Friday, August 25, 2006
# Posted 7:51 AM by Patrick Belton
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].
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.
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.
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...
Well, Mr Galloway technically represents me in parliament. Hopefully he won't come back from Beirut.
he's a 'socialist' who pledged to one of Saddam's psychopathic sons in 1999 on videotape that 'we are with you until the end.'
this was a time when Saddam's regime had to be constrained with no-fly zones to prevent it carrying out aggressions against the Kurds.
amongst other things, he mourned the fall of the Soviet Union, said he backs North Korea against the USA, and has publicly glorified Hezbollah.
so if this man doesn't get under your skin, you got problems baby.
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.
indeed, America cultivated the Saddam regime, and Rumsfeld in the photo is clearly an envoy of this policy.
Though America supported Saddam not to the extent that is often thought, most of Saddam's weapons and material support came from Russia and France.
Arguably, though, this historic misbehaviour increased the USA's obligation to remove Saddam from power.
Its ok to agree with some of America's current policies, (leaving aside how well they are being conducted), while accepting criticisms of its historic behaviour in some areas.
Besides, we are at risk of changing the subject here. The subject is Galloway and his record of aligning himself with almost any dictatorship that is hostile to the USA.
Pointing out that Rumsfeld once had a friendly meeting with Saddam or that the USA supported its aggressions in the 80's doesn't mitigate Galloway's conduct.
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.
LOL for that final point!
My comment in this thread was confined to Galloway and his record. It did not insinuate that anyone who is anti-war is therefore on the side of Saddam. That would be silly and gratuitous.
On the Rumsfeld v Galloway point, Rumsfeld helped carry out the policy presumably because of a perceived strategic interest.
Galloway supported Saddam and made sympathetic statements because he was ideologically aligned with him and the Ba'ath party, ie. because he thought Saddam was a good idea.
So if forced to choose, I find G more of a problem.
'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.
"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."
Would you prefer America to continue its old support of Saddam and his aggression, for the sake of consistency?
A massive flip-flop, ie. a dramatic change in policy? Like no longer supporting a regime of mass murder, torture, ethnic cleansing, pro-jihadist propaganda, criminal harbouring, suicide bomber sponsoring? no longer supporting a regime that welcomed September 11, attempted to assassinate a US President, and used food money to bribe its foreign lackeys?
Personally, that's a change in policy I welcome. I would be interested to hear why the USA shouldn't have changed its mind about the regime?
"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."
He was not antiwar, he was prowar, just on the other side. He supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, among other campaigns.
"Galloway can serve as your straw man, but four years into this war, you should be looking elsewhere."
I am actually paying attention to other things too: the conduct of the war, the current situation in the Middle East.
You will find I have posted on those issues on this blogsite more than I have posted on Galloway.
But on this issue, I have no reservations in saying that Galloway's record is poor.
I find it strange that whenever this is said, some people want to change the subject.
This discussion arose because you yourself said you 'liked' things about George. Hence our argument. No-one on our end was changing the subject.
"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.
I can agree that cluster bombs are worse for the Lebanese than Mr Cat dropping in. And that a bad actor is normally worse than a bad critic.
Although he is a pretty prominent critic, and his demagogic and inflammatory words have the effect of deeds on his audiences.
But I can't agree that he is at all 'likeable,' or that I should just 'move on' to more important topics when I disagree with you saying he is.
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.
malkin? don't like her polemical, hectoring style much, or her rather wanton habit of accusing her critics of being traitors.Post a Comment
G is a good pugnacious orator, I'll give you that.