Video Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?checkedBandwidth=bb&nbram=1&checkedMedia=ram&news=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4556887)


The First 4 minutes are boring, going through the key evidence and so on, normal stuff, but by 10 minutes he's destroyed them, by the 45 minutes only one question slightly troubled him.


[b]BBC
Explosive showdown in Senate
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

George Galloway had vowed to give US senators "both barrels" and after sitting - coiled - through an hour-and-half of testimony against him, he unloaded all his ammunition.

Far from displaying the forelock-tugging deference to which senators are accustomed, Mr Galloway went on the attack.

He rubbished committee chairman Norm Coleman's dossier of evidence and stared him in the eye.

"Now 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," the MP declared.

The whole room scanned Mr Coleman's face for a reaction. The senator shifted in his seat - nervously it seemed.

It was the first time a British politician had been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate - but Mr Galloway cast himself not as the accused, but the accuser.

On stage at the heart of American power, he attacked the US-led war on Iraq and accused Washington of installing a "puppet" regime there.

'Lions' den'

The Scotsman launched into his opening statement with relish.

This was not a wrestling match - it wasn't a contest
Senator Norm Coleman

He had never received any money or any allocations of oil from Iraq. He was not, as the committee alleged, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do," he told the committee.

Mr Galloway had expected to testify before a panel of 13 senators in what he termed their "lions' den".

But he faced off against just two, Mr Coleman and Democratic counterpart Carl Levin.

It was Republican Mr Coleman who bore the brunt of the attack in one of the Senate's most flamboyant confrontations.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," he told the chairman, whom he labelled a "neo-con, pro-war hawk".

Mr Coleman tried desperately to take it without emotion, but at one point could not resist breaking in to a smile.

'He's no lyncher'

In the face of Mr Galloway's refusal to accept anything the senators were claiming might be true, they tried to establish a link between a Jordanian businessman who they believe received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, and Mr Galloway's children's charity.



Mr Galloway said the businessman had given money to the charity but he, Mr Galloway, had never known where it came from.

The senators believe that it came from Iraq, but they could come up with no proof and their questions ended.

Senator Levin later said he was "deeply troubled" that Mr Galloway had "ducked the question".

But it was Mr Galloway who looked most satisfied as he left the vast, wood-panelled committee room.

Outside in a corridor he told reporters he thought he had put the committee on the ropes, saying of Mr Coleman: "He's not much of a lyncher."

The senators, however, were playing down the confrontation.

'A knockout'

"This was not a wrestling match," Mr Coleman protested. "It wasn't a contest."

Asked his reaction to the "unusual" manner of the witness, he replied: "I was not offended by what he had to say, it was not relevant.

"The theatre, the dramatics - I was not looking at that. I had one goal and it was to make a record."

The pundits disagreed. One observer of Capitol Hill politics declared the result: "Galloway by a knockout - before round five."

Others cast the confrontation as Braveheart on Capitol Hill.

But though he left the building professing himself satisfied with his trip to Washington, only time will tell whether Mr Galloway has blown away the allegations he described as the "mother of all smokescreens".

Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.

Just goes to show that the ******** that the Bush administration has been and still is blinding the American people with can only really work and be supported as long as it stays on the lips of American politicians and fanatic supporters of the Bush administration, without anyone being given a chance to refute it. Galloway has now shown how easily it can be exposed for the pack of lies and the smoke-screen that it truly is.

I'm only sorry that after this scatching defeat of the attempt at lynching Galloway, the American public probably won't be given a chance to witness anything as humiliating to the senate or the Bush administration again. If hearings such as this one were routinely held before the senate, it'd be much harder to fool the majority of Americans into blindly accepting the propaganda that the Bush administration and its devoted supporters are feeding them.

[ May 18, 2005, 17:27: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Sadly I have to agree with you, Tal. It can take a long time for information to get out to us. We may have a free press but sometimes I wonder where their priorities are.

Galloway was quite remarkable in this exchange. It's good to see someone stand up to these "people." There is so much misinformation in this country right now (what Tal has termed BS) that hardly anyone can tell fact from fiction any longer. These are foul times.

I'm only sorry that after this scatching defeat of the attempt at lynching Galloway, the American public probably won't be given a chance to witness anything as humiliating to the senate or the Bush administration again. Hell, they didn't see it the first time - never mind again. You wouldn't believe how obviously the news glossed over this story, and how (Fox especially) went to great lengths to portray Galloway as a toddler throwing a tantrum. Sadly, most Americans rely on word of mouth for their news, or at best, watch their 30 minute local news broadcast at night. Neither of those sources did this story justice.

I just logged on the MSNBC, and did you know there isn't even a link to this story anymore on the front page? Of course there are several links to the release of the Star Wars movie. It seems like the news anymore goes to great lengths to sensationalize events that are complete non-stories. For example, in the last week or two, the biggest stories have been (in no particular order) the idiot flying his prop plane too close to the White House, the runaway bride, and Michael Jackson's court case. None of these things affect the lives of average everyday Americans one iota. However, things like this, which Americans should think is important, get very little press.

It's like the news will spend the most time on things that aren't necessarily important, but that people will find entertaining. I don't give a flying **** why that idiot flew his plane so close to the White House, but once it was determined that he wasn't a terrorist, had no plans to harm anyone, was flying a small prop plane that probably couldn't have done much damage even if it did fly into a building, and he wasn't shot out of the skies, it became a non-story. To me the most interesting part of the story was that Bush was out on a bike ride during this, and didn't even know the White House had to be evacuated until after he got back.

I almost posted a thread on this yesterday afternoon - but had to revise instead :sosad:

However, now the topic's up and running, I have to applaud the superb, barnstorming performance of Galloway... A politician I had very little time for, until now. For someone to face down Whitehouse inquisitors with such chutzpah was commendable; the fact that his refutations hit home with such potency - remarkable. If it's true that the Americans aren't getting to see this, it's sad, not least because this is Westminster-style debate at its most powerful. I doubt the chair of the committee had ever seen anything quite like it. Full-flowing, counter attacking refutations of all allegations, with nothing sticking. Even the one moment of awkwardness - a question about Respect party funding - was handled with aplomb.

Mr. Galloway goes to Washington - and kicks ass! :grin:

Aye, its times like this I'm glad we have a history of real debate in the commons. Shame more people don't watch Parlimentary broadcasts, of particular note recently was Howard teasing blair.

What I don't understand and would like explained to me is:

What business is it of the US senate what a British subject is doing or has done?

I have not seen anything that indicates that it took place in the US or subject to US law. If I am wrong please enlighten me.

I wondered this, too Nakia. I guess it's something to do with the oil vouchers (or whatnot) being distributed by Saddam inappropriately - they were supposed to be for food for the populace etc., but many went "walkies". I'm guessing as most of that money came from the US is why they're the ones trying to track down what happened to it.

Mind you, this is merely what I've pieced together from a few media reports, so if anyone out there is better informed, feel free to correct / elaborate on this.

Good ol' George! Keepin' it real for the Brit massive! :lol:

Barmy, RESTECP!

Still, nice to see Galloway taking them to task.

Knockout indeed.

Hmmm... I'd still wait to give this story a bit more time...

From the Scotsman: Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=540962005)

Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington.

Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not. From the Guardian: 'I am not, nor have I ever been, an oil trader' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486230,00.html)

In a low businesslike voice, the senator from Minnesota read out an indictment of Mr Galloway running through the evidence against him.

"Senior Iraqi officials have confirmed that you, in fact, received oil allocations and that the documents that identify you as an allocation recipient are valid," Mr Coleman said. "If you can provide any evidence that challenges the veracity of these documents or the statements of former Iraqi officials, we'd welcome that input."

Then it was the Respect party leader's turn and any sense of judicial propriety was instantly shattered. The courtroom became a vaudeville theatre, as the MP lampooned his interrogators, accusing them of making "schoolboy howler" mistakes.

...

The wide, wood-panelled room was packed with journalists and spectators. A group of politics students stood at the back. The turnout among senators was less spectacular, however. Only four appeared for the start of the hearing. By the time Mr Galloway took the microphone, there were only two left, Mr Coleman and Carl Levin, the leading Democrat on the panel.

Witnesses in this august setting, a little below and surrounded by the horseshoe bench of powerful senators, are usually awed and almost always on the defensive. Mr Galloway was on the attack from the first moment.

He entered the hearing room with guns blazing, telling journalists his inquisi tors were "crazed", "pro-war", "lickspittles" of the president, and predicting he would turn the tables on them. "I want to put these people on trial. This group of neo-cons is involved in the mother of smokescreens," he said.

...

He danced around many of the questions, frequently responding, "I can do better than that" and answering a slightly different question. His biggest stumble came when he mistakenly assumed Mr Levin had backed the war.

Mr Levin's investigation of the US government's own failure to police sanctions provided Mr Galloway ammunition for his counter-attack. But he made no more headway than his Republican counterpart in his cross-examination of the witness.

When Mr Levin invited Mr Galloway to say whether he was alleging the documentary evidence was forged, the British MP replied: "Well, I have no way of knowing, sir."

"That's fine. So you're not alleging," Mr Levin persisted.

"I have no way of knowing."

"Is it fair to say, since you don't know, you're not alleging? "

"Well, it would have been nice to have seen it before today," Mr Galloway said.

The minuet of exchanges played on for another few minutes before the senators gave up frustrated.

They had come equipped for a trial and found themselves in the role of stooges for a man accustomed to playing to the gallery.
This hardly seems to me like a victory of contentious British parlimentarianism over the staid US Senate...

Seems as if the Senate accusation against Galloway are a warm-up of the older allegations against him (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17210-2003Apr22&notFound=true) in the Daily Telegraph (http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,941140,00.html). The Telegraph documents then were allegedly found in Iraq's foreign ministry by investigating journalists of the Daily Telegraph - after the US troops left.

Foreign intelligence services and enemy files are an interesting matter. The German Navy war files, now approx 50 years after WW-II, are still in British and US hands. One of the first thing the CIA did after the fall of the Berlin Wall was to steal the Stasi archives which are now in Langley, Virginia. I can't see why in the case of Iraq the US would have acted different.

Now the US invaded Iraq and seized the ministries, but overlooked Iraqi secret documents, only for some unlikely journalists to miraculously find them? Such a chance - I mean, usually you'd expect interested services to seize and throuughly search such a bulding and not to leave until finished.

The whole story then already had written 'plant' in neon caps on it.

The Telegraph documents then, somewhat unsurprising, turned out to be crude forgeries and Galloway was able to rebutt every single point the Telegraph made.

Senate's 'new evidence' was found in Iraq's oil ministry - after the miracle of the Telegraph documents, the same miracle again! Curioser and curioser ...

In all other essentials, the allegations made by the Senate committee are the same as those originally outlined in the Telegraph articles that resulted in Galloway being awarded £150,000 in libel damages and £1.2m in costs, though an appeal against the high court ruling in his favour is still outstanding.

I presume Mr. Galloway's opposition against the sanctions must have made him some enemies, who seem to own a laserprinter.

More in this in this article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1483047,00.html).

[ May 18, 2005, 23:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

They had come equipped for a trial and found themselves in the role of stooges for a man accustomed to playing to the gallery.
I find that comment interesting because it was not a trial and Coleman stated as much at the onset. As I commented earlier, there has been much misinformation....

Bion, try watching the whole thing yourself. Galloway did evade answering a couple of questions directly, but they were really minor ones of little overall importance beyond his personal opinion. Everything major the lynch mob set out to accuse him of, he's disproved.

Nakia, Galloway chose to appear there voluntarily, because his accusers have found in him a convenient scapegoat to fuel the hate towards the UN. He appeared there basically to clear his name which has been dirtied by the Bush administration based on forged documents, false allegations and outright lies. All the right-wing websites have painted him as the devil, of course parroting the propaganda against him as the truth and nothing but. The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is apparently long gone in the US. These days the modus operandi of the Bush administration is to spill out as much propaganda, lies and unproven accusations as possible, and then see if the person whose name is set out to be destroyed can dig themselves out of all the crap thrown at them. Galloway's obviously had enough of that and decided to face the lynch mob head-on, for which he should be applauded.

Beautiful, simply beautiful. Boy did Galloway let 'em have it. Senator Coleman looked like a little boy.

Thank you, Tal. I'm not a lawyer so any comments I make are just what seems common sense to me.

Stepping away from the issue of whether or not he is guilty of breaking some laws I still don't understand what business of the USA Congress this is. If he broke British laws it is a UK problem; if he broke International laws then it is a matter for an international court.

I do applaud him. :thumb:

When I told my flatmate about it, he was stunned for a second, and then burst out: "Who the hell do they think they are, demanding from a British national to justify himself in front of the U.S. Senate?!"

Nakia, attempts at discrediting the UN and anyone associated with it are all the rage in Washington these days. I guess that is all there is to it. You can see and hear it all the time in the right-wing smear and propaganda campaigns in the US media (and it's also all over all the right-wing Bush support sites, and regularly displayed by Bush supporters here on our forums). "The UN is corrupt, the UN is anti-American, the UN hates our freedom & power, the UN was Saddam's friend, etc."

I guess it's a logical consequence for an organization daring to defy the US on something - even without actually being able to achieve anything. But the sheer defiance was reason enough to launch a US-wide smear and propaganda campaign aimed at the UN and anyone involved with it in some way. Bolton's assignment is merely the latest step in Bush's making clear that the UN will have to pay dearly for daring to defy him, and that the US has nothing but utter contempt for the UN, which dared to say "no" to the Iraq invasion. The UN is considered useless by the Bush administration, because the whole world could see clearly enough that all that really matters is who has the biggest guns and is willing to use them, consequences be damned. Shoot first, ask questions later style. The only problem is that this stubborn UN isn't willing to see the world in light of that philosophy, so it must be discredited - by any means necessary.

This isn't to say that the UN doesn't need reforming, far from it... but the US has no interest in that. The only interest the US currently has is in destroying the UN, so that no one would be able to stand in the way of the US and its interests again.

Anyway, sorry for going a bit off-topic here, but I see this Galloway affair as directly linked to the US's attempts at discrediting the UN, so closely related.

I understand what you are saying, Tal. However at the risk of offending every Bush supporter I have to make this comment.

I think it is stupid and is setting a baaaad precedent. If we can attack citizens of other countries then we can be attacked. To go even further: I wonder who will survive this sort of thing. The US credibility can't sink much lower. Even Blair is going to have to rethink his relationship with Bush.

I still don't understand why a "senate" hearing is Bush's fault.

Well, I'm not saying that Norm Coleman, along with most of the Senate, doesn't deserve to get knocked down a few pegs over their bungling of the run up to Iraq, etc.; in fact, I strongly support such a thing. However, I'm not sure George Galloway really is the right person to be "speaking truth to power," as it were...

When someone's dirtied his name and proclaimed him guilty of God knows what without anything to back it up but lies, forgeries and hostile propaganda, he didn't really have any choice but to appear before the Senate if he wanted to clear his name. He definitely had the moral right to say what he's said to his accusers. The hypocrisy pervading the current US politics is pointed out all too rarely.

I am begining to like this guy :lol:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/22038/
No real idea who he is but he speaks atleast some truth. Which is more than can be said about those who accuse him.

If we can attack citizens of other countries then we can be attacked. Well, this is a really interesting point, because for many years that was the US take on the issue. America was all fired up to get Saddam, but Pol Pot died of old age. The point has been made over and over again that there are countless dictators out there in the world, but somehow Saddam was a special case. Yes, he was: he was sitting on millions of barrels of oil. The US would not give a rat's ass about what happens in the Middle East were it not for all that oil. Anyone who believes anything different is living on another planet.

On April 17, 1998, barely 500 m inside Cambodia from Thailand, a frail, 73-year-old former dictator--known by his nom de guerre, Pol Pot--was cremated under a pile of rubbish and rubber tires. He had died two days earlier in a two-room hut, held prisoner by former colleagues who had accused him of betraying the revolutionary movement he had once led. It was an ignominious end for a man who inscribed a merciless agenda on the psyche of two generations of Cambodians.

Between 1975 and 1979, Pol Pot presided over a communist regime known as Democratic Kampuchea. His harsh, utopian policies, derived in part from Maoist China, drove an estimated 1.5 million Cambodians--or one in five--to their deaths from malnutrition, illness or overwork. At least 200,000 more were executed as enemies of the state. The ratio of deaths to population made the Cambodian revolution the most murderous in a century of revolutions.
This is the face of tyranny and murder. But the political uses of the phony "war on terror" far out weigh any search for REAL justice for the people who are the victims of the Pol Pots of the world. You never hear much about those victims because they don't have anything Americans want.

When the extent of the disasters in Cambodia was known, Pol Pot survived in relative comfort and became a useful bit player in the cold war. When that conflict ended and Pol Pot lost his capacity for harm, his former friends began to consider bringing him to justice. He cheated their half-hearted efforts by dying in his bed, leaving history as his only judge.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/pol_pot1.html

When the extent of the disasters in Cambodia was known, Pol Pot survived in relative comfort and became a useful bit player in the cold war. When that conflict ended and Pol Pot lost his capacity for harm, his former friends began to consider bringing him to justice. He cheated their half-hearted efforts by dying in his bed, leaving history as his only judge. Er, he died what, seven years after the Cold War ended? And they were still just beginning to consider bringing him to justice?

Nooo -- they never intended to, period.

You never hear much about those victims because they don't have anything Americans want.Sad but true. One of the things I'd like to see change.

I am begining to like this guy You should probably be aware that in 1994 Galloway said to Saddam "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability." (http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/story.jsp?story=520943) Which of Saddam's pursuits that he was tirelessly persistent in did Galloway have admiration for? From the same article, in his book he refers to Shiite resistance as a "fifth column" working against Iraq's interests. I thought that the left were all for Saddams removal, but they wanted it to be done internally by the people of Iraq? Galloway also defends the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

He opposed Saddam in the 1980s, but they suddenly switched sides and supported him in the 1990s. I wonder what changed?

Read the rest article and tell me if you still like Mr. Galloway.

By the way, before anyone writes this piece off a biased right-wing rant, you might skip down and read the last sentence of the article. Who is this George he is speaking of? ;)

It's not really about Galloway being an angel... I'm firmly convinced that anyone high enough in any position of power (especially political), has some dirt on them. What this is about is the neo-cons being far, far dirtier and hypocritical, and still daring to attack someone else over something they should be on trial for.

As for "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability.". Hmm... who was it again that said to Saddam: "You will forever have a friend in the United States of America."? I'm paraphrasing here, but it was Rumsfeld, shaking hands with Saddam when they were still best buddies. You know, when Saddam was buying weapons and gas the US was more than happy to supply him with.

The point is, the US Senate, the neo-cons and the Bush administration are the last people on Earth with any moral authority to judge anyone else. Unfortuntely, no one in the US will home in on the witch-hunters, as is painfully obvious in the articles posted after the hearing. The truth of everything that Galloway has said in regards to the Iraq was has gone completely ignored. I wonder why. No, actually I know. Because everyone (but the hard-core Bush supporters) knows it's true, but no one dares to say it out loud. That's the frightening American reality today.

[ May 20, 2005, 18:45: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I would take your comment one step further, no one in politics is clean, at least in the US. Almost everything and everyone who is actively connected to politics is motivated by some agenda. The interesting thing is to look behind the agenda (not just the agenda of the people you oppose, but the ones you support as well). As they are all motivated by agendas, we are left with no choice but to accept the agenda of those whose work is most beneficial, or the least detrimental to our personal interests.

As an FYI, I wasn't attempting to discredit anyone or any argument in this thread. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Galloway is not somebody that is going to be very popular with most people in the west. Everyone is judged (fairly or unfairly) by who they support, and I wouldn't want to be judged based upon support of Mr. Galloway.

Remember kids, power doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt power ;)

I guess that goes both ways.

I just returned from voting in my regional elections in Nordrhein-Westfalen. The some 40 year rule of our social democrats is about to end. Some fresh air after all.

As for Galloway, I found a nice article by Charley Reese: More Manly Galloways, Fewer Slimy Colemans (http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=6028). IMO he did admirably in front of a hostile congress comittee which sole purpose is to pummel on the U.N., that smeared him along the way to achieve that goal.

So, his undeniable flaws nonwithstanding, Galloway has balls and spine, which is quite something.

[ May 22, 2005, 20:55: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Or from Christopher Hitchens, who for some reason was there at the time, and has a rather more negative (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp) view.

I've seen Hitchens numerous times appearing as a right wing pundit on cable news channels and have never been impressed with his rhetoric. He has a new book on Thomas Jefferson coming out later this month. And I would still be curious to see how he renders him. The sub-title is "Author of America" and this is a view of Jefferson that I share - up to a point. Still I would give his book a fair reading.

As for his take on Galloway: it's pretty much what one would expect from a minon of the right:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

He's just another Bush lackey, IMO.

"unfortunately, no one in the U.S. will home in on the witch hunters..."

Read these boards, Taluntain. They're "homed in on" over and over again by U.S. posters, including me. And it's damned frustrating to see nothing reported in the media over and over and over again as this administration blunders its way through the world and also of course through our own country where we have to live. At least you're only affected by their foreign policy. Only "The Daily Show" reports consistently and honestly on what this government is doing, and savages the news networks for their timidity and torpor. And they're on the Comedy Central network, for God's sake, sharing time with cartoons and stand-up comedians. (They did just win the Peabody Award though, the most prestigious award in newscasting.) As I said it's frustrating to point out the obvious and find out that so many people don't even know what facts you're talking about. It's like throwing pennies at a battleship that smiles and smiles and sails on.

I mean, Hitchens? Hitchens himself is a former lefty who sharply turned right (http://www.answers.com/topic/christopher-hitchens) and since George Bush hasn't found a war he didn't like. Usually, a convert hates his past most. I presume some 15 years ago, Hitchens and Galloway already wouldn't have found a lot of common ground, ideologically. Socialists and Trotzkyites loathe each other since the 1920s, with a venegance.

Hitchens' earliest political convictions were very left-wing, too. He became a Trotskyist during his years at Balliol College, Oxford. He wrote for the magazine International Socialism, whose publishers (the International Socialists) went on to be the nucleus of the British Socialist Workers Party. This group had a broad allegiance to Trotskyism but differed with more orthodox groups in refusing to defend Stalinist states as "workers' states". This was symbolized in their slogan "Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism".

The ideological difference between Galloway and Hitchens is that the former is an orthodox Socialist while the latter is a Trotzkyist. Oh then, swell :rolleyes:

That is not so much to say that Hitchens is biased, he most certainly is, but to do just what he did to Galloway: Nothing Hitchens said did deal with Galloway's Senate hearings, but with his past and character.

And so Hitchens has a negative view on Galloway, an opponent of his favourite war? Surprise, surprise ... :rolleyes: ... What else but a negative comment on Galloway would you expect from someone writing for the Weekly Standard, the second neocon outlet after the National Review, and, like FOX, owned by one Rupert Murdoch?

[ May 23, 2005, 14:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Cernak, I meant no one in any position of power (not even the majority of the media). Certainly many Americans around here know what's going on... but I'd say the vast majority either doesn't see it, or simply doesn't want to see it. But yea, your last sentence sums up my feelings here exactly.

As for his take on Galloway: it's pretty much what one would expect from a minon of the right:From what I understand, Galloway's recent election over Oona King involved some rather nasty demogogery, played toward the prejudices of his Muslim electorate, involving King's ethnic heritage (half-black, half-Jewish). Why someone would have to be from the Right to be bothered by this character I don't understand; it's almost as bad as the Bush backers during the Repub primaries in the Carolinas in 2000 spreading the news that John McCain has a "black daughter," when he adopted a girl from Pakistan.

He's just another Bush lackey, IMO. Just because he supported the overthrowing Saddam he's a Bush lackey? Aren't there other possible explanations? For example, imagine for a moment that he was still a Leftist, but at the same time a rapid partisan of the Kurds? Are you saying it's impossible for a Kurd to be Leftist, and still support (at least the idea of) US action against Iraq? He was also pro-intervention in Bosnia, which was perhaps the main split among the Left: between those who thought that they could only keep their Leftist credentials intact by opposing (US) power whatever policy it adopted, and those who decided that it would be morally irresponsible to not push for intervention, to ignore what was happening in Bosnia (or as some anti-intervention Leftists had it at the time, to "respect the national sovereignty of Yugoslavia").

Can someone really be a Bush lackey who:

1) As an avowed athiest, has never stopped hectoring the
Religious Right (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006649), whether over Schiavo (http://www.slate.com/id/2115860/), the former Pope (http://slate.msn.com/id/2116443/), The Passion of the Christ (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096323/), or Roy Moore (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087621/), and who's favorite "founding father" was the notorious athiest Tom Paine (http://www.cfimetrony.org/hitchens.html).

2) Continues to agitate for the arrest of
Kissenger (http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/041109roco03?print=true), has never reversed his opposition to the war in Vietnam, and, in commemorating his death, wrote of The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan (http://slate.com/id/2101842/).

3) Has supported (sorry, tired of linking!) Palestinian statehood for years, and critisized the Israeli occupation (tho yes, not a friend of Arafat or of Palestinian terror), while maintaining friendships with people like Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and while coming down on the Left on most economic and social issues.

So how does support of the Bush war trump all these other issues? Does regretting the fact that so many Leftists seem to think that authoritarian Sunni nationalists and islamists are freedom fighters, despite how they spend the huge bulk of their time killing other Iraqis, make one a Bush lackey?

Personal disclosure: I didn't at all like the lead up to the war, and I think the Bush team should pay political consequences for that. However, I was and am not in principle against the use of force to remove Saddam from power, and think that, if Bush incompetence doesn't screw things up, the whole adventure could turn out for the better. And yet I still see myself as a Leftist. I must be in denial, no?

The ideological difference between Galloway and Hitchens is that the former is an orthodox Socialist while the latter is a TrotzkyistIs it an orthodox Socialist position to speak blythly about the good things Stalin did (ala Galloway)? I've read a few arguments that almost seemed to hold that Trotsky must have been worse than Stalin, as so many so-called neo-cons were former Trotskyites, and obviously neo-cons are more of an evil threat to the world than Stalin ever was. :rolleyes:

And what has all this to do with Galloway allegedly taking money from Saddam, which is practically what that Senate comittee implies, and which is doubtful to say the least?

Galloway has flaws, I never denied that, but hold him to his flaws, and don't conjur up evidence that is probably forged anyway (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html), only to smear him.

Better deal with him on the issues - call him a racist, a stalinist, a silly character - fine with me, and he probably deserves it - but please no neo-McCarthyesque show as in front of that Senate comittee.

And that's my beef with Hitchens. He goes along cavalierly and suggests: ' Galloway is an a**hole anyway, so what?'

Hitchens isn't free of flaws himself Hitch criticises Kissinger as a one man rolling crime wave (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,780386,00.html) and points out his support for the odious regimes, and is utterly blind of that the Bush policy he supports is actually doing basically the same thing on a larger scale:

Cooperation with odious regimes like Karimov's and others, and disappearing people, aka rendition - and all that much more active than Kissinger - thanks to Bush's war the perpetrators of the odious parts are no longer sinsister moustached south american militaries but the enlighted US armed forces.

To quess the Kurdish uprising Saddam killed probably about ten thousand Kurds, a crime that cries to heaven - with his good intentions Bush well killed about five times that.

Hitchens is the Humanitarian with the Guillotine.

So how does support of the Bush war trump all these other issues? Does regretting the fact that so many Leftists seem to think that authoritarian Sunni nationalists and islamists are freedom fighters, despite how they spend the huge bulk of their time killing other Iraqis, make one a Bush lackey?This will be difficult to explain, because it's not about politics, but about clarity. But what follows is largely off-topic, but I wish to make a case of what led up to the war, and its consquences for Americans, so I will need everyone's patience, please.

Hitchens appears regularly on cable news channels, usually touting his support for the war in Iraq and the neocon aganda. This is the centerpiece of George II's presidency, as well as that of Cheney's.

Point to another Bush accomplishment for us. Here at home: The tax cuts have been washed out by a huge and painful national debt; healthcare prescription drugs was a massive give away to the drug industry; bankruptcy reform was written by the credit card companies; energy policy, written by the energy companies. Investment is poor. The stock market is still not anywhere close to what it was in 2000 (and George is still trying to convince people that they should eliminate Social Security in favor of stocks and bonds). The only safe investment is your home. Great. Liberals understand all the above, Hithcens - as far as I know - does not.

Foreign policy: The war in Iraq. It has cost America almost all of the goodwill and sympathy that was generated after 9/11. Our allies now see us as a bully - a superpower that is arrogant and entirely one-sided in its appoach.

It is no accident that America's policy mirrors the man in charge.

Now, the talk is of "democracy" for all the world, with the construction of an American empire to keep it that way - yes? One of the major lessons learned from WWII is that a propagnda machine that can reach into people's lives can convince them of almost anything - say it enough times and it becomes a reality for them.

The drive for empire is typically centered around the notion that the nation is "surrounded by enemies." Everyone hates us because we are so free; they hate us for our way of life; they hate us because we are so successful. Does anyone really believe this? You bet. That's why Bush can give the Saudi Prince a big smooch on the lips, have him for dinner, and send him on his way back to continue one of the most oppressive, undemocratic regimes in the Middle East. So much for "democracy and freedom." Just give us what it's really all about - your oil. Liberals understand all of the above - as far as I know - Hitchens does not.

Hitchens has taken on the role of advocate for this war, one of such dubious motive. He is in effect a part of the propaganda machine that feeds all the misinformation that keeps the meager support that is left for this war alive. I can say with all honesty that if there was still wide spread support for this war, and if it had been successful, that America would have started another - Syria, Iran (maybe still), who knows who would be next with these guys.

Hitchens has close ties to the neocon movement in American politics. It is a movement that has advocated the "American Century" - an American empire. He has the right to change his mind on the issues and to write about what he thinks. But for him to use his former "liberal creditials" in the process is wholly dishonest. He's not a "liberal" who happens to support the war. He is now a right wing supporter and strong advocate for the war.

[ May 23, 2005, 18:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

but at the same time a rapid partisan of the Kurds? Are you saying it's impossible for a Kurd to be Leftist, and still support (at least the idea of) US action against Iraq... seem to think that authoritarian Sunni nationalists and islamists are freedom fighters What makes you think Kurds are so different ? US-Marines, Kurdish-Guerillas and Karl May. Doesn't sound like something.

[ May 23, 2005, 19:14: Message edited by: Iago ]

I apologize in advance for the off-topicness...

[Kissenger and Bush are doing] the same thing on a larger scaleKindof an exaggeration, no? Kissinger dishonestly backed fascists in Argentina and Chile, extended the Vietnam war for politcal gain, sold out the East Timorese (gaining the support of the Islamists!), etc etc etc. Your accusation against Bush hinges on one country alone, Iraq (or perhaps two, if you count Afghanistan), along with pressure put on other countries (Iran, Syria, and yes, even Saudi Arabia). Europe has also put pressure on these countries, and in fact, Europe even recognizes the gov'ts of Iraq and Afghanistan as legitimate. Is Europe similarly engaged in "war crimes" by supporting a puppet gov't against the will of its people? Perhaps Galloway *is* a hero (to get briefly on topic) then, for advocating sedition in the Brit army...

Cooperation with odious regimes like Karimov's and othersSo what's the argument going to be? The US should flex it's might around the world stamping out despotism (ala Team America: World Police) so it's not accused of being selective, or is it that the US should have respected national sovereignty in all cases, from Iraq to Uzbekistan, as these dictatorships are obviously the will of the people, and hey, if they really wanted to get rid of authoritarian rule they would. You can say that the US has been selfish in only going after dictatorships they don't have an "arrangement" with (actually, name me one State gov't that doesn't act in self-interest), but it doesn't make sense to me that the only US foreign policy options you support are 1) waging global war against authoritarianism, or 2) staying at home and playing nice.

To quess the Kurdish uprising Saddam killed probably about ten thousand KurdsActually, that was at one event, and the actual total would be much higher. Of course, the US was playing realpolitik at the time and supporting Iraq against Iran. But I suppose you are saying that because the US played realpolitik once, they have no moral right to ever seek to address this? Seems like nonsense to me. Europe was also doing quite well for itself selling arms to the Iran-Iraq war. Actually, anyone who ever does any business with an authoritarian regime is supporting the regime. Certainly, there are elements of hypocrisy here, but c'mon, this is politics, and it's been like this under Democrats too.

As for the Iraq death toll, I agree that it's shameful how the US has played down the civilian death toll. At the same time, I think it's disingenuous to attribute all of the killings resulting from the insurgency to the US: "the US knew the country was run by murderous thugs, and should have known these guys wouldn't have given up without a fight; therefore the US should have just left the murderous thugs in power, and by stirring up the hornet's nest, they should assume the blame." Again, doesn't make sense to me.

Here at home: The tax cuts have been washed out by a huge and painful national debt; healthcare prescription drugs was a massive give away to the drug industry; bankrupcy reform was written by the credit card companies; energy policy, written by the energy companies. Investment is poor. The stock market is still not anywhere close to what it was in 2000 (and George is still trying to convince people that they should eliminate Social Security in favor of stocks and bonds). The only safe investment is your home. Great. Liberals understand all the above, Hithcens - as far as I know - does not.If you recall, the credit card give away was supported by plenty of Democrats (and Lieberman should just become a Repub and get it over with). I also agree that Republican economic policy has been a disaster, but like it or not, Clinton was around for the blowing of the equity bubble, and his support of the credit card, healthcare, banking, etc etc industries weren't in the end so far removed from what's going on today. In many cases, the actual policies have remained the same, even as Bush has made huge, heavily publicized blunders, generally by ignoring people compitent in policy in favor of demogogery.

But I'm afraid the economy would have gone bad under a liberal gov't as well; the 90s stock market was unsustainable, and equity bubbles tend to have big fallouts. They would have, however, done much better than Bush (tho how much is debatable, as they would have prolonged Greenspan's policy of trying to keep the bubbles going by injecting huge amounts of liquidity). But the cynical side of me takes some comfort in knowing that Bush will likely be blamed for the coming economic meltdown, thus allowing more progressive legislation to be passed (such as, say, some kind of national healthcare).

And I don't think that housing is necessarily a safe investment either, but that's another thread.

As for foreign policy: again, I agree the Bush admin has been arrogant and incompetent, and that they've done themselves alot of unnecessary damage. I also am incredibly annoyed by the gov't propaganda, jingoism, stupid car magnets, and the like. But this doesn't prima facie discredit all rationales for the war, does it? In fact, I remember Kerry, who I voted for, trying as hard as he could to wrap himself in the flag; is this not propaganda as well? Does this discredit all of his policy positions as well?

Aside from the "war on terror" issue, Hitchens claimed to be closest on the issues to Nader, so I don't think he's unaware of these things. He's also written very harsh things about the Saudis and Wahhabis -- I mean, this is the guy who coined the term Islamo-fascist, IIRC. Apparently, the US *is* putting pressure on gov'ts like Saudi and Uzbekistan to reform, and this likely would have been done by both Dems and Repubs (tho more effectively by Dems, IMO).

It seems to me, Chandos, that you are arguing that the Iraq war is *the defining issue* that separates Left from Right. I strongly disagree. In the last election, the Dems and Repubs fell over eachother trying to say who was stronger against terrorism, and who supported the troops more. The Dems would have still been in Iraq, but claimed that they would have been more effective in marshalling a coalition, and in diplomacy. Actually, I agree. But I think you sidestep the issue of how being, say, pro-democracy for the Kurds, would affect your view of the war in Iraq (regardless of how terribly it's been run).

And let's not forget Charles Taylor: more on "oil and democracy" around the world:

President Bush summoned Obasanjo to the Oval Office last Thursday, ostensibly to discuss bilateral issues--Nigeria is one of America's biggest sources of oil, and Obasanjo has taken what the Washington Post called "modest but praiseworthy" steps to fight corruption there. Taylor, however, was clearly the elephant in the room. He is believed to have been involved in stoking civil wars in Liberia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone. In March 2003, the U.N.-backed body, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, indicted him for leading a civil war there in which his forces allegedly raped, dismembered, and killed tens of thousands of innocents in their bid to control the country's vast diamond mines. In August 2003, American officials helped broker a deal that allowed Taylor safe passage to Nigeria in order to stabilize the chaotic situation in Liberia. At the time, the officials vowed that the Liberian strongman would be brought to justice later. Obasanjo, however, has been reluctant to hand Taylor over to the U.N.-sponsored court without evidence of Taylor's continuing criminal behavior. A host of close observers, meanwhile--including many on Capitol Hill--believe the Bush administration has not pushed Obasanjo hard enough.Anyone surprised?

(sorry, I'm getting a bit off topic here). I have to moderate myself and suggest of new thread...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050516/16taylor.htm

[ May 23, 2005, 19:40: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

US-Marines, Kurdish-Guerillas and Karl May.Don't understand the reference. Because May wrote about places he had never been? Because Hitler enjoyed reading May?

As for oil and democracy (which mix together like...), of course it almost always distorts healthy politics; hey, I'll support any decent idea that reduces our need for oil.

Edit: Ahh, I get it: is it that the Kurds are treated as the "good noble savages" by the US, and you are suggesting some kind of post-colonial spin, whereby the Kurds are obviously lacking in national self-awareness, acting as puppets of their US masters, while the herioc Sunnis are fighting imperialism by blowing up Shia civilians? Or should I send a post- post- colonialist spin back at you: why does the fact the the Kurds largely supported the war, and are largely living in peace in the north of Iraq, make you reflexively think that they are lesser human beings?

[ May 23, 2005, 19:47: Message edited by: Bion ]

Bion - Ralph Nader has never supported the war in Iraq. And you are right in your criticsm of the Democrats. While true that I did vote for Kerry in the last election, I'm still not a Democrat. In truth, I voted "against" Bush. But I agree with you: the Democrats are not very liberal.

But may we now return to the topic at hand?

Well, I think that Bush and his crew have shot themselves in the knee when they decided to abandon the rule of law and to invent things like Gitmo or extraordinary rendition.

I have always thought that one of the sharpest swords the US have morally is due process.

They threw it away because it took them too long.

What I actually, in my naivete, expected Bush to do when he declared 'war on tyranny' was something like stop cooperating with torture states, stop deporting people, stop paying them. I then expected him to embargo someone like Karimov, cut diplomatic relations, pressure him - but he has just the same status as South America's strongmen a la Pinochet - a US proxy who offers services against a US target group.

Now that the initial zeal is worn off, Bush's policy is no less opportunistic and ruthless as Kissingers', just more dillettantic, and betrays it's high minded declared goals.

I absolutely expect the US to try to 'play Iraq', to sell one of the three parties in Iraq, to also 'appease' some 'Islamists', in case of the Kurds, perhaps also Turkish nationalists.

Ahem . . . after reading the last seven or so posts without seeing Galloway mentioned once, it occurred to me that this is now off-topic (as several of you already noted). New topic please!

Edit: Ahh, I get it: is it that the Kurds are treated as the "good noble savages" by the US, and you are suggesting some kind of post-colonial spin, whereby the Kurds are obviously lacking in national self-awareness, acting as puppets of their US masters, while the herioc Sunnis are fighting imperialism by blowing up Shia civilians? Or should I send a post- post- colonialist spin back at you: why does the fact the the Kurds largely supported the war, and are largely living in peace in the north of Iraq, make you reflexively think that they are lesser human beings?

Ah... no...

Rather why cashing in on ethnic differences and animosities? And putting a Karl May spin on it ? The enemy of one's enemy is only so long one's enemy as the first enmity exists. And than leave, after having played them against eachother and deepend the trenches of their conflict.

I personally think it is just no good to take sides in an ethnical conflict far away. Ethnical conflicts are all messy and dirty and there is no right or wrong.

Do you prefer Macedonians over Serbs or Albanians over Croats ? Do like Sunnis more than Kurds and Kurds more than *****s ? Or St.Gall more than Zürich ? Why would you take sides in an ethnical conflict and paint some better than others ?

And since when are Kurds lacking in national-self-awarenes?

And the peace question. They live in peace since they agreed a cease fire to focus on matters of higher priority. They are part of the powderkeg like anyone else.

Edit: I was posting this while the moderator message came.

Edit2: Just a small thing -> is it that the Kurds are treated as the "good noble savages" by the US No. I thought the were treated like romantic noble savages by the author you posted your link to and by you.

[ May 23, 2005, 20:34: Message edited by: Iago ]

Well, in order to respond, I guess I must partially be on topic: I will happily concede the benefits of British parlimentary training -- i.e., the ability to engage in spontaneous public debate with (almost) no holds barred -- against the American system of selecting politicians through TV spots canned speeches, which allow embarassing public speakers to be elected to the highest office of the land. Certainly Galloway put forward quite a performance, and it certainly flabbergasted Norm Coleman. There's some amusement to be found there, definitely. But whether that translates to a meaningful political exchange, I'm not sure.

As for ethnicity in Iraq, of course it's an issue. The elite of the country was Sunni Arab for a long, long time, and now there's a great deal of resentment all around. The question at this stage is, how can all the various groups in Iraq come together to produce a working representative gov't....

But whether that translates to a meaningful political exchange, I'm not sure.'Meaningful political exchange'?! Certainly not, I do not expect them to make an issue out of violations of the sanctions that were known to the serving Bush and Clinton administrations - who did nothing to prevent it and looked the other way.

The Senate Permanent Subcomittee on Investigations made Oil-for-Food an issue for the sole purpose to discredit the UN over the oil for food scandal - the guys who put it up want the UN dead.

That is, the result of their efforts was clear even before they started working.