OxBlog

Comments:

I think that unexploded cluster bombs might be a tad worse than the good George hosting a radio show, don't you think?

Evidently, the State Department agrees and is holding an inquiry over their use. Apparently this violated protocols which "require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973" [NYT].

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:51 AM

The term 'insult to injury' comes to mind.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:19 AM

Galloway is a dangerous rabble-rousing fascist.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:26 AM

I don't see how anyone can take this creep seriously. He's a joke. His fifteen minutes are due any minute, so who gives a shit what he does or what inane things he says.

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:56 AM

15 minutes? He's been an MP for 19 years.

Fascist? He's a socialist.

And at least Hitchen's agrees that the Lebanese people have been injured.

What I like about him is that he gets under the skin of the Right Wing. Kind of a Mario Cuomo with more of an edge.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:05 PM

So, who's paying for Galloway's travel these days? What with Saddam's wallet being locked up with his other effects, and the U.N. suddenly all honest and such...

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:45 AM

Well, Mr Galloway technically represents me in parliament. Hopefully he won't come back from Beirut.

# posted by

Michael : 3:50 PM

Patrick,

Galloway was rabidly anti-war and even in this I didn't completely agree with him; I always thought the no-fly zones were effective and efficient and economical.

You rightly have difficulty seeing him greeting Uday. I do too. This is a fair point. Jessie Jackson does this sort of stuff and I never liked that either.

Now what I'd like *you* to do is explain the Donald Rumsfeld Saddam Hussein photo. To jog your memory, this photo (1983) was during the 8-year Iran-Iraq border war which had about a million casualties.

You might wonder why America's credibility is slipping so. In this case, we cynically backed Iraq in an brutal senseless war with Iran. But for what? What could we have gotten? A greater Iraq? China sees this stuff and practically laughs at us.

Check this out. You're going to have enemies. Sometimes you can choose better ones.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:17 AM

Patrick

thank you. I think that Rumsfeld and Reagan *and* Carter were more culpable than you do, but that was a good reply.

Do I agree with Galloway on everything? No, most certainly not. But I listen to him more than say Hitchens. Both are good writers.

The reason for bringing up Rumsfeld in what is a Galloway argument is that 'your side' commonly accuses 'our side' of being Saddam supporters or fellow travelers, and you wanted to use Galloway as a specific example to prove a general rule.

Rumsfeld is the relevant counter example, except that Rumsfeld is the sitting SecDef. So 'this historic misbehaviour increased the USA's obligation to remove Saddam from power' might be a plausible argument, but having Rumsfeld oversee it is like having Willie Sutton oversee a bank reorganization.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:41 AM

'Rumsfeld helped carry out the policy presumably because of a perceived strategic interest.' Yes, but what was it? Isn't it fair to judge him on his record?

I know that you haven't equated anti-war with pro-Saddam. But you are aware of this argument. David, in another post, essentially said that Democrats were in favor of giving the UN a veto. This is similar.

Sitting over here on the Left, what I'm seeing is Rumsfeld-Cheney 'strategic' support for Saddam and then a big flip-flop with a massive incompetently-managed expensive war while blaming the Left for being soft on Saddam.

Galloway for his part is all over the place. If you look at his Wiki, he was virulantly anti-Saddam when it was fashionable (strategic?) to be pro-Saddam. He was also pro-Soviet (in Britain, big whoop). He was also pro-gay rights. He was also anti-war, but pro-Hezbollah.

Galloway can serve as your straw man, but four years into this war, you should be looking elsewhere.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:59 PM

"Would you prefer America to continue its old support of Saddam and his aggression, for the sake of consistency?"

You're offering a false dichotomy. There were other options. But I did say awhile back that I supported the no-fly approach. In contrast, Lieberman, in his definitive WSJ OpEd in the runup, complained that we were spending $1B/yr on the no-fly zone. Also, we might have parceled out the Kurds a homeland, except that Turkey undoubtedly objected. Other choices.

But let's get back to Mr. Galloway, a rabble-rouser to be sure.

The text of your first post was, "JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT COULDN'T GET ANY WORSE FOR THEM: George Galloway heads to Beirut."

And I said, 'I think that unexploded cluster bombs might be a tad worse than the good George hosting a radio show.'

This is roughly where we disagree. You think that a bad critic is absolutely bad, and I think that a bad actor is worse than any critic.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:42 PM

I don't like Hitchens or Bill Bennett, but I'd give my left nut to be able to write like them.

Galloway has rhetorical chops, especially for over here in a barren America. When Galloway went to the Senate and backed them down, that was pretty difficult. That got props.

Do you dislike Michelle Malkin? I don't think so. (I remember a gratuitous posting when y'all were figuring out images.) Do you agree with everything Michelle Malkin says. I don't think so.

Galloway does the difficult. The Senate. The debate with Hitchens. Getting elected MP. That too gets props.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:28 PM

This article is very much helpful and i hope this will be an useful information for the needed one. Keep on updating these kinds of informative things…
IT Services In Ahmedabad

# posted by

Aditi Jain : 8:10 AM