh Dougherty
Senate and grilled, one would think he's charged or accused of some
crime.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Reading the transcript, I can't figure out what the supposed crime
is.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Reading Hitchens lame and empty smear piece, I can't figure out what
it is.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently Hitchens, and Norm Coleman, don't like that Galloway said
a
Post by Josh Dougherty
positive phrase about Saddam Hussein in 1994. Ok, still waiting to
find out
Post by Josh Dougherty
what the crime is. (and wondering what relevance this has to be
taking up
Post by Josh Dougherty
time and such prominence in Coleman's hearings).
The other Senator is very concerned if Galloway would feel "troubled"
if he
Post by Josh Dougherty
knew that his friend had profited from some illegal contract for oil.
Ok,
Post by Josh Dougherty
regardless of the outcome of this oh so important question, I'd still
be
Post by Josh Dougherty
waiting to find out what the crime is.
etc. etc.
Hitchens just wrote an empty smear piece, indistinguishable from
other smear
Post by Josh Dougherty
pieces you find in similar rags, in which he never clarifies what
crime
Post by Josh Dougherty
Galloway is accused of. He just attacks Galloway in general because
he
Post by Josh Dougherty
differs with Hitchens' political views, got everything right that
Hitchens
Post by Josh Dougherty
got wrong regarding Iraq, hasn't been running around openly
supporting war
Post by Josh Dougherty
crimes and imperialism like Hitchens...etc., This is all the same
reasons
Post by Josh Dougherty
why he was called before the Senate to be attacked and vilified over
nonsense: smokescreen and political witchhunt.
Josh, you've already revealed you extreme prejudice on the matter,
(smear pieces in neocon rags), as if The Weekly Standard isn't a
widely-read source for rational criticism of the Left's self-indulgence
and self-induced decay
Oh gee, extreme prejudice very frustrating for such an open minded and
manifestly fair guy such as yourself.
Post by Josh Dougherty
(see
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL),
so it's unlikely that you have read the basis for the the Senate
hearings, http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTPasquaGalloway.pdf.
No matter if you find that too laborius, we can recall Galloway's proud
statement in January 2005, "Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not
target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the
resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the occupation."
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/01/19/galloway_resistance_does_not_target_its_own_civilians.php
Post by Josh Dougherty
To underscore the point the latest car bombing in Baghdad today
targeted a girl's school.
Perhaps it is best to let Galloway speak for himself on the importance
of moral equivalency in the real world, a sermon with which I would
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=372#
Another ridiculous evasion. What does a statement about the resistance in
January 2005 have to do with whether Galloway supposedly got oil
allocations?

Hmm.... Nothing.
Sky King
2005-05-24 18:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Christopher Hitchens has the best take on Saddam's
Galloway:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to
Washington.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Sky King
by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens now reduced to writing smear pieces in neocon rags.
How
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
pathetic.
Hitchens has you by a mile. You must be upset at hearing the bad
news
Post by Josh Dougherty
about Oil-for-Food beneficiary Galloway.
I don't know what the "bad news" is. Since he's being called before
the
Post by Josh Dougherty
Senate and grilled, one would think he's charged or accused of some
crime.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Reading the transcript, I can't figure out what the supposed crime
is.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Reading Hitchens lame and empty smear piece, I can't figure out what
it is.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently Hitchens, and Norm Coleman, don't like that Galloway said
a
Post by Josh Dougherty
positive phrase about Saddam Hussein in 1994. Ok, still waiting to
find out
Post by Josh Dougherty
what the crime is. (and wondering what relevance this has to be
taking up
Post by Josh Dougherty
time and such prominence in Coleman's hearings).
The other Senator is very concerned if Galloway would feel
"troubled"
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
if he
Post by Josh Dougherty
knew that his friend had profited from some illegal contract for oil.
Ok,
Post by Josh Dougherty
regardless of the outcome of this oh so important question, I'd still
be
Post by Josh Dougherty
waiting to find out what the crime is.
etc. etc.
Hitchens just wrote an empty smear piece, indistinguishable from
other smear
Post by Josh Dougherty
pieces you find in similar rags, in which he never clarifies what
crime
Post by Josh Dougherty
Galloway is accused of. He just attacks Galloway in general because
he
Post by Josh Dougherty
differs with Hitchens' political views, got everything right that
Hitchens
Post by Josh Dougherty
got wrong regarding Iraq, hasn't been running around openly
supporting war
Post by Josh Dougherty
crimes and imperialism like Hitchens...etc., This is all the same
reasons
Post by Josh Dougherty
why he was called before the Senate to be attacked and vilified over
nonsense: smokescreen and political witchhunt.
Josh, you've already revealed you extreme prejudice on the matter,
(smear pieces in neocon rags), as if The Weekly Standard isn't a
widely-read source for rational criticism of the Left's
self-indulgence
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
and self-induced decay
Oh gee, extreme prejudice very frustrating for such an open minded and
manifestly fair guy such as yourself.
I note you cannot address Galloway's dismal behavior.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
(see
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL),
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
so it's unlikely that you have read the basis for the the Senate
hearings,
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTPasquaGalloway.pdf.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
No matter if you find that too laborius, we can recall Galloway's proud
statement in January 2005, "Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not
target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the
resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the
occupation."
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/01/19/galloway_resistance_does_not_target_its_own_civilians.php
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
To underscore the point the latest car bombing in Baghdad today
targeted a girl's school.
Perhaps it is best to let Galloway speak for himself on the
importance
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
of moral equivalency in the real world, a sermon with which I would
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=372#
Another ridiculous evasion. What does a statement about the
resistance in
Post by Josh Dougherty
January 2005 have to do with whether Galloway supposedly got oil
allocations?
Hmm.... Nothing.
One can easily see that he evasion is entirely your own, Josh.

Not willing to address the evidence in the Senate documents is a sure
sign that you can't deal with inconvenient facts. Your frantic
dismissal and evasion doesn't conceal the character nor the actions and
words of the fraudulent charlatan, George Galloway, but reveals that to
you no act of Galloway is too horrible, no word too untruthful.

No wonder that you can't stand Hitchen's trutful evaluation of
Galloway: "And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay
who defends dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious
sectarianism at home. Within a month of his triumph in a British
election, he has flown to Washington and spat full in the face of the
Senate. A megaphone media in London, and a hysterical fan-club of
fundamentalists and political thugs, saw to it that he returned as a
conquering hero and all-round celeb. If only the supporters of regime
change, and the friends of the Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples,
could manifest anything like the same resolve and determination."

Then we have this:

May 20, 2005

Excuse my nausea at the cowardly rant of not-so-gorgeous George

Gerard Baker

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1619416,00.html

IT'S BEEN QUITE a month for George Galloway. First he becomes the new
voice of the jihad of Bethnal Green. Within hours, still in the first
flush of victory, he gets Paxoed before dawn, a stuffing that turns
out, as it usually does these days, to make the victim look rather more
sympathetic than the perpetrator. Then this week he takes on the full
magisterium of the United States Senate.

I had thought that only Jeremy Paxman could elicit sympathy for men
such as Galloway. But I had reckoned, of course, without the preening
pomposity, the orotund turgidity of your typical US senator.

The Senate describes itself, without apparent irony or hint of
self-awareness, as the world's greatest deliberative body. Wherever
they travel, senators are treated with a sort of scented deference that
only a republic could confer on its leaders and not risk revolution.
Fawning staffers strew petals in their path; highways are made straight
for them; rivers are forded lest they get their feet wet. One observer
noted that senators take themselves so seriously that "they'd wear
togas if they thought they could get away with it."

An entertaining spectacle in Washington these past few months has been
the sight of members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee probing
indignantly into the alleged managerial shortcomings of John Bolton,
the Bush Administration's nominee to be Ambassador to the United
Nations.

Mr Bolton's principal crime is that he is somewhat prone to the
occasional bout of carpet-chewing in front of frightened and helpless
young officials. On the north side of Capitol Hill, where Senate
staffers labour for their bosses, this behaviour would not normally be
regarded as disqualification for high office; indeed, anecdote suggests
it is more or less obligatory.

When mortals appear before Senate panels, they are expected to show
proper deference to these lawgivers of the American republic. But while
senators may consider themselves Solons, Pericles they most assuredly
are not. Going through life in an impregnable carapace of sycophancy is
agreeable, no doubt, but as Marie Antoinette discovered, it does not
tend to sharpen one's skills in public argument. So when a feisty
member such as Mr Galloway shows up in the midst of these august
figures, the effect is a little like a character from a Damon Runyon
novel let loose among the Gatsbys.

The average MP, schooled in the knockabout tactics of the House of
Commons, is far better equipped to score points and persuade undecided
minds. And Mr Galloway's performance duly earned him some rave
reviews, not least from startled American journalists who wouldn't
dare treat their betters this way.

But forgive me if I don't participate in the adulation. As I watched,
it wasn't a grudging respect for the perfectly tailored and coiffed
tribune of the masses that filled me, but a wave of nausea. His
testimony left me with a renewed understanding of just how uniquely
repellent Mr Galloway is.

It wasn't just that the earthy rhetoric was well fertilised by the
usual half-truths (his claim that the Charity Commission had in effect
cleared him was an especially eye-opening one). Nor was it his
deployment of the change-the-subject strategy when confronted with
difficult questions. It was the spectacle itself: the sheer despicable
irony of the man's smiling defiance.

Here is a man who is now making a well-rewarded political livelihood
out of a self-told story of his own courage in the face of powerful
authority. He has faced down the dark forces mustered by the Tony
Blairs, stood up for himself against the hectoring superciliousness of
the Paxmans, and now flown all the way to Washington to clear his name
in the presence of the high priests of the American Establishment. His
whole performance this week was that of the little, resilient, Frank
Capra figure, unafraid to speak truth to power.

Yet as he railed against the senators, I couldn't get out of my head
that spectacle of the same man smiling as he lauded Saddam Hussein. As
he exploited the fustiness of the surroundings and the plodding
lawyerliness of his interlocutors, I couldn't help but remember how,
in the face of a different sort of power, he had saluted its
indefatigability and promised to march on to Jerusalem.

I also wondered what his and our life might have been like if he had
deployed some of his little-man courage before Saddam; standing up for
some of those other hundreds of thousands of other good Muslims -
Iraqis, who could have done with a persuasive advocate there and then.

Perhaps in the end, if you're a cynic you may find Mr Galloway's
asymmetrical approach to authority - a lapdog in the hands of the one
who likes to watch as his victims are tortured; a lion in the face of
those who threaten with questions and subpoenas - simply the familiar
mark of the coward. If you're an optimist, you might find it oddly
comforting The Mother of Parliaments clasps him to her bosom. The
world's greatest deliberative body sits in embarrassed silence as he
lectures it on its shortcomings. Nothing surely illustrates better the
absolute superiority of the West's system and what underpins it that
we tolerate and even reward such lèse-majesté. We know what Saddam
did to those who were brave enough to utter much more cogent critiques
of his rule.

Me, though I'll celebrate my opponent's right to be wrong, I
can't suppress a slight regret that the price of our liberty is paid
in the deference we give to men who excuse tyranny.

My sympathies are with those men, women and children who died because
of Saddam's indefatigable affection for torture and murder; with
those who today are suffering still because of his successors'
indefatigable affection for the suicide bomb in the marketplace or at
the mosque.

It is the tragic but hopeful people of Iraq who have shown us how to
defy power and misery, and who, if we stand firm against the Galloways
of this world, will one day get the Respect they truly deserve.
V onroach
2005-05-24 23:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Not willing to address the evidence in the Senate documents is a sure
sign that you can't deal with inconvenient facts. Your frantic
dismissal and evasion doesn't conceal the character nor the actions and
words of the fraudulent charlatan, George Galloway, but reveals that to
you no act of Galloway is too horrible, no word too untruthful.
Galloway is a scot's gas bag who enriched himself at the expense of
starving children.
john
2005-05-27 19:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Post by Josh Dougherty
Another ridiculous evasion. What does a statement about the
resistance in January 2005 have to do with whether Galloway supposedly got oil
allocations?
Hmm.... Nothing.
One can easily see that he evasion is entirely your own, Josh.
Not willing to address the evidence in the Senate documents is a sure
sign that you can't deal with inconvenient facts.
could you please point out to people what that "evidence" is?
Post by Sky King
Your frantic
dismissal and evasion doesn't conceal the character nor the actions and
words of the fraudulent charlatan, George Galloway, but reveals that to
you no act of Galloway is too horrible, no word too untruthful.
Galloways YEARS of work to stop the pointless boycott of
the iraqi children and civillian population makes him horrible???

that boycott led to the iraqi people living on less than a dollar a day.

it killed more than a million people directly and indirectly.

THE US SENATE killed 500 000 CHILDREN through the boycott
that mr Galloway fought.

The ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS, the UN the EU, all NGO's ALL have
substantiated and PROVEN this FACT.

Now you were saying?

who are the Horrible KILLERS and LIARS ????

THE US SENATE, no one else!!!!
Post by Sky King
No wonder that you can't stand Hitchen's trutful evaluation of
Galloway: "And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay
who defends dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious
sectarianism at home. Within a month of his triumph in a British
election, he has flown to Washington and spat full in the face of the
Senate. A megaphone media in London, and a hysterical fan-club of
fundamentalists and political thugs, saw to it that he returned as a
conquering hero and all-round celeb. If only the supporters of regime
change, and the friends of the Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples,
could manifest anything like the same resolve and determination."
May 20, 2005
Excuse my nausea at the cowardly rant of not-so-gorgeous George
Gerard Baker
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1619416,00.html
IT'S BEEN QUITE a month for George Galloway. First he becomes the new
voice of the jihad of Bethnal Green. Within hours, still in the first
flush of victory, he gets Paxoed before dawn, a stuffing that turns
out, as it usually does these days, to make the victim look rather more
sympathetic than the perpetrator. Then this week he takes on the full
magisterium of the United States Senate.
I had thought that only Jeremy Paxman could elicit sympathy for men
such as Galloway. But I had reckoned, of course, without the preening
pomposity, the orotund turgidity of your typical US senator.
The Senate describes itself, without apparent irony or hint of
self-awareness, as the world's greatest deliberative body. Wherever
they travel, senators are treated with a sort of scented deference that
only a republic could confer on its leaders and not risk revolution.
Fawning staffers strew petals in their path; highways are made straight
for them; rivers are forded lest they get their feet wet. One observer
noted that senators take themselves so seriously that "they'd wear
togas if they thought they could get away with it."
An entertaining spectacle in Washington these past few months has been
the sight of members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee probing
indignantly into the alleged managerial shortcomings of John Bolton,
the Bush Administration's nominee to be Ambassador to the United
Nations.
Mr Bolton's principal crime is that he is somewhat prone to the
occasional bout of carpet-chewing in front of frightened and helpless
young officials. On the north side of Capitol Hill, where Senate
staffers labour for their bosses, this behaviour would not normally be
regarded as disqualification for high office; indeed, anecdote suggests
it is more or less obligatory.
When mortals appear before Senate panels, they are expected to show
proper deference to these lawgivers of the American republic. But while
senators may consider themselves Solons, Pericles they most assuredly
are not. Going through life in an impregnable carapace of sycophancy is
agreeable, no doubt, but as Marie Antoinette discovered, it does not
tend to sharpen one's skills in public argument. So when a feisty
member such as Mr Galloway shows up in the midst of these august
figures, the effect is a little like a character from a Damon Runyon
novel let loose among the Gatsbys.
The average MP, schooled in the knockabout tactics of the House of
Commons, is far better equipped to score points and persuade undecided
minds. And Mr Galloway's performance duly earned him some rave
reviews, not least from startled American journalists who wouldn't
dare treat their betters this way.
But forgive me if I don't participate in the adulation. As I watched,
it wasn't a grudging respect for the perfectly tailored and coiffed
tribune of the masses that filled me, but a wave of nausea. His
testimony left me with a renewed understanding of just how uniquely
repellent Mr Galloway is.
It wasn't just that the earthy rhetoric was well fertilised by the
usual half-truths (his claim that the Charity Commission had in effect
cleared him was an especially eye-opening one). Nor was it his
deployment of the change-the-subject strategy when confronted with
difficult questions. It was the spectacle itself: the sheer despicable
irony of the man's smiling defiance.
Here is a man who is now making a well-rewarded political livelihood
out of a self-told story of his own courage in the face of powerful
authority. He has faced down the dark forces mustered by the Tony
Blairs, stood up for himself against the hectoring superciliousness of
the Paxmans, and now flown all the way to Washington to clear his name
in the presence of the high priests of the American Establishment. His
whole performance this week was that of the little, resilient, Frank
Capra figure, unafraid to speak truth to power.
Yet as he railed against the senators, I couldn't get out of my head
that spectacle of the same man smiling as he lauded Saddam Hussein. As
he exploited the fustiness of the surroundings and the plodding
lawyerliness of his interlocutors, I couldn't help but remember how,
in the face of a different sort of power, he had saluted its
indefatigability and promised to march on to Jerusalem.
I also wondered what his and our life might have been like if he had
deployed some of his little-man courage before Saddam; standing up for
some of those other hundreds of thousands of other good Muslims -
Iraqis, who could have done with a persuasive advocate there and then.
Perhaps in the end, if you're a cynic you may find Mr Galloway's
asymmetrical approach to authority - a lapdog in the hands of the one
who likes to watch as his victims are tortured; a lion in the face of
those who threaten with questions and subpoenas - simply the familiar
mark of the coward. If you're an optimist, you might find it oddly
comforting The Mother of Parliaments clasps him to her bosom. The
world's greatest deliberative body sits in embarrassed silence as he
lectures it on its shortcomings. Nothing surely illustrates better the
absolute superiority of the West's system and what underpins it that
we tolerate and even reward such lèse-majesté. We know what Saddam
did to those who were brave enough to utter much more cogent critiques
of his rule.
Me, though I'll celebrate my opponent's right to be wrong, I
can't suppress a slight regret that the price of our liberty is paid
in the deference we give to men who excuse tyranny.
My sympathies are with those men, women and children who died because
of Saddam's indefatigable affection for torture and murder; with
those who today are suffering still because of his successors'
indefatigable affection for the suicide bomb in the marketplace or at
the mosque.
It is the tragic but hopeful people of Iraq who have shown us how to
defy power and misery, and who, if we stand firm against the Galloways
of this world, will one day get the Respect they truly deserve.
you're terribly mislead and confused.


Galloways YEARS of work to stop the pointless boycott of
the iraqi children and civillian population makes him horrible???

that boycott led to the iraqi people living on less than a dollar a day.

it killed more than a million people directly and indirectly.

THE US SENATE killed 500 000 CHILDREN through the boycott
that mr Galloway fought.

The ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS, the UN the EU, all Egos ALL have
substantiated and PROVEN this FACT.

Now you were saying?

who are the Horrible KILLERS and LIARS ????

THE US SENATE, no one else!!!!
Sky King
2005-05-27 20:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Post by Sky King
Post by Josh Dougherty
Another ridiculous evasion. What does a statement about the
resistance in January 2005 have to do with whether Galloway supposedly got oil
allocations?
Hmm.... Nothing.
One can easily see that he evasion is entirely your own, Josh.
Not willing to address the evidence in the Senate documents is a sure
sign that you can't deal with inconvenient facts.
could you please point out to people what that "evidence" is?
Post by Sky King
Your frantic
dismissal and evasion doesn't conceal the character nor the actions and
words of the fraudulent charlatan, George Galloway, but reveals that to
you no act of Galloway is too horrible, no word too untruthful.
Galloways YEARS of work to stop the pointless boycott of
the iraqi children and civillian population makes him horrible???
that boycott led to the iraqi people living on less than a dollar a day.
it killed more than a million people directly and indirectly.
THE US SENATE killed 500 000 CHILDREN through the boycott
that mr Galloway fought.
The ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS, the UN the EU, all NGO's ALL have
substantiated and PROVEN this FACT.
Now you were saying?
who are the Horrible KILLERS and LIARS ????
THE US SENATE, no one else!!!!
US SENATE, no one else!!!!
Your ignorance is astounding, sickening, and morally repugnant John.
You know full well that Saddam could have stopped the boycott at ANY
TIME by obeying the U.N. Instead, Saddam is directly repsonsible for
ALL of the deaths that occurred AND for later using the food-for-oil
program to finance the construction of HIS palaces.

Where does this insane moral relativism represented by John come from
anyway?
mellstr
2005-05-27 22:22:00 UTC
Permalink
On 27 May 2005 13:09:42 -0700, Sky King <***@scientist.com> wrote:
<a bunch of lies>
Sky King
2005-05-27 22:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mellstr
<a bunch of lies>
Gosh. What a retort.
Dan Clore
2005-05-27 22:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Your ignorance is astounding, sickening, and morally repugnant John.
You know full well that Saddam could have stopped the boycott at ANY
TIME by obeying the U.N.
No, he could not. The US made it clear in statements over
and over again that the sanctions would remain in place as
long as Saddam remained in power. And they did keep them in
place, even when Saddam fully complied with the UN.
--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Elmer Thud
2005-05-28 21:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Clore
even when Saddam fully complied with the UN.
???
Saddam never did any such thing.
Dan Clore
2005-05-28 22:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmer Thud
Post by Dan Clore
even when Saddam fully complied with the UN.
???
Saddam never did any such thing.
The weapons inspectors said he did.
--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
john
2005-05-27 23:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Post by john
Post by Sky King
Post by Josh Dougherty
Another ridiculous evasion. What does a statement about the
resistance in January 2005 have to do with whether Galloway supposedly got oil
allocations?
Hmm.... Nothing.
One can easily see that he evasion is entirely your own, Josh.
Not willing to address the evidence in the Senate documents is a sure
sign that you can't deal with inconvenient facts.
could you please point out to people what that "evidence" is?
ah. so you couldn't
Post by Sky King
Post by john
Post by Sky King
Your frantic
dismissal and evasion doesn't conceal the character nor the actions and
words of the fraudulent charlatan, George Galloway, but reveals that to
you no act of Galloway is too horrible, no word too untruthful.
Galloways YEARS of work to stop the pointless boycott of
the iraqi children and civillian population makes him horrible???
that boycott led to the iraqi people living on less than a dollar a day.
it killed more than a million people directly and indirectly.
THE US SENATE killed 500 000 CHILDREN through the boycott
that mr Galloway fought.
The ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS, the UN the EU, all NGO's ALL have
substantiated and PROVEN this FACT.
Now you were saying?
who are the Horrible KILLERS and LIARS ????
THE US SENATE, no one else!!!!
US SENATE, no one else!!!!
Your ignorance is astounding, sickening, and morally repugnant John.
You know full well that Saddam could have stopped the boycott at ANY
TIME by obeying the U.N. Instead, Saddam is directly repsonsible for
ALL of the deaths that occurred AND for later using the food-for-oil
program to finance the construction of HIS palaces.
Where does this insane moral relativism represented by John come from
anyway?
you actually and really have absolutely no clue what moral relativism is do you?

the US holds back food and says be nice or your children will die from
starvation, even though they know full well the bastard hussein
wont care a drat if some hundred thousands die.

this the US and any politician on the globe knows FULL WELL.

no my either naive or sickeningly dishonest debatant,
i think you seriously lack som university or similar
basic training and education in logic and perception.

but you actually tried to make it sound as if it was ok to
keep up a boycott all knew full well killed innocents.

me thinks YOU are the sick fuck in this equation.

and a hypocrite to boot.

"you're a moron" (c) Bill Hicks, Texas,USA
"Bill Hicks - The Gulf War and Gun Control.mp3"
Sky King
2005-05-28 00:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Post by Sky King
Post by john
Post by Sky King
Post by Josh Dougherty
Another ridiculous evasion. What does a statement about the
resistance in January 2005 have to do with whether Galloway supposedly got oil
allocations?
Hmm.... Nothing.
One can easily see that he evasion is entirely your own, Josh.
Not willing to address the evidence in the Senate documents is a sure
sign that you can't deal with inconvenient facts.
could you please point out to people what that "evidence" is?
ah. so you couldn't
Post by Sky King
Post by john
Post by Sky King
Your frantic
dismissal and evasion doesn't conceal the character nor the actions and
words of the fraudulent charlatan, George Galloway, but reveals that to
you no act of Galloway is too horrible, no word too untruthful.
Galloways YEARS of work to stop the pointless boycott of
the iraqi children and civillian population makes him horrible???
that boycott led to the iraqi people living on less than a dollar a day.
it killed more than a million people directly and indirectly.
THE US SENATE killed 500 000 CHILDREN through the boycott
that mr Galloway fought.
The ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THIS, the UN the EU, all NGO's ALL have
substantiated and PROVEN this FACT.
Now you were saying?
who are the Horrible KILLERS and LIARS ????
THE US SENATE, no one else!!!!
US SENATE, no one else!!!!
Your ignorance is astounding, sickening, and morally repugnant John.
You know full well that Saddam could have stopped the boycott at ANY
TIME by obeying the U.N. Instead, Saddam is directly repsonsible for
ALL of the deaths that occurred AND for later using the food-for-oil
program to finance the construction of HIS palaces.
Where does this insane moral relativism represented by John come from
anyway?
you actually and really have absolutely no clue what moral relativism is do you?
Educate yourself, Little John:

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
john
2005-05-28 04:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
by what can only be the teenager calling himself "sky king"
standards and "education" it's ok to starve the children of Burma
with a boycott and see if the junta abdicates,because according to
sky king its the juntas fault not ours.

yet another beacon of morality I gather.


morons.
Sky King
2005-05-28 11:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Post by Sky King
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
by what can only be the teenager calling himself "sky king"
standards and "education" it's ok to starve the children of Burma
with a boycott and see if the junta abdicates,because according to
sky king its the juntas fault not ours.
yet another beacon of morality I gather.
morons.
Indeed - you are a moron. You keep revealing that you have not a clue
about much of anything, little Johnny.
johnny
2005-05-28 19:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Post by john
Post by Sky King
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
by what can only be the teenager calling himself "sky king"
standards and "education" it's ok to starve the children of Burma
with a boycott and see if the junta abdicates,because according to
sky king its the juntas fault not ours.
yet another beacon of morality I gather.
morons.
Indeed - you are a moron. You keep revealing that you have not a clue
about much of anything, little Johnny.
great retort
this from the genius who suggests that killing half a million
children through boycott is the way to get insensitive dictators to
yield.

i.e.:
it's ok to starve the children of a dictatorship
with a boycott and see if the junta abdicates,because according to
king it will be the juntas fault not ours.


you've only made it even more painfully obvious you
yourself to be the child here,and a pretty sick one at that, mentally as
morally, master "king".

so no, "king", the moronic logic here is entirely yours
and its become plain for all the world to see.



-- little Johnny
Elmer Thud
2005-05-28 21:53:37 UTC
Permalink
[...]even though they know full well the bastard hussein
wont care a drat if some hundred thousands die.
but you actually tried to make it sound as if it was ok to
keep up a boycott all knew full well killed innocents.
And so when we finally decided to go get the son of a bitch, that was
wrong too?

Good one!
little johnnyboy
2005-05-29 00:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmer Thud
[...]even though they know full well the bastard hussein
wont care a drat if some hundred thousands die.
but you actually tried to make it sound as if it was ok to
keep up a boycott all knew full well killed innocents.
And so when we finally decided to go get the son of a bitch, that was
wrong too?
Good one!
yeah. a really good one

"we"..

you mean Bushie of course.

Georgie boy and his cronies just had to kill 500 000 children first...

please dont let your fascist republikkkan party "help" my country
if we ever fall under a dictatorship,

I'll chance a wait for the the UN, EU and REAL democrats.


with "friends" like george Bushie boy ...

god almighty...
Dan Clore
2005-05-24 18:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Josh, you've already revealed you extreme prejudice on the matter,
(smear pieces in neocon rags), as if The Weekly Standard isn't a
widely-read source for rational criticism of the Left's self-indulgence
and self-induced decay (see
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL),
This Keith Thompson wrote a good book (_Angels and Aliens_)
about UFOs. But this thing doesn't make sense. He starts off
telling us that he's finally fed up with leftists because
they-- then he rambles on and on and we never do find out
just exactly what the big deal is. It has no coherent argument.
--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Elmer Thud
2005-05-25 05:04:42 UTC
Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp


Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35


EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been.
Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years
ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway.
Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad?
He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people
under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular
prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only
slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001
he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the
greatest polemicist of our age."

No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I
had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and
had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would
be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since
fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had
had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after
repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor
countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement.
Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the
cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was
slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and unctuous, either at your
feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for
the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."

This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the
sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has
been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short,
cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he
was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his
endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel
and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your
correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I
was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that
the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says
that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell.
His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search
for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as
Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam
plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that
sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."

As it happens, I adore the street-fight and soap-box side of political
life, so that when the cluster had moved inside, and when Galloway had
taken his seat flanked by his aides and guards, I decided to deny him
the 10 minutes of unmolested time that otherwise awaited him before the
session began. Denouncing the hearings as a show-trial the previous
week, he had claimed that he had written several times to the
subcommittee (whose members he has publicly called "lickspittles")
asking to be allowed to clear his name, and been ignored. The
subcommittee staff denies possessing any record of such an overture.
Taking a position near where he was sitting, I asked him loudly if he
had brought a copy of his letter, or letters. A fresh hose of abuse was
turned upon me, but I persisted in asking, and after awhile others
joined in--receiving no answer--so at least he didn't get to sit gravely
like a volunteer martyr.

Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.

In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz
Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these
transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the
Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing
them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show
transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and
partner and friend. In an analogous way, one cannot accuse Scott Ritter,
who made a ferocious documentary attacking the Iraq war, of being in
Iraqi pay. One may be aware, though, that the Iraqi-American businessman
who financed that film, Shakir al-Khafaji, has since shown up in the
captured Oil-for-Food correspondence.

After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his
time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He
announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he
declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein
regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of
the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the
identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the
person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.

In a small way--an exceedingly small way--this had the paradoxical
effect of making me proud to be British. Parliament trains its sons in a
hard school of debate and unscripted exchange, and so does the British
Labour movement. You get your retaliation in first, you rise to a point
of order, you heckle and you watch out for hecklers. The torpid majesty
of a Senate proceeding does nothing to prepare you for a Galloway, who
is in addition a man without embarrassment who has stayed just on the
right side of many inquiries into his character and his accounting
methods. He has, for example, temporarily won a libel case against the
Daily Telegraph in London, which printed similar documents about him
that were found in the Oil Ministry just after the fall of Baghdad. The
newspaper claimed a public-interest defense, and did not explicitly
state that the documents were genuine. Galloway, for his part, carefully
did not state that they were false, either. The case has now gone to appeal.

When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently, I have interviewed a very senior and
reliable U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, who was directly offered an
enormous bribe by Tariq Aziz himself, and who duly reported the fact to
the U.S. government. If the Baathists would risk approaching this
particular man, it seems to me, they must have tried it with practically
everybody. Quite possibly, though, the Saddam regime decided that
Galloway was entirely incorruptible, and would consider such an
inducement beneath him.

SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a
tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness.
It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number
of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath
that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man
who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam,
said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your
indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make
allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's
own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which
was published last spring and from which I offer the following extracts:

The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole,
stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long
before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath
leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war
massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that
involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces
after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of
state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and
her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to
one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing
Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very
question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed
into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that
"as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's
true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.

At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad. Here, a brief
excursion into the aridities of left history may elucidate more than the
Galloway phenomenon.

There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party
realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's
Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can
testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to
protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the
army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a
full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the
setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and
for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals
supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its
letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway
joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United
States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted
accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other
things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American
policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war
with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate
the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes
of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to
be Saddam's ally.

But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that
repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all
that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and
became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two
explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another.
The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different
stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that
once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole
case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in
defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he
would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words,
the hope of remuneration.

There was another faction, however, that was, relatively speaking,
nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on
Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became
known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by
anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well
known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the
Senate subcommittee. During the material time, George Galloway received
hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least
two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his
"dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his
activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds
often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful
platform in both parliament and the press back home.

However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern
himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up
a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily
testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's
admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's
involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie
established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway,
indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some
time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would
establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.

Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998,
Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the
Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment
in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered
from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper,
signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal
representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam
Appeal.

Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal
raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since
testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United
Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that
Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is
somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor
such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was
inconclusive. The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam
Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning,
had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They
were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then
announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first
to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or
proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.

TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian
defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a
kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For
the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge
that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have
been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his
chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly
declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that,
having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in
respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a
regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious
middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of
the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that
party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think
I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person
would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will
have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.

Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there
would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the
time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was
killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them
infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the
charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12
years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have
been inordinate.

There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.

Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is
repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its
terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own
propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be
discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of
"sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to
personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.

The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things
(apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the
life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the
Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly
that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal
Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the
Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called
internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the
Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle
East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq
intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they
had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected
to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the
"war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned,
their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most
inexpensive hypocrisy.

George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be
RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin
song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)

The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities. Who knows who started this torrent
of abuse? Galloway certainly has, once again, remained adequately
uninformed about it. His chief appeal was to the militant Islamist
element among Asian immigrants who live in large numbers in his
district, and his main organizational muscle was provided by a depraved
sub-Leninist sect called the Socialist Workers party. The servants of
the one god finally meet the votaries of the one-party state. Perfect.
To this most opportunist of alliances, add some Tory and Liberal
Democrat "tactical voters" whose hatred of Tony Blair eclipses
everything else.

Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.

And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media in
London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a visiting
professor at the New School in New York. His new book is Thomas
Jefferson: Author of America.

© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-05-25 13:21:29 UTC
Permalink
I guess Hitchens's new bosses assigned him the job of trashing
Galloway, but this is a pretty pathetic peformance. Which he
himself admits at the end. "If only the supporters of regime
change, and the friends of the Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish
peoples, could manifest anything like the same resolve and
determination." It's hard to summon resolve and determination
when you're hack and a sellout, but not a sociopath like the
people who employ you.
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been.
Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years
ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway.
Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad?
He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people
under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular
prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only
slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001
he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the
greatest polemicist of our age."
No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I
had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and
had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would
be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since
fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had
had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after
repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor
countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement.
Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the
cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was
slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and unctuous, either at your
feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for
the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."
This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the
sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has
been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short,
cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he
was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his
endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel
and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your
correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I
was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that
the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says
that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell.
His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search
for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as
Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam
plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that
sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."
As it happens, I adore the street-fight and soap-box side of political
life, so that when the cluster had moved inside, and when Galloway had
taken his seat flanked by his aides and guards, I decided to deny him
the 10 minutes of unmolested time that otherwise awaited him before the
session began. Denouncing the hearings as a show-trial the previous
week, he had claimed that he had written several times to the
subcommittee (whose members he has publicly called "lickspittles")
asking to be allowed to clear his name, and been ignored. The
subcommittee staff denies possessing any record of such an overture.
Taking a position near where he was sitting, I asked him loudly if he
had brought a copy of his letter, or letters. A fresh hose of abuse was
turned upon me, but I persisted in asking, and after awhile others
joined in--receiving no answer--so at least he didn't get to sit gravely
like a volunteer martyr.
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz
Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these
transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the
Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing
them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show
transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and
partner and friend. In an analogous way, one cannot accuse Scott Ritter,
who made a ferocious documentary attacking the Iraq war, of being in
Iraqi pay. One may be aware, though, that the Iraqi-American businessman
who financed that film, Shakir al-Khafaji, has since shown up in the
captured Oil-for-Food correspondence.
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his
time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He
announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he
declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein
regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of
the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the
identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the
person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.
In a small way--an exceedingly small way--this had the paradoxical
effect of making me proud to be British. Parliament trains its sons in a
hard school of debate and unscripted exchange, and so does the British
Labour movement. You get your retaliation in first, you rise to a point
of order, you heckle and you watch out for hecklers. The torpid majesty
of a Senate proceeding does nothing to prepare you for a Galloway, who
is in addition a man without embarrassment who has stayed just on the
right side of many inquiries into his character and his accounting
methods. He has, for example, temporarily won a libel case against the
Daily Telegraph in London, which printed similar documents about him
that were found in the Oil Ministry just after the fall of Baghdad. The
newspaper claimed a public-interest defense, and did not explicitly
state that the documents were genuine. Galloway, for his part, carefully
did not state that they were false, either. The case has now gone to appeal.
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently, I have interviewed a very senior and
reliable U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, who was directly offered an
enormous bribe by Tariq Aziz himself, and who duly reported the fact to
the U.S. government. If the Baathists would risk approaching this
particular man, it seems to me, they must have tried it with practically
everybody. Quite possibly, though, the Saddam regime decided that
Galloway was entirely incorruptible, and would consider such an
inducement beneath him.
SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a
tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness.
It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number
of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath
that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man
who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam,
said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your
indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make
allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's
own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which
The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole,
stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long
before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath
leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war
massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that
involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces
after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of
state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and
her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to
one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing
Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very
question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed
into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that
"as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's
true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.
At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad. Here, a brief
excursion into the aridities of left history may elucidate more than the
Galloway phenomenon.
There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party
realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's
Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can
testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to
protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the
army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a
full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the
setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and
for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals
supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its
letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway
joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United
States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted
accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other
things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American
policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war
with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate
the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes
of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to
be Saddam's ally.
But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that
repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all
that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and
became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two
explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another.
The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different
stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that
once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole
case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in
defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he
would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words,
the hope of remuneration.
There was another faction, however, that was, relatively speaking,
nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on
Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became
known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by
anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well
known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the
Senate subcommittee. During the material time, George Galloway received
hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least
two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his
"dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his
activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds
often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful
platform in both parliament and the press back home.
However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern
himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up
a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily
testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's
admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's
involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie
established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway,
indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some
time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would
establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.
Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998,
Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the
Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment
in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered
from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper,
signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal
representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam
Appeal.
Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal
raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since
testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United
Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that
Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is
somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor
such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was
inconclusive. The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam
Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning,
had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They
were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then
announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first
to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or
proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian
defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a
kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For
the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge
that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have
been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his
chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly
declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that,
having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in
respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a
regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious
middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of
the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that
party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think
I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person
would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will
have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there
would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the
time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was
killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them
infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the
charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12
years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have
been inordinate.
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is
repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its
terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own
propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be
discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of
"sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to
personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.
The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things
(apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the
life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the
Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly
that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal
Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the
Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called
internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the
Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle
East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq
intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they
had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected
to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the
"war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned,
their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most
inexpensive hypocrisy.
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be
RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin
song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities. Who knows who started this torrent
of abuse? Galloway certainly has, once again, remained adequately
uninformed about it. His chief appeal was to the militant Islamist
element among Asian immigrants who live in large numbers in his
district, and his main organizational muscle was provided by a depraved
sub-Leninist sect called the Socialist Workers party. The servants of
the one god finally meet the votaries of the one-party state. Perfect.
To this most opportunist of alliances, add some Tory and Liberal
Democrat "tactical voters" whose hatred of Tony Blair eclipses
everything else.
Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.
And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media in
London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a visiting
professor at the New School in New York. His new book is Thomas
Jefferson: Author of America.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Sky King
2005-05-25 15:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I guess Hitchens's new bosses assigned him the job of trashing
Galloway, but this is a pretty pathetic peformance. Which he
himself admits at the end. "If only the supporters of regime
change, and the friends of the Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish
peoples, could manifest anything like the same resolve and
determination." It's hard to summon resolve and determination
when you're hack and a sellout, but not a sociopath like the
people who employ you.
Maybe you didn't read carefully. Galloway trashed himself years ago as
his own words make clear. Pimps are like that.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been.
Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years
ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway.
Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad?
He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people
under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular
prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only
slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001
he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the
greatest polemicist of our age."
No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I
had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and
had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would
be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since
fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had
had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after
repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor
countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement.
Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the
cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was
slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and unctuous, either at your
feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for
the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."
This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the
sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has
been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short,
cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he
was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his
endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel
and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your
correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I
was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that
the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says
that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell.
His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search
for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as
Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam
plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that
sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."
As it happens, I adore the street-fight and soap-box side of political
life, so that when the cluster had moved inside, and when Galloway had
taken his seat flanked by his aides and guards, I decided to deny him
the 10 minutes of unmolested time that otherwise awaited him before the
session began. Denouncing the hearings as a show-trial the previous
week, he had claimed that he had written several times to the
subcommittee (whose members he has publicly called "lickspittles")
asking to be allowed to clear his name, and been ignored. The
subcommittee staff denies possessing any record of such an overture.
Taking a position near where he was sitting, I asked him loudly if he
had brought a copy of his letter, or letters. A fresh hose of abuse was
turned upon me, but I persisted in asking, and after awhile others
joined in--receiving no answer--so at least he didn't get to sit gravely
like a volunteer martyr.
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz
Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these
transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the
Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing
them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show
transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and
partner and friend. In an analogous way, one cannot accuse Scott Ritter,
who made a ferocious documentary attacking the Iraq war, of being in
Iraqi pay. One may be aware, though, that the Iraqi-American businessman
who financed that film, Shakir al-Khafaji, has since shown up in the
captured Oil-for-Food correspondence.
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his
time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He
announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he
declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein
regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of
the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the
identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the
person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.
In a small way--an exceedingly small way--this had the paradoxical
effect of making me proud to be British. Parliament trains its sons in a
hard school of debate and unscripted exchange, and so does the British
Labour movement. You get your retaliation in first, you rise to a point
of order, you heckle and you watch out for hecklers. The torpid majesty
of a Senate proceeding does nothing to prepare you for a Galloway, who
is in addition a man without embarrassment who has stayed just on the
right side of many inquiries into his character and his accounting
methods. He has, for example, temporarily won a libel case against the
Daily Telegraph in London, which printed similar documents about him
that were found in the Oil Ministry just after the fall of Baghdad. The
newspaper claimed a public-interest defense, and did not explicitly
state that the documents were genuine. Galloway, for his part, carefully
did not state that they were false, either. The case has now gone to appeal.
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently, I have interviewed a very senior and
reliable U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, who was directly offered an
enormous bribe by Tariq Aziz himself, and who duly reported the fact to
the U.S. government. If the Baathists would risk approaching this
particular man, it seems to me, they must have tried it with practically
everybody. Quite possibly, though, the Saddam regime decided that
Galloway was entirely incorruptible, and would consider such an
inducement beneath him.
SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a
tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness.
It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number
of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath
that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man
who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam,
said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your
indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make
allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's
own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which
The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole,
stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long
before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath
leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war
massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that
involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces
after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of
state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and
her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to
one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing
Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very
question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed
into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that
"as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's
true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.
At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad. Here, a brief
excursion into the aridities of left history may elucidate more than the
Galloway phenomenon.
There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party
realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's
Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can
testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to
protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the
army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a
full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the
setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and
for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals
supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its
letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway
joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United
States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted
accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other
things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American
policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war
with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate
the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes
of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to
be Saddam's ally.
But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that
repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all
that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and
became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two
explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another.
The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different
stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that
once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole
case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in
defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he
would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words,
the hope of remuneration.
There was another faction, however, that was, relatively speaking,
nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on
Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became
known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by
anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well
known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the
Senate subcommittee. During the material time, George Galloway received
hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least
two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his
"dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his
activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds
often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful
platform in both parliament and the press back home.
However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern
himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up
a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily
testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's
admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's
involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie
established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway,
indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some
time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would
establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.
Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998,
Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the
Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment
in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered
from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper,
signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal
representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam
Appeal.
Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal
raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since
testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United
Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that
Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is
somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor
such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was
inconclusive. The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam
Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning,
had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They
were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then
announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first
to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or
proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian
defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a
kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For
the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge
that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have
been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his
chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly
declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that,
having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in
respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a
regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious
middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of
the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that
party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think
I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person
would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will
have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there
would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the
time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was
killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them
infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the
charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12
years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have
been inordinate.
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is
repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its
terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own
propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be
discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of
"sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to
personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.
The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things
(apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the
life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the
Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly
that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal
Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the
Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called
internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the
Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle
East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq
intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they
had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected
to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the
"war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned,
their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most
inexpensive hypocrisy.
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be
RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin
song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities. Who knows who started this torrent
of abuse? Galloway certainly has, once again, remained adequately
uninformed about it. His chief appeal was to the militant Islamist
element among Asian immigrants who live in large numbers in his
district, and his main organizational muscle was provided by a depraved
sub-Leninist sect called the Socialist Workers party. The servants of
the one god finally meet the votaries of the one-party state. Perfect.
To this most opportunist of alliances, add some Tory and Liberal
Democrat "tactical voters" whose hatred of Tony Blair eclipses
everything else.
Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.
And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media in
London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a visiting
professor at the New School in New York. His new book is Thomas
Jefferson: Author of America.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
john
2005-05-27 19:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I guess Hitchens's new bosses assigned him the job of trashing
Galloway, but this is a pretty pathetic peformance. Which he
himself admits at the end. "If only the supporters of regime
change, and the friends of the Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish
peoples, could manifest anything like the same resolve and
determination." It's hard to summon resolve and determination
when you're hack and a sellout, but not a sociopath like the
people who employ you.
Maybe you didn't read carefully. Galloway trashed himself years ago as
his own words make clear. Pimps are like that.
and you just told the world that you're an idiot again,
how does that feel?
Post by Sky King
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been.
Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years
ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway.
Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad?
He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people
under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular
prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only
slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001
he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the
greatest polemicist of our age."
No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I
had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and
had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would
be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since
fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had
had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after
repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor
countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement.
Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the
cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was
slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and unctuous, either at your
feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for
the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."
This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the
sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has
been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short,
cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he
was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his
endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel
and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your
correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I
was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that
the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says
that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell.
His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search
for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as
Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam
plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that
sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."
As it happens, I adore the street-fight and soap-box side of political
life, so that when the cluster had moved inside, and when Galloway had
taken his seat flanked by his aides and guards, I decided to deny him
the 10 minutes of unmolested time that otherwise awaited him before the
session began. Denouncing the hearings as a show-trial the previous
week, he had claimed that he had written several times to the
subcommittee (whose members he has publicly called "lickspittles")
asking to be allowed to clear his name, and been ignored. The
subcommittee staff denies possessing any record of such an overture.
Taking a position near where he was sitting, I asked him loudly if he
had brought a copy of his letter, or letters. A fresh hose of abuse was
turned upon me, but I persisted in asking, and after awhile others
joined in--receiving no answer--so at least he didn't get to sit gravely
like a volunteer martyr.
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz
Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these
transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the
Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing
them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show
transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and
partner and friend. In an analogous way, one cannot accuse Scott Ritter,
who made a ferocious documentary attacking the Iraq war, of being in
Iraqi pay. One may be aware, though, that the Iraqi-American businessman
who financed that film, Shakir al-Khafaji, has since shown up in the
captured Oil-for-Food correspondence.
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his
time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He
announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he
declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein
regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of
the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the
identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the
person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.
In a small way--an exceedingly small way--this had the paradoxical
effect of making me proud to be British. Parliament trains its sons in a
hard school of debate and unscripted exchange, and so does the British
Labour movement. You get your retaliation in first, you rise to a point
of order, you heckle and you watch out for hecklers. The torpid majesty
of a Senate proceeding does nothing to prepare you for a Galloway, who
is in addition a man without embarrassment who has stayed just on the
right side of many inquiries into his character and his accounting
methods. He has, for example, temporarily won a libel case against the
Daily Telegraph in London, which printed similar documents about him
that were found in the Oil Ministry just after the fall of Baghdad. The
newspaper claimed a public-interest defense, and did not explicitly
state that the documents were genuine. Galloway, for his part, carefully
did not state that they were false, either. The case has now gone to appeal.
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently, I have interviewed a very senior and
reliable U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, who was directly offered an
enormous bribe by Tariq Aziz himself, and who duly reported the fact to
the U.S. government. If the Baathists would risk approaching this
particular man, it seems to me, they must have tried it with practically
everybody. Quite possibly, though, the Saddam regime decided that
Galloway was entirely incorruptible, and would consider such an
inducement beneath him.
SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a
tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness.
It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number
of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath
that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man
who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam,
said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your
indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make
allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's
own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which
The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole,
stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long
before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath
leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war
massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that
involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces
after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of
state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and
her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to
one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing
Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very
question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed
into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that
"as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's
true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.
At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad. Here, a brief
excursion into the aridities of left history may elucidate more than the
Galloway phenomenon.
There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party
realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's
Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can
testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to
protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the
army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a
full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the
setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and
for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals
supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its
letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway
joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United
States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted
accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other
things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American
policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war
with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate
the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes
of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to
be Saddam's ally.
But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that
repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all
that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and
became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two
explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another.
The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different
stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that
once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole
case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in
defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he
would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words,
the hope of remuneration.
There was another faction, however, that was, relatively speaking,
nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on
Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became
known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by
anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well
known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the
Senate subcommittee. During the material time, George Galloway received
hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least
two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his
"dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his
activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds
often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful
platform in both parliament and the press back home.
However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern
himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up
a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily
testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's
admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's
involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie
established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway,
indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some
time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would
establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.
Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998,
Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the
Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment
in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered
from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper,
signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal
representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam
Appeal.
Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal
raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since
testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United
Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that
Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is
somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor
such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was
inconclusive. The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam
Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning,
had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They
were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then
announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first
to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or
proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian
defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a
kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For
the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge
that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have
been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his
chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly
declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that,
having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in
respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a
regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious
middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of
the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that
party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think
I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person
would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will
have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there
would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the
time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was
killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them
infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the
charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12
years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have
been inordinate.
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is
repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its
terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own
propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be
discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of
"sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to
personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.
The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things
(apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the
life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the
Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly
that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal
Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the
Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called
internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the
Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle
East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq
intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they
had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected
to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the
"war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned,
their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most
inexpensive hypocrisy.
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be
RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin
song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities. Who knows who started this torrent
of abuse? Galloway certainly has, once again, remained adequately
uninformed about it. His chief appeal was to the militant Islamist
element among Asian immigrants who live in large numbers in his
district, and his main organizational muscle was provided by a depraved
sub-Leninist sect called the Socialist Workers party. The servants of
the one god finally meet the votaries of the one-party state. Perfect.
To this most opportunist of alliances, add some Tory and Liberal
Democrat "tactical voters" whose hatred of Tony Blair eclipses
everything else.
Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.
And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media in
London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a visiting
professor at the New School in New York. His new book is Thomas
Jefferson: Author of America.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
john
2005-05-27 19:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I guess Hitchens's new bosses assigned him the job of trashing
Galloway, but this is a pretty pathetic peformance. Which he
himself admits at the end. "If only the supporters of regime
change, and the friends of the Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish
peoples, could manifest anything like the same resolve and
determination." It's hard to summon resolve and determination
when you're hack and a sellout, but not a sociopath like the
people who employ you.
exactly
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been.
Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years
ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway.
Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad?
He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people
under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular
prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only
slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001
he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the
greatest polemicist of our age."
No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I
had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and
had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would
be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since
fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had
had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after
repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor
countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement.
Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the
cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was
slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and unctuous, either at your
feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for
the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."
This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the
sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has
been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short,
cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he
was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his
endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel
and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your
correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I
was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that
the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says
that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell.
His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search
for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as
Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam
plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that
sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."
As it happens, I adore the street-fight and soap-box side of political
life, so that when the cluster had moved inside, and when Galloway had
taken his seat flanked by his aides and guards, I decided to deny him
the 10 minutes of unmolested time that otherwise awaited him before the
session began. Denouncing the hearings as a show-trial the previous
week, he had claimed that he had written several times to the
subcommittee (whose members he has publicly called "lickspittles")
asking to be allowed to clear his name, and been ignored. The
subcommittee staff denies possessing any record of such an overture.
Taking a position near where he was sitting, I asked him loudly if he
had brought a copy of his letter, or letters. A fresh hose of abuse was
turned upon me, but I persisted in asking, and after awhile others
joined in--receiving no answer--so at least he didn't get to sit gravely
like a volunteer martyr.
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz
Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these
transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the
Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing
them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show
transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and
partner and friend. In an analogous way, one cannot accuse Scott Ritter,
who made a ferocious documentary attacking the Iraq war, of being in
Iraqi pay. One may be aware, though, that the Iraqi-American businessman
who financed that film, Shakir al-Khafaji, has since shown up in the
captured Oil-for-Food correspondence.
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his
time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He
announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he
declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein
regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of
the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the
identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the
person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.
In a small way--an exceedingly small way--this had the paradoxical
effect of making me proud to be British. Parliament trains its sons in a
hard school of debate and unscripted exchange, and so does the British
Labour movement. You get your retaliation in first, you rise to a point
of order, you heckle and you watch out for hecklers. The torpid majesty
of a Senate proceeding does nothing to prepare you for a Galloway, who
is in addition a man without embarrassment who has stayed just on the
right side of many inquiries into his character and his accounting
methods. He has, for example, temporarily won a libel case against the
Daily Telegraph in London, which printed similar documents about him
that were found in the Oil Ministry just after the fall of Baghdad. The
newspaper claimed a public-interest defense, and did not explicitly
state that the documents were genuine. Galloway, for his part, carefully
did not state that they were false, either. The case has now gone to appeal.
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently, I have interviewed a very senior and
reliable U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, who was directly offered an
enormous bribe by Tariq Aziz himself, and who duly reported the fact to
the U.S. government. If the Baathists would risk approaching this
particular man, it seems to me, they must have tried it with practically
everybody. Quite possibly, though, the Saddam regime decided that
Galloway was entirely incorruptible, and would consider such an
inducement beneath him.
SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a
tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness.
It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number
of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath
that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man
who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam,
said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your
indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make
allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's
own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which
The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole,
stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long
before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath
leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war
massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that
involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces
after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of
state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and
her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to
one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing
Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very
question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed
into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that
"as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's
true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.
At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad. Here, a brief
excursion into the aridities of left history may elucidate more than the
Galloway phenomenon.
There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party
realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's
Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can
testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to
protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the
army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a
full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the
setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and
for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals
supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its
letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway
joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United
States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted
accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other
things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American
policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war
with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate
the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes
of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to
be Saddam's ally.
But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that
repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all
that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and
became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two
explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another.
The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different
stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that
once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole
case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in
defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he
would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words,
the hope of remuneration.
There was another faction, however, that was, relatively speaking,
nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on
Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became
known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by
anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well
known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the
Senate subcommittee. During the material time, George Galloway received
hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least
two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his
"dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his
activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds
often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful
platform in both parliament and the press back home.
However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern
himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up
a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily
testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's
admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's
involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie
established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway,
indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some
time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would
establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.
Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998,
Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the
Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment
in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered
from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper,
signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal
representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam
Appeal.
Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal
raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since
testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United
Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that
Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is
somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor
such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was
inconclusive. The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam
Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning,
had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They
were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then
announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first
to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or
proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian
defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a
kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For
the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge
that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have
been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his
chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly
declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that,
having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in
respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a
regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious
middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of
the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that
party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think
I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person
would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will
have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there
would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the
time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was
killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them
infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the
charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12
years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have
been inordinate.
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is
repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its
terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own
propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be
discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of
"sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to
personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.
The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things
(apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the
life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the
Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly
that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal
Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the
Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called
internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the
Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle
East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq
intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they
had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected
to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the
"war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned,
their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most
inexpensive hypocrisy.
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be
RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin
song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities. Who knows who started this torrent
of abuse? Galloway certainly has, once again, remained adequately
uninformed about it. His chief appeal was to the militant Islamist
element among Asian immigrants who live in large numbers in his
district, and his main organizational muscle was provided by a depraved
sub-Leninist sect called the Socialist Workers party. The servants of
the one god finally meet the votaries of the one-party state. Perfect.
To this most opportunist of alliances, add some Tory and Liberal
Democrat "tactical voters" whose hatred of Tony Blair eclipses
everything else.
Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.
And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media in
London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a visiting
professor at the New School in New York. His new book is Thomas
Jefferson: Author of America.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
john
2005-05-27 19:45:15 UTC
Permalink
and all this utter crap is posted because...???
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been.
Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years
ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway.
Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad?
He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people
under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular
prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only
slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001
he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the
greatest polemicist of our age."
No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I
had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and
had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would
be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since
fulfilled both ambitions.) Moreover, I knew a bit about Galloway. He had
had to resign as the head of a charity called "War on Want," after
repaying some disputed expenses for living the high life in dirt-poor
countries. Indeed, he was a type well known in the Labour movement.
Prolier than thou, and ostentatiously radical, but a bit too fond of the
cigars and limos and always looking a bit odd in a suit that was
slightly too expensive. By turns aggressive and unctuous, either at your
feet or at your throat; a bit of a backslapper, nothing's too good for
the working class: what the English call a "wide boy."
This was exactly his demeanor when I ran into him last Tuesday on the
sidewalk of Constitution Avenue, outside the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, where he was due to testify before the subcommittee that has
been uncovering the looting of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. His short,
cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he
was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his
endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel
and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your
correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I
was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that
the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says
that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell.
His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search
for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as
Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam
plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that
sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."
As it happens, I adore the street-fight and soap-box side of political
life, so that when the cluster had moved inside, and when Galloway had
taken his seat flanked by his aides and guards, I decided to deny him
the 10 minutes of unmolested time that otherwise awaited him before the
session began. Denouncing the hearings as a show-trial the previous
week, he had claimed that he had written several times to the
subcommittee (whose members he has publicly called "lickspittles")
asking to be allowed to clear his name, and been ignored. The
subcommittee staff denies possessing any record of such an overture.
Taking a position near where he was sitting, I asked him loudly if he
had brought a copy of his letter, or letters. A fresh hose of abuse was
turned upon me, but I persisted in asking, and after awhile others
joined in--receiving no answer--so at least he didn't get to sit gravely
like a volunteer martyr.
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz
Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these
transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the
Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing
them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show
transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and
partner and friend. In an analogous way, one cannot accuse Scott Ritter,
who made a ferocious documentary attacking the Iraq war, of being in
Iraqi pay. One may be aware, though, that the Iraqi-American businessman
who financed that film, Shakir al-Khafaji, has since shown up in the
captured Oil-for-Food correspondence.
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his
time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He
announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he
declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein
regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of
the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the
identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the
person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.
In a small way--an exceedingly small way--this had the paradoxical
effect of making me proud to be British. Parliament trains its sons in a
hard school of debate and unscripted exchange, and so does the British
Labour movement. You get your retaliation in first, you rise to a point
of order, you heckle and you watch out for hecklers. The torpid majesty
of a Senate proceeding does nothing to prepare you for a Galloway, who
is in addition a man without embarrassment who has stayed just on the
right side of many inquiries into his character and his accounting
methods. He has, for example, temporarily won a libel case against the
Daily Telegraph in London, which printed similar documents about him
that were found in the Oil Ministry just after the fall of Baghdad. The
newspaper claimed a public-interest defense, and did not explicitly
state that the documents were genuine. Galloway, for his part, carefully
did not state that they were false, either. The case has now gone to appeal.
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently, I have interviewed a very senior and
reliable U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, who was directly offered an
enormous bribe by Tariq Aziz himself, and who duly reported the fact to
the U.S. government. If the Baathists would risk approaching this
particular man, it seems to me, they must have tried it with practically
everybody. Quite possibly, though, the Saddam regime decided that
Galloway was entirely incorruptible, and would consider such an
inducement beneath him.
SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a
tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness.
It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number
of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath
that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man
who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam,
said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your
indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make
allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's
own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which
The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole,
stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long
before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath
leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war
massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that
involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces
after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of
state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and
her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to
one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing
Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very
question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed
into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that
"as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's
true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.
At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad. Here, a brief
excursion into the aridities of left history may elucidate more than the
Galloway phenomenon.
There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party
realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's
Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can
testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to
protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the
army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a
full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the
setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and
for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals
supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its
letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway
joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United
States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted
accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other
things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American
policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war
with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate
the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes
of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to
be Saddam's ally.
But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that
repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all
that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and
became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two
explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another.
The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different
stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that
once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole
case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in
defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he
would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words,
the hope of remuneration.
There was another faction, however, that was, relatively speaking,
nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on
Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became
known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by
anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well
known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the
Senate subcommittee. During the material time, George Galloway received
hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least
two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his
"dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his
activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds
often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful
platform in both parliament and the press back home.
However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern
himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up
a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily
testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's
admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's
involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie
established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway,
indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some
time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would
establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.
Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998,
Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the
Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment
in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered
from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper,
signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal
representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam
Appeal.
Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal
raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since
testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United
Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that
Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is
somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor
such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was
inconclusive. The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam
Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning,
had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They
were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then
announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first
to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or
proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian
defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a
kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For
the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge
that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have
been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his
chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly
declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that,
having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in
respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a
regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious
middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of
the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that
party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think
I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person
would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will
have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there
would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the
time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was
killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them
infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the
charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12
years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have
been inordinate.
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is
repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its
terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own
propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be
discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of
"sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to
personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.
The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things
(apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the
life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the
Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly
that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal
Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the
Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called
internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the
Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle
East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq
intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they
had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected
to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the
"war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned,
their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most
inexpensive hypocrisy.
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be
RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin
song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities. Who knows who started this torrent
of abuse? Galloway certainly has, once again, remained adequately
uninformed about it. His chief appeal was to the militant Islamist
element among Asian immigrants who live in large numbers in his
district, and his main organizational muscle was provided by a depraved
sub-Leninist sect called the Socialist Workers party. The servants of
the one god finally meet the votaries of the one-party state. Perfect.
To this most opportunist of alliances, add some Tory and Liberal
Democrat "tactical voters" whose hatred of Tony Blair eclipses
everything else.
Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.
And now, on the same turf, there struts a little popinjay who defends
dictatorship abroad and who trades on religious sectarianism at home.
Within a month of his triumph in a British election, he has flown to
Washington and spat full in the face of the Senate. A megaphone media in
London, and a hysterical fan-club of fundamentalists and political
thugs, saw to it that he returned as a conquering hero and all-round
celeb. If only the supporters of regime change, and the friends of the
Afghan and Iraqi and Kurdish peoples, could manifest anything like the
same resolve and determination.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a visiting
professor at the New School in New York. His new book is Thomas
Jefferson: Author of America.
Elmer Thud the crud slinger posted the above utter crap
Post by Sky King
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
and all this utter crap was posted because...???

-- john (nom de Guerre)

El Pueblo, Unido, Jamas sera Vencido!!
W***@adelphia.net
2005-06-01 06:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmer Thud
He had evidently been admirably consistent
in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said
that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist
popinjay."
Here, here!
If only we in the US had many more such as George Galloway, neither
the shameful Neocons nor their butt-kissers such as Hitchens would
dare show their faces.
Post by Elmer Thud
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
Oh, you must be referring to the Mossad forgeries, one assumes.
Post by Elmer Thud
These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures.
LOL! The most shameless liars in the world cite a forged document
that's "vouched for" by some anonymous ex-functionary of a deposed
tyrant!
Post by Elmer Thud
I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust.
Watch out, Hitch -- the Neocons may disown you for speaking ill of
that stain on US history, Oliver "My paper shredder's bigger than
yours" North.
Post by Elmer Thud
Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these.
And it was GREAT witnessing it!
Post by Elmer Thud
At the hearing, also, Galloway was half-correct in yelling at the
subcommittee that he had been a critic of Saddam Hussein when Donald
Rumsfeld was still making friendly visits to Baghdad.
That statement by Mr. Galloway was the veritable "home run heard
'round the world." Absolutely brilliant.
Post by Elmer Thud
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was
successful in unseating the Labour incumbent.
Like Hitchens himself, Galloway's opponent was 1/2 Jewish and, just
like Hitchens himself, proved that when push comes to shove the
interests of their co-religionists come first; thus, the heretofore
"leftist" Hitchens (just like the USA's David Horowitz and scads of
Jews everywhere) has no problem hooking up with the Neocons when
there's a service (i.e. the US invasion of Iraq) that needs to be done
for Israel.
Post by Elmer Thud
His party calls itself
RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace,
Environment, Community, Trade Unionism."
For decades I've identified myself as -- and voted correspondingly
-- a Conservative Republican, but if I'd been born in ultra-stratified
Britain perhaps I, too, would have a "thing" about equality and tade
unionism as Galloway does.
Post by Elmer Thud
Perhaps I may be allowed a closing moment of sentiment here? To the
left, the old East End of London was once near-sacred ground. It was
here in 1936 that a massive demonstration of longshoremen, artisans, and
Jewish refugees and migrants made a human wall and drove back a
determined attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to mount a march
of intimidation. The event is still remembered locally as "The Battle of
Cable Street." That part of London, in fact, was one of the few place in
Europe where the attempt to raise the emblems of fascism was defeated by
force.
And yet, even as he recounts -- one can almost hear the violins -- a
quaint story about fascists being turned back in his own country last
century -- the half-Jewish Hitchens has the chutzpah to keep beating
the drum for the continuing rape of Iraq by people who make Mosley's
followers look like Cub Scouts. You're a hypocrite, Hitchens!

"So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld . . .

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government . . . Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

" . . . nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

-- President George Washington
Farewell Address
September 26, 1796
Awake
2005-06-04 11:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures.
Have you ever heard of more powerful evidence? Surely such important
facts should be presented by authority figures greater than two U.S. Senators.

Wasn't Colin Powell available?
Post by Sky King
The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
That is interesting, the Sunday commentators on the TV networks here
in the USA loudly shouted about the French and Russians deals in the
run up to the war, but never did they even whisper while the microphones
were open about American oil companies.
Post by Sky King
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these.
I wish I could have heard this, but here in America the "American" TV news
refused to run anything said by Galloway concerning AIPAC or Israel.

This could get interesting as the FBI is persisting -for now- in investigating
the passing of classified information to AIPAC and then from AIPAC to
Israel. This also involves the Washington Post. The "American" TV news
is however ignoring this story.
Post by Sky King
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently,
Ah yes, "more recently" Hitchens has changed his stripes and hitched his
carriage to the neo-CON horses in Wa$hington DC. No barter items they,
neo-CON$ pay in hard cash and in large allotments.
Post by Sky King
An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war.
Two Congressmen in Washington returned from a trip to Iraq and held
a press conference about the depleted uranium during the run up to the
war and were denounced as "traitors" by senior Republicans, and the
TV "news" media backed the denunciations of "treason" without equivocation.

The two congressmen have not been publicly heard from since.
Post by Sky King
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." ....If you wish to
pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will have to find the
unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
I see, Hitchens as always having thought of himself as the smartest
200+ pounds of blubber is upset that he doesn't have as much money
socked away as some others at the top of the leftist food chain.
Post by Sky King
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam!
No they were not, they were for lifting the sanctions!
Post by Sky King
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"
If Muslims invaded America I would be doing to them what the
fallujahians are doing to the invaders who surround them and are
murdering their people. Over 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to
have been killed so far.
Post by Sky King
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities.
I thought Judaism was a religion?

I know what a black person looks like, a white person, an oriental, an
indian, but what does a Jew look like? Does Christopher Hitchens
look like a Jew? Do Hitchens and Ariel Sharon look like brothers?

Does Christopher Hitchens look like the film actor Yaphet Kotto?


- - - - - -
"According to Michael Moloney, Gehring had even applied to
the CIA, and used to tell a story about it. The marine from
Dayton 'had no academic credentials,' Moloney relates, but
the CIA 'liked his attitude. "The world is full of commie bastards
and all I wanted to do at that time was kill, kill, kill."'
Moloney quotes Gehring as having said."
-Jonathan Kwitny,"The Crimes of Patriots" ISBN: 0-393-02387-7


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
J Barry Galbraith
2005-06-14 10:42:01 UTC
Permalink
"the unlisted number of his villa in portugal"???

Just what is that supposed to infer? George Galloway is an MP and despite
his trips abroad is readily available in his constituency. He holds a
weekly surgery from 4pm - 7pm. Last week when I was there I left at 9pm and
he was still there.

email, phone and fax numbers are freely available as is the man himself.
Which is what you would expect from any MP really - but don't always seem to
get from others.

The man strikes me as principled and dedicated. I watched him at the London
Assembly speaking to a Committee. He was calm, assertive, polite and
persistent when necessary. Not quite how certain parts of the media portray
him.

Barry
Post by Sky King
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.
asp
Post by Sky King
Post by Sky King
Unmitigated Galloway
From the May 30, 2005 issue: Saddam's favorite MP goes to Washington.
by Christopher Hitchens
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin then began the proceedings, and
staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and
boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing
Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by
testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had
vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures.
Have you ever heard of more powerful evidence? Surely such important
facts should be presented by authority figures greater than two U.S. Senators.
Wasn't Colin Powell available?
Post by Sky King
The
exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and
Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to
profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking
back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass
grave-digging fund.
That is interesting, the Sunday commentators on the TV networks here
in the USA loudly shouted about the French and Russians deals in the
run up to the war, but never did they even whisper while the microphones
were open about American oil companies.
Post by Sky King
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated
and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the
deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a
uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the
legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt
such alarm and frustration and disgust. Galloway has learned to master
the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the
subcommittee for its deference to both of these.
I wish I could have heard this, but here in America the "American" TV news
refused to run anything said by Galloway concerning AIPAC or Israel.
This could get interesting as the FBI is persisting -for now- in investigating
the passing of classified information to AIPAC and then from AIPAC to
Israel. This also involves the Washington Post. The "American" TV news
is however ignoring this story.
Post by Sky King
When estimating the propensity of anyone to take money or gifts, one
must also balance the propensity of a regime to offer them. I once had
an Iraqi diplomat contact in London, who later became one of Saddam's
ministers. After inviting him to dinner one night, I noticed that he had
wordlessly left a handsome bag, which contained a small but nice rug,
several boxes of Cuban cigars (which I don't smoke), and several bottles
of single malt Scotch. I was at the time a fairly junior editor at a
socialist weekly. More recently,
Ah yes, "more recently" Hitchens has changed his stripes and hitched his
carriage to the neo-CON horses in Wa$hington DC. No barter items they,
neo-CON$ pay in hard cash and in large allotments.
Post by Sky King
An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the
sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was
to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted
cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the
first Gulf war.
Two Congressmen in Washington returned from a trip to Iraq and held
a press conference about the depleted uranium during the run up to the
war and were denounced as "traitors" by senior Republicans, and the
TV "news" media backed the denunciations of "treason" without
equivocation.
Post by Sky King
The two congressmen have not been publicly heard from since.
Post by Sky King
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the
senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought
one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." ....If you wish to
pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will have to find the
unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
I see, Hitchens as always having thought of himself as the smartest
200+ pounds of blubber is upset that he doesn't have as much money
socked away as some others at the top of the leftist food chain.
Post by Sky King
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either
the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded,
or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed
without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second
policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and
terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second
policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely
opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a
price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million
civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep
those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam!
No they were not, they were for lifting the sanctions!
Post by Sky King
George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour
party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since
then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the
lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles,
"resistance"
If Muslims invaded America I would be doing to them what the
fallujahians are doing to the invaders who surround them and are
murdering their people. Over 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to
have been killed so far.
Post by Sky King
The defeated incumbent, Oona King, is of mixed African and Jewish
heritage, and had to endure an appalling whispering campaign, based on
her sex and her combined ethnicities.
I thought Judaism was a religion?
I know what a black person looks like, a white person, an oriental, an
indian, but what does a Jew look like? Does Christopher Hitchens
look like a Jew? Do Hitchens and Ariel Sharon look like brothers?
Does Christopher Hitchens look like the film actor Yaphet Kotto?
- - - - - -
"According to Michael Moloney, Gehring had even applied to
the CIA, and used to tell a story about it. The marine from
Dayton 'had no academic credentials,' Moloney relates, but
the CIA 'liked his attitude. "The world is full of commie bastards
and all I wanted to do at that time was kill, kill, kill."'
Moloney quotes Gehring as having said."
-Jonathan Kwitny,"The Crimes of Patriots" ISBN: 0-393-02387-7
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Sky King
2005-06-14 16:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J Barry Galbraith
George Galloway is an MP and despite
his trips abroad is readily available in his constituency. He holds a
weekly surgery from 4pm - 7pm.
I am encouraged to hear that Georgie-Poo is getting weekly surgery. I
assume it's much needed brain surgery.

I hope it helps the poor fellow.

Tommy
2005-05-18 03:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
Full transcript & Video.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8869.htm
Toby
2005-05-18 04:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Many thanks for that link. It puts me in mind of Berthold Brecht in front of
the HUAC in 1947. His appearance was later characterized as the zookeeper
being interviewed by the monkeys.

Toby
Post by Tommy
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
Full transcript & Video.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8869.htm
G*rd*n
2005-05-19 15:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toby
Post by Tommy
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
Full transcript & Video.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8869.htm
Many thanks for that link. It puts me in mind of Berthold Brecht in front of
the HUAC in 1947. His appearance was later characterized as the zookeeper
being interviewed by the monkeys.
In this case that seems pretty unfair to the monkeys.
jon
2005-05-23 03:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toby
Many thanks for that link. It puts me in mind of Berthold Brecht in front of
the HUAC in 1947. His appearance was later characterized as the zookeeper
being interviewed by the monkeys.
:-)

my thoughts exactly

cheers

--john (nom de guerre)
Post by Toby
Toby
Post by Tommy
Post by oO
Anyone got a full transcript?
Full transcript & Video.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8869.htm
Freddie Freeloader
2005-05-23 04:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy
Full transcript & Video.
http://www.informationclearing­house.info/article8869.htm
Their transcript is garbled. There's a much more accurate one at

http://www.unknownnews.org/050524GeorgeGalloway.html
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...