Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington

Norm Coleman is a fool.

Not an ideological nut case, not a partisan whack, not even a useful idiot -- just a plain old-fashioned, drool-on-his-tie fool.

The Minnesota Republican senator who took Paul Wellstone's seat after one of the most disreputable campaigns in American political history has been trying over the past year to make a name for himself by blowing the controversy surrounding the United Nations Oil-for-Food program into something more than the chronicle of corporate abuse that it is. The US media, which thrives on official sound bites, was more than willing to lend credence to Coleman's overblown claims about wrongdoing in the UN program set up in 1996 to permit Iraq -- which was then under strict international sanctions -- to buy food, medicine and humanitarian supplies with the revenues from regulated oil sales. Even as Coleman's claims became more and more fantastic, he faced few challenges from the cowering Democrats in Congress.

But when Coleman started slandering foreign politicians, he exposed the dramatic vulnerability of his claims that the supposed scandal was much more than a blatant example of US corporations taking advantage of their powerful connections in Washington to undermine official US policy, harm the national interest and profit off the suffering of the poor.

The Senate investigation that Coleman sought regarding the Oil for Food program has already revealed that the Bush Administration failed to crack down on widespread abuse of the Oil for Food program by US energy companies, and that US oil purchases accounted for the majority of the kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein's regime in return for sales of inexpensive oil. Indeed, the report concludes, "The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

Instead of forcing the President, his aides and the executives of Bayoil, the Texas oil company that the report shows paid "at least $37 million in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime" -- money that helped the Iraqi dictator solidify his grip on power -- Coleman started to make wild charges about European officials such as British parliamentarian George Galloway.

The problem for Coleman is that Galloway is not a standard-issue American politician -- the kind who has nothing to say and says it poorly. He is a veteran of the rough-and-tumble politics of Glasgow and the equally rough-and-tumble politics of the British Parliament. In other words, Galloway comes from places where voters and politicians do not suffer fools. And anyone who has ever followed British politics knows that George Galloway has beaten every political challenge he has faced -- even those posed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Galloway called Coleman's bluff and flew to Washington for a remarkable appearance before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. "I am determined now that I am here, to be not the accused but the accuser," Galloway announced as he stood outside the Capitol Tuesday. "These people are involved in the mother of all smokescreens."

The member of Parliament tore through Coleman's flimsy "evidence," issuing an unequivocal denial that began, "Mr. Chairman, I am not now, nor have I ever been an oil trader, and neither has anyone been on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." He accused Coleman of being "remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice" and pointed out error after error in the report the senator had brandished against him.

For instance, Galloway noted that he had met Saddam twice -- not the "many" times alleged by the report. "As a matter of fact I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times that [Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld met him," said the recently re-elected British parliamentarian. "The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns."

For good measure, Galloway used the forum Coleman had foolishly provided to deliver a blistering condemnation of Coleman's war.

"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies," Galloway informed the fool on Capitol Hill.

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

"If the world had listened to [UN Secretary General] Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to [French] President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the antiwar movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth," argued Galloway.

Then the Brit turned the tables on Coleman and steered the committee's attention toward "the real Oil for Food scandal."

"Have a look at the fourteen months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first fourteen months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money but the money of the American taxpayer," Galloway said.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where. Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it. Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

(John Nichols's new book, Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books), was published January 30. Howard Zinn says, "At exactly the time when we need it most, John Nichols gives us a special gift -- a collection of writings, speeches, poems and songs from throughout American history -- that reminds us that our revulsion to war and empire has a long and noble tradition in this country." Frances Moore Lappé calls Against the Beast "brilliant! A perfect book for an empire in denial." Against the Beast can be found at independent bookstores nationwide and can be obtained online by tapping the above reference or at www.amazon.com.)

Comments (57)

1. What was also quite interesting is the questioning of Sen. Levine, who bogged down in his splicing of hairs to understand if Galloway felt that it was wrong for his friend to have possibly dealt in transactions outside the parameters of the Oil for Food Program. Mr. Galloway attempted to explain that the larger crimes of the Oil for Food Program and the war in Iraq are the true wrongs. If Sen. Levine is the best that we got for the Democrats on the Hill, I fear for the demise of our dear republic. by the way readers, here you can watch the entire precedings with Mr. Galloway (he begins a couple of minutes after two hours) rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/govtaff051705.rm?start="2:02:00"

   Posted by normanx at 05/18/2005 @ 05:31am

2. Basically- Galloway is the man! We should have invited him over a looong time ago. He needs to stay for a while. It's not like he's saying too much that we didn't suspect already- it's just getting news coverage.

   Posted by eiluj at 05/18/2005 @ 09:04am

3. Mr. Coleman truly is an idiot. As a neighbor in North Dakota, I've asked Mr. Coleman to resign and return to Minnesota to avoid any further embarassment to the upper midwest. My only defense or explanation is that Mr. Coleman is originally from New York. Please accept our apologies. The Galloway segment should be played over and over again on all media outlets.

   Posted by Dakota at 05/18/2005 @ 09:40am

4. Couple of thoughts from the UK- Galloway's counterattack was spot on. Even if the apparently fraudulent accusations against him were true they would hardly compare to the costs of illegal war, sanctions or even US corruption under the oil-for-food program. These serious crimes cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and billions in Iraqi oil wealth - an order of magnitude quite apart from what Galloway is accused of. Its Coleman and the other hawks who belong in the dock.

   That said, the US anti-war movement should resist the temptation to see Galloway as an unambiguous hero. Its true that the right wing and the press have conducted a long-standing smear campaign against him. However, some of Galloway's controversial statements have been genuinely problematic from a progressive left-libertarian point of view. His famous 'salute' of Saddam, whatever the genuine context or pragmatic reasons, was a crashing failure of political judgement. Other positions he has taken - e.g. qualified praise for the Soviet Union - will trouble anyone on the left who prefers Chomsky to Trotsky.

   More on this here - http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/05/contaminating-brand.html

   and here - http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/04/gorgeous-george.html

   Certainly it would be a hard-hearted progressive who did not enjoy watching the anti-UN McCarthyite Norm Coleman being utterly confused by the facts yesterday – a cathartic experience given the total absence of a prominent and vocal antiwar presence in mainstream US politics. But there are many brave and articulate figures - people less open to attack from our enemies - that the movement can speak through; people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and others. Galloway scored a great victory for the anti war movement yesterday. But his introduction to the US should be greeted with a degree of caution. The question of whether he is an asset or a liability has yet to be answered. Once the cheers have died down, US progressives should still look elsewhere for their inspiration.

   Posted by davewearing at 05/18/2005 @ 10:19am

5. Isn't it a sad reflection on the Democratic party that it takes a rough-house Glaswegian politician, falsely accused of corruption by a self serving and servile committee, to lead by example? Galloway may have his faults but spinelessness certainly isn't one of them. The Democratic party would do well to emulate his tactics and begin to broadcast some of the simple facts about the Iraqi war and the real reasons it was launched. Galloway ably proved that truth and candour are far more effective weapons than spin and propaganda. It is to the lasting shame and embarrassment of the British Labour Party that it takes a member expelled from its ranks, George Galloway, to speak the words that are in the minds and hearts of the majority of the population of Britain, Europe and Canada.

   Posted by inveresk at 05/18/2005 @ 11:41am

6. John: Thanks for pointing this out. Garrison Keillor was right a few years ago -- Norm Coleman got a completely free ride from the Minnesota press at the time of his election. As a political science professor living in St. Paul at the time, I was disgusted with how timid the local media were when confronted with Norm's ultra-phoniness, a pattern which was evident long before Wellstone's untimely death. And once elected, Norm took his act to Washington, and started to cultivate ties to some of the right-wing fringe, most evident in his persisnet bashing of the UN. Hopefully Mr. Galloway's confrontation with Norm will help the good citizens of Minnesota begin to see through this politician and send him back to some used car dealership where he belongs.

   Posted by Neilk at 05/18/2005 @ 12:19pm

7. It is good to see a Nation Magazine blogger all enthusiastic for George Galloway. In light of this, it is most regrettable that the magazine expended so much effort last year to neutralize and isolate and defame our own George Galloway: Ralph Nader.

   Posted by lproyect at 05/18/2005 @ 1:37pm

8. Oh the thrill of it. Finally my heart, which has ached for lo these five long years to see/hear somebody - anybody - wake up and give the hypocrites on the right the drubbing they deserve, is made glad. Let's get busy on that amendment that would allow foreigners to run for president here. Galloway in '08!

   Posted by mewsician at 05/18/2005 @ 6:07pm

9. Dear Komrade Reader of the Nation,

   I cannot believe that there are people here who are so naive and/or stupid to side with such a despicable person like George Galloway. I guess anybody who is anti-Bush and anti-American is considered a "good guy" by the majority of The Nation readers. I bet those same readers probably considered Stalin's Soviet Union a "workers' paradise" back in the 1930's.

   Long live the Dictature of the Proletariat !!!

   Posted by pinko_merde at 05/18/2005 @ 6:09pm

10. Just curious, Pinko: Do you have any facts or specifics to share, or, like most right-wing zealots, are you just ranting and raving?

    Posted by mewsician at 05/18/2005 @ 6:35pm

11. Did I miss something during a brief lapse in my print subscription? Last I checked, I believe The Nation has been squarely, openly in the treasonous anti-war camp - including support for what pitiful few politicians ever assumed such a position publicly - since the very beginning.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/18/2005 @ 6:43pm

12. Noted, Zero; as a reader of both, I've been aware of that. But the sad fact is that probably not even Galloway would have gone so far, in the last election, as actually believing that Nader was a legitimate choice (and I voted for him in 2000). The Galloway that visited the Senate chamber this week doesn't strike me as someone given to wishful illusion.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/18/2005 @ 6:51pm

13. I feel your pain, Zero - I'm a liberal journalist working in the flight test environment....thus no stranger to abuse, believe me. But as one of those who has gotten to be more, not less, of a liberal as I battle middle age - unlike many who turn tail and run because doing that is easier, once they start having retirement stakes in the Dow, etc. - I find that the way middle-age "realism" has affected my progressive views is in facing hard facts I once would have continued fighting against - hard facts like that of Nader's true viability in last year's debacle. Faced with the deadly prospect of Bush's advance, I saw the wisdom in "baby steps," i.e., let's get that treacherous little freak (to borrow HST's immortal phrase) out by any means necessary. Sadly, Kerry had a better chance than Nader. Once the Bush juggernaut was stopped, my thinking went, we can move on. I hardly see how supporting an inevitably losing candidate - even one as smart and principled as Nader - would have been the better course. All this, of course, being totally pointless now......

    Posted by mewsician at 05/18/2005 @ 7:06pm

14. Without lionizing either Mr. Galloway or Mr. Nichols, who among us will not agree that something of fundamental importance has taken place to encourage all 'progressives' to rally around this debate and to speak out loud? Who will henceforth be comfortable to enjoy the 'privilege' of being the 'first to say nothing'. Bravo to these gentlemen, who no doubt will now be facing perfidious criticisms and backstreet machinations. Bravo to The Nation once again. Ladies and gentlemen, the alarms are sounding.

    Posted by ponteuxen at 05/18/2005 @ 7:31pm

15. "In America we play politics like our game of football, with timeouts, lots of protection, positioning on the field, huddles and numbered plays.

    In Britian, politics is played like rugby, spontaneous, free flowing, choatic, with the players unencumbered by padding or protection.

    Yesterday, with MP Galloways' testimony before the Senate, we saw the difference. The Senate wanted to play football, Galloway picked up the ball and ran with it to the goal line before the Senate could get out of huddle."

    Posted by OpAl at 05/18/2005 @ 8:14pm

16. Zero -

    Actually it is OpAl; short for Opinionated Alien!

    I think that the corporatism of America is responsible for many of the complaints made by people still possessing the power of critical reasoning. Galloway, unblinkered by the media fog lying over America, was a ray of sunshine.

    As long as the wagons are circled and the guns pointed inward, no matter how many people wish for a "leader of reason" able to puncture the smokescreen, one will not appear.

    I still have not seen anything in the mainstream media on Galloway. Charlie Rose interviewed him last evening, and looked quite discomfitted at points. Galloway took unkindly to constantly being interrrupted, while expressing an idea, for a sound-bite question! Rose could use some visits to the House of Commons for a lesson, as could so many Americans.

    Posted by OpAl at 05/18/2005 @ 10:43pm

17. I know MP Galloway is not a saint, but it is so refreshing to hear someone talk back to the ruling Taliban. The Democrats are too scared to stand up to these thugs running this country. I loved all of it!!!

    Posted by philbq at 05/19/2005 @ 05:37am

18. Zero, don't mistake anything I've said for unqualified support of the Democrats! I agree totally that their viability is increasingly questionable; a lot hinges, for me, on whether or not they can turn back this dastardly filibuster challenge. If they cave on their threats to bring congressional activity to a halt, should the GOP get its way on this one as they have on everything else, then that's it on the Dems as far as I'm concerned. They're showing some signs of a backbone, though, and I want to believe it might be more than a fleeting trend. Pinko: Mr. Galloway is popular here as a result of his actions - I'm still waiting for something in the way of empirical data documenting that he's the scoundrel you imply he is.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/19/2005 @ 11:41am

19. Deploring the Repubs (rightly so) and rueing Democratic cowardice (also rightly so) is one thing. Glorifying George Galloway and swallowing whole his dishonest and diversionary arguments is quite another. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, disgustingly, in the course of Realpolitik. Galloway met with Saddam to proclaim ideological solidarity with his regime -- and this is not in the least bit disputable:

    "Your excellency, Mr President, I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means, which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq ... I greet you too in the name of the Palestinian people ... I thought the president would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem."

    You're all "progressives" here, no? What have you to say about this? Shame on John Nichols for ignoring it altogether.

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 11:57am

20. Lerter - Since that meeting Galloway has said of the statement, "Yes, I regret that very much". He says he should have used the "old-fashioned Scottish word ‘yoos', rather than ‘you '," to show his tribute was to the people of Iraq, and not to their oppressor. He's repeated this many times over, as well as his condemnations of Saddam.

    Galloway's supporters point out that at the time he was involved in a dialogue with Ba'athist Iraq intended to mitigate the effects of sanctions on the Iraqi population and to decrease the chances of further armed conflict with the west. These are goals it would be hard not to support, and if swallowing one's pride and allowing the preening butcher some flattery would help in that respect…..well, greater crimes have been committed.

    Such greater crimes would include Rumsfeld and the US actively helping Saddam to commit all his worst atrocities – a crime you explain away, rather forgivingly, as realpolitik. Another would be the US/UK sanctions regime that killed over a million Iraqis; over half of them under fives (at the rate of 4,000 per month according to UNICEF). Another would be launching an illegal war that cost over 100,000 lives, pulverising Iraq (again) and turning it into a terrorist haven.

    As I said earlier, and here Galloway can certainly be accused of a serious lack of political, even moral judgement. But he's never been guilty of mass murder. His alleged crimes are absolutely trivial compared to those his accusers are guilty of. Once the ICC's given them their multiple life sentences, then, and only then, should we turn the focus of our attention onto George Galloway. He may not be a hero, but his denunciation of the US government was spot on.

    Posted by davewearing at 05/19/2005 @ 12:29pm

21. Now THIS is useful blogging (no thanks to Pinko, I point out again). I'd like to see John Nichols address the issues raised by Galloway's detractors in our midst - John are you there?

    Posted by mewsician at 05/19/2005 @ 1:06pm

22. DAVEWEARING -- I appreciate the measured tone of your post (a rarity these days), but I find Galloway's climbdown utterly unconvincing. If you can point me to Galloway's condemnations of Saddam, I'd appreciate seeing them.

    I described Rumsfeld's realpolitik as "disgusting" -- not a "forgiving" word in my book.

    You go on to cite the usual sanctions-related death figures without citing Saddam's profiteering during the sanctions regime, and hence his share of culpability for those deaths. And that's what really undermines Galloway's lame attempt to cover his ass. Galloway (and you) cite those figures to this day without acknowledging Saddam's role in impoverishing the Iraqi people, and also profiting personally from, and hence greatly worsening, the situation. And then you turn around and tell us that "flattering" the tyrant was really not so bad. And if that fails, then oh my goodness, Galloway didn't really mean it.

    On the sanctions-related death numbers, you've probably seen John Sweeney's comments: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 1:11pm

23. ZERO -- your reply makes no moral sense whatsoever.

    "And what's more, Galloway didn't sell any guns or gas to Saddam." -- Bravo, nice regurgitation, well done.

    But seriously, how can you suggest that the way to apologize to Iraqis and Muslims for Western-inflicted suffering is to tell their brutal dictator, "We are with you, until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem"?

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 1:42pm

24. ZERO -- let's explore which of us is "absolutey fixated" on Israel here. My original post contains one rather oblique reference to Israel, and it is Galloway's. Your reply contains, oh, roughly a dozen references to Israel. My intention was to highlight Galloway's statement to Saddam that "We are with you" -- although I find his parroting of pan-Arab nationalist rhetoric to be equally disgraceful.

    I am not disregarding Western injustice toward Arabs, as you say. I am merely saying let's not pat Galloway on the back. The man proclaimed solidarity with one of the most ruthless murderers of Arabs in modern times. Do you care about Arab deaths only when they're caused by American bombs?

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 2:13pm

25. Lerter – in response

    First on Galloway denouncing Saddam - "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce. "You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578_1,00.html

    If you're not convinced, fair enough. I'm not here to praise Galloway, incidentally. I came into this discussion saying as much, and if you have a look here http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/04/gorgeous-george.html you'll see that I have serious reservations about him.

    My point was simply that whatever he is accused of is utterly trivial in comparison to what the US government is most assuredly guilty of. Whatever we think of him, his denunciation of Coleman highlighted the real issues we should be discussing.

    I take your point regarding ‘realpolitik', although I'm afraid it rather sounded as though you thought Rumsfeld's backing of Saddam was "disgusting", yet regrettably necessary (the ‘real' in ‘realpolitik'). You certainly implied that Galloway's offensive speech was a worse crime than actually helping Saddam him kill thousands of people. As I said; rather forgiving. Perhaps you didn't mean it quite like that.

    No one argues that Saddam did not share in the responsibility for the sanctions death toll. This does nothing to diminish the US/UK share of responsibility, which is what we're discussing, and is irrelevant in that respect. You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. When you instigate sanctions upon Iraq knowing full that if there's one loaf of bread left in the whole of the country it'll be on Saddam's table, you can hardly then point to the evil of the dictator in order to absolve yourself when the nation starves. Especially when he owes his position to you in the first place. As UNICEF said at the time, "Even if not all the suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."

    As for Sweeny's article, I'm well aware of it. As a debunking of the figures its hopelessly weak. Its based entirely on the dishonesty of Saddam's regime, which no one disputes and of which UNICEF, I dare say, was well aware. The best Sweeny can manage is the somewhat equivocal assertion that the UNICEF figures are "open to question". Apparently they're open to question because the raw data came mostly from Iraqi health ministry employees. The article makes no mention of how UNICEF assessed that data, its quality, its source, and how it reached its own final conclusions.

    There are rather better sources on this than John Sweeny, like the UN officials involved for example:

    "Denis Halliday resigned as co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq in 1998, after 34 years with the UN. His was the first public expression of an unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that."

    "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that Saddam Hussein is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. History will slaughter those responsible."

    Then on February 13 this year [2000], Hans von Sponeck, who had succeeded him as humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, resigned. "How long," he asked, "should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" Two days later, Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, resigned, saying privately she, too, could not tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

    Even the US government didn't deny the death toll:

    "on 12 May [1996], Mrs Albright [US Secretary of State] appeared on CBS television. Leslie Stahl, the interviewer, asked: "We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died [due to sanctions]. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" To the world's astonishment, Mrs Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."" http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/articles/fisk.html

    I can only repeat the point; whatever Galloway is he is not a mass murderer, an accomplice to mass murder or complicit in mass murder (or "genocide" according to Denis Halliday). While the US Senate, White House etc are in fits of hysteria about the crimes of others the US/UK Iraq policy, one of the great international crimes of the last 25 years, is seen as a moral triumph, or at worst a regrettable mistake. I'm no fan of George Galloway, but let's get this in some perspective.

    Posted by davewearing at 05/19/2005 @ 4:21pm

26. I'm not arguing that Galloway is a mass murderer. I'm arguing that he's a hypocrite and a Trojan horse for left authoritarianism. I'm glad that you, davewearing, have reservations about him, but that seems not to be the prevailing position on the left. Just look at the absurd puff piece in The Nation that sparked this debate. And this from a publication that prides itself on truth-telling.

    You write: "No one argues that Saddam did not share in the responsibility for the sanctions death toll." OK but the most you'll get from lefties, usually in quasi-sarcastic tones, is that Saddam was a "very, very bad man" -- read: yawn, yeah yeah, big deal let's get past it while we hurl genocide accusations at the West. I don't think this affords us a very accurate view of the matter.

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 5:30pm

27. An "accurate view of the matter," Lerter, is exactly what has been presented here: bad men like Saddam Hussein will always be part of the world's landscape and are deplorable. That, however, is the smaller point. What the U.S. and its allies des jours have done with their berserk foreign policies in the Middle East are the problem, NOT garden-variety dictators like Hussein. (I've always hated the silly habit of referring to him by his first name.) No one who wants to pound "lefties" for a dismissive tone on Saddam Hussein has a leg to stand on when they don't profess, in the very same breath and with parallel - or greater - vitriol the crimes of the George Bushes and the Tony Blairs, the real villains of the piece.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/19/2005 @ 5:57pm

28. Mewsician: "...bad men like Saddam Hussein will always be part of the world's landscape and are deplorable. That, however, is the smaller point."

    When Galloway praises one such bad man and big numbers on the left give him a free pass, or make weak excuses, it is not such a "smaller" point at all.

    Mewsician again: "No one who wants to pound 'lefties' for a dismissive tone on Saddam Hussein has a leg to stand on when they don't profess, in the very same breath and with parallel - or greater - vitriol the crimes of the George Bushes and the Tony Blairs, the real villains of the piece."

    It is precisely the left's refusal to view Saddam (sorry, Hussein) as a "real villain" that I'm taking issue with.

    My "vitriol" toward Bush will come at a time of my choosing.

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 6:22pm

29. I'll look forward to reading it. Better sooner than later, though - George Bush is single-handedly imperiling the civilized world. We need all the voices we can get - like those of Mr. Galloway! - to rise up in chorus and denounce this idiot!

    Posted by mewsician at 05/19/2005 @ 6:38pm

30. Lerter -"It is precisely the left's refusal to view Saddam (sorry, Hussein) as a "real villain" that I'm taking issue with."

    It's a completely different topic. Whether the left acknowledges that or not, doesn't mean that our actions in instituting the sanctions and then entering into a war on false pretenses were on moral high ground at best, or more probably, criminal.

    What your position seems to be, is that Saddam was a bad man, therefore we can do anything at we want to him, the Iraqi people, neighbours, Arab-Americans and we are still OK, because Saddam is bad guy.

    Likewise, we can get side-tracked by the lack of clear numbers about the death toll from sanctions. But the lack of clear numbers doesn't mean that these deaths didn't occur. If the numbers are only one half, or one quarter or one tenth. Whether it was 4,000 a month or 400, it is still too many. And calling up Saddam's badness as a a sort of 'moral get out of jail free card', is inappropriate. If you institute an action that will inevitably lead to consequences, you are morally on the hook for those actions and their consequences. Whatever the number of people who died as a direct cause of the sanctions, we killed them as surely as if we put a gun to their heads. Likewise, by deciding to go to war, we also killed some number, what ever that number is, innocent iraqi's again, as surely as if we stuck a gun to their heads (we did that literally in some cases). The consequences of the sanctions and the war were well known. We do action action A, we get consequences B. That Saddam is a bad guy doesn't obviate our moral responsibility for causing B.

    The Galloway discussion also calls to my attention a sad trend in our political discourse, which is that discussions such as these tend not to be argued on the merits of the ideas and issues themselves, but on the 'quality' of the person taking the position.

    No one is disputing that there were no WMDs, No one is disputing that the was no al Qaeda connection, No one is disputing that Iraq posed no threat to the United States, the UK nor its neighbours. No one is disputing that the sanctions regime failed to weaken Saddam, but instead killed off innocent Iraqi's. No one is disputing that the UN had little or nothing to do with the food-for-oil problems (other than some possible small potato personal corruption), in fact it was mainly accomplished via US corporate corruption with the knowledge and occasional facilitation by the US government.

    None of these things are in dispute, they are matters of fact - but we can throw them all away because we have some vague objections as to the messenger. And in any case, every time I read that Galloway bit my reaction is not that this is the second coming of Neville Chamberlain and 'appeasement' - but that we have been so 'dumbed-down' in our political discourse in this nation, that we don't understand any rhetoric more subtle than "evil-doers" and "you're either with us, or against us."

    Posted by smparsons at 05/19/2005 @ 7:58pm

31. SMPARSONS: "What your position seems to be, is that Saddam was a bad man, therefore we can do anything at we want to him, the Iraqi people, neighbours, Arab-Americans and we are still OK, because Saddam is bad guy."

    I said nothing of the kind. You're arguing in bad faith.

    SMPARSONS: "And calling up Saddam's badness as a a sort of 'moral get out of jail free card', is inappropriate."

    Didn't do that, either. And calling up Bush's badness as a sort of "moral get out of jail free card" for Saddam Hussein, which is precisely what Galloway did so egregiously, is also "inappropriate," to put it quite mildly.

    ZERO: "I understand it for myself by thinking that Galloway afforded some very high-class language to a low-class troll, to make a point to the Western observer that Western acts were making the low-class troll into a victim requiring apology."

    The only point Galloway made to the Western observer is that he sympathized, ideologically, with Baathism. There's no other way to read his remarks, unless you're being naive or dishonest. See ya later.

    Posted by lerter at 05/19/2005 @ 9:56pm

32. I thoroughly enjoyed George Galloway's stylish tongue-lashing of Norm Coleman and the vile, idiotic palladins of the U.S. Senate. It is also good to know something of Galloway's record. I'm sure if the story is covered in Workers Vanguard, it will be every bit as thorough as LERTER would have liked John Nichol's NATION piece to have been, and as DAVEWEARING's posts were.

    Although I may disagree with DAVEWEARING about Chomsky and Herman vs. Trotsky and Lenin (I'm definintely in the latter team's camp), I don't get the sense from him, as I do from LERTER, that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and disassociae ourselves from Galloway's dressing down of Coleman and Co. Acknowledge his faults, absolutely, and don't become an overnight syncophant, but do let's celebrate this action, this little defeat for the butchers of the beltway.

    As I often said in the days leading up to Gulf War II, I would be quite happy to see Saddam Hussein hanging from a lamppost. I just would rather the Iraqi people could have gotten the chance to exercise their right to string him up, a right his former allies and enablers in Washington did not, and do not, share.

    Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2005 @ 01:12am

33. ZERO, sarcastically: "The sum total of Galloway's entire career in public life is encapsulated in the three or four sentences he said that you find objectionable, specifically for the reasons you find them objectionable."

    Am I to presume, then, that you don't find those sentences objectionable? Anyhow, we're talking about more than those sentences -- we're talking about Galloway's true colors. But here's the incredible thing: If I hadn't brought up those sentences, all of you, including John Nichols of The Nation, would have been content to ignore them, pretend they were never uttered.

    Galloway: "You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do."

    Oh, is that so? Let's see, Galloway kissed Saddam's ring in 1994, I believe that's after 1990. Some "opposition." The man is a bald-faced liar, but certainly not the first to win the far left's fawning affection.

    Posted by lerter at 05/20/2005 @ 10:39am

34. Lerter, I'm no apologist for George Galloway but can I suggest you pay as much attention to the bald faced lies of a much more serious nature which have been promulgated by your own government from the president downwards? They, not Galloway, are the real villains. At least Galloway had the common decency to apologise for his errors of judgment. Bush publicly declared he doesn't make any!!

    Posted by inveresk at 05/20/2005 @ 11:11am

35. ZERO: "Western acts were making the low-class troll into a victim requiring apology."

    In the 90s, while Saddam was utterly decimating the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq, he was "a victim requiring apology"? This is madness.

    ZERO: "And I maintain that the underlying truth of the movements for peace and justice require that we maintain our own principles, or that we apologize to even the lowest trolls when we do them wrong."

    Kissing Saddam's ring does not make one an advocate for "peace and justice." It makes one a propagandist for tyranny.

    Engaging in debate is precisely what I am doing here -- since John Nichols chose to preach to the choir. In my view, the "far left" accurately describes those who, like Galloway, allow their outrage at Western injustice to explain away, if not outright identify with, the injustice perpetrated by the West's opponents.

    Posted by lerter at 05/20/2005 @ 12:10pm

36. Can I please make a plea for a sense of balance. Yes, George Galloway publicly praised Saddam Hussein and kissed his ring (sic). He shouldn't have. He said as much. But I do believe he's a moralist of conviction and no self seeker. Were he the latter, he could have achieved much more for himself like the rest of Tony Blair's toadies by staying silent within the establishment. Instead he chose to speak the truth as he saw it and become an exile. That's a hard choice to make. His errors of judgement are not the horror of horrors that some on the right would wish them to appear. They're appeasement gestures to an evil man, possibly pandering to his ego in order to achieve specific goals. That sort of pandering is not infrequent in politics but Galloway did it on television. A mistake, sure, but were I the keeper of the gates of heaven (which I'm glad I'm not), by themselves those transgressions would not be enough to keep him out.

    How does it compare on the league of sins to starving 1 million innocents? Or how about launching an illegal war costing 100,000 lives and justifying it on the basis of known falsehoods so that the oil reserves of a country could be plundered? How about supporting such manifest greed by corpoorations sympathetic to one's power block that one permits them to steel billiions of dollars from an already overstretched American treasury and from a foreign country? How about being informed about this and still voting such criminals back into power?

    Galloway, for all his faults, did America a service. I find it puzzling why anyone would wish to divert attention from it by bringing righteous indignation to bear on Galloway rather than those who truly deserve it.

    Posted by inveresk at 05/20/2005 @ 12:18pm

37. Zero sums up the problem, which I feel in some part responsible for as a result of my half-satiric "Galloway in '08!" comment of two days ago. With that, I brought down the wrath of the right-leaning, evidently, on our blog-heads. Zero's most recent post goes directly to the heart of the problem dividing America, one that I battle my own relatives over constantly: for whatever reason (and I have my theories but will abstain from sharing, in the interest of civility) entrenched people on the right simply refuse to base their viewpoints in hard, verifiable fact and have no capacity to face truths they don't like. As much as it kills me, as a lifelong Democrat, to have to say it, I didn't like John Kerry all that much. I also didn't hesitate to openly admit - to Republicans and Democrats alike - that I objected to many of Bill Clinton's economic policies. Being willing to parse things truthfully is crucial to effective debate and dispute resolution. But find me one member of the right - especially the rabid right - who will honestly examine and criticize George Bush about anything despite ovewhelming, indisputable, repeatedly proven, wholly verifiable evidence of his failures. Be it economic or foreign policy, the ruinous red-blue divisions he openly fosters - witness the Rove-hatched strategy in the 2004 election, which freely adopted the "let's get 'our kind' on board and screw the rest of America - trade, science-based environmental policy or the legions of other areas in which any rational mind will see proof of his terrible failings....it doesn't matter. They can't cop to it, not even among friends. Using my own relatives as reference, the jury, for me, is still out on whether they ever admit it to themselves; I still think it's possible they do but just can't do it publicly. I maintain that that simple problem is the root of what threatens the democracy today. This Galloway discussion is a classic example; no matter a single incident brought by detractors in which Galloway exhibited poor judgment - for the right-leaning contributors, there is no possibility of seeing the larger view because, in that view, their man and his British ally, Blair, would come in for criticism. This is a vicious problem, and as certain a death sentence for democracy as ever there will be.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/20/2005 @ 2:02pm

38. To pinko_merde:

    I guess the right of the political spectrum in this country looks fondly on the glorious days of the third reich as well as Mussolini's Italy. I mean, we all know how intertwined the fascists were with business.

    Posted by hamblett at 05/20/2005 @ 3:24pm

39. Yes, Hamblett. And NOW, the fascist-corporate cozy includes a technologically advanced media Hitler and Mussolini could never have dreamed of. Dark days, indeed, when that happens. We're a nation totally saturated in media, but without the requisite parallel advances in media literacy. A double whammy: control of propoganda by corporate ideologues coupled with a nation of people not capable of vetting even source material as flagrantly biased as that on Fox News. Dark days.....

    Posted by mewsician at 05/20/2005 @ 4:17pm

40. ZERO: "it would be great to see you simply acknowledge that there are major questions surrounding Western policies in the mid-East."

    Why, exactly, do you need me to acknowledge that? Doesn't it go without saying around here? Have I suggested, anywhere, that US policy in the Mideast is hunky-dory? No, I have not, but because I reject Galloway you immediately jump to the conclusion that I support the West's policies. Talk about taking a simplistic, selective view of things.

    Elevating Galloway cheapens and discredits the left. If no one can give me an inch on that, oh well. Enjoy your little echo chamber.

    MEWSICIAN: "This is a vicious problem, and as certain a death sentence for democracy as ever there will be."

    Please. You want to see democracy die, put Stalinists like Galloway in power.

    How totally off-base, this implication that deploring left authoritarians makes you "right-leaning."

    Posted by lerter at 05/20/2005 @ 5:06pm

41. Lerter - SMPARSONS: "What your position seems to be, is that Saddam was a bad man, therefore we can do anything at we want to him, the Iraqi people, neighbours, Arab-Americans and we are still OK, because Saddam is bad guy."

    I said nothing of the kind. You're arguing in bad faith.

    This is not arguing in bad faith. Your entire argumnet, concluded by the 'left not acknowledging Saddam is a bad guy' states exactly this. Saddam was bad, why aren't we blaming him for the effects of the sanction? Saddam is a bad guy, why aren't we blaming him for the horrendous damage we inflicted on the country and people of Iraq through an illegal war? How that is not a oral get out of jail free argumnet is beyond me.

    SMPARSONS: "And calling up Saddam's badness as a a sort of 'moral get out of jail free card', is inappropriate."

    Didn't do that, either. And calling up Bush's badness as a sort of "moral get out of jail free card" for Saddam Hussein, which is precisely what Galloway did so egregiously, is also "inappropriate," to put it quite mildly.

    Same as above, except again, Galloway did do no such thing. He did not bomb Iraq, nor starve their innocent children. Galloway's 'egregious' action was to be a long time opponent of Hussein's attrocitities and also of our attrocities commited against innocent Iraqi's. And in the same breath to condemn Israel's apartheid positions vis a vis the Palestinians.

    All of which are true, and none of which cost a person their life nor a meal. Galloway doesn't need a moral excuse for doing what was moral. Defending the innocent even if they happen to live in the same country as Saddam or the same country as Hamas or the Israeli right.

    Again, you come back to the same point. We can starve Iraq's children because Hussein is a bad guy. But now you add that Galloway can't say that Bush and Norm Coleman are bad guys by pointing out exactly the facts of the matter? Because sometime in the process of trying to agitate against an illegal war, he said things that you disagree with? No bombing, no starvation, no oil-for-food cheating....just words.

    This doesn't pass the straight face test.

    Posted by smparsons at 05/20/2005 @ 5:14pm

42. Lerter, as right-wingers can inevitably be counted on to do, you oblige me by helping make my case. Now I'm a "left authoritarian" and Galloway is a Stalinist, simply because I call into question someone's comments and motives? Perhaps you and Pinko_Merde could meet for coffee, safe in the knowledge that no one will be on hand to require you to address truths you don't want to hear.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/20/2005 @ 5:24pm

43. Yes, but it's a constructive row. I've learned good things and have broadened what I know about Mr. Galloway specifically, which of course is what useful blogging is. What a pity America's national leadership can't see the value in this process of informing dissent.....left up to the Bush and Cheney cabal, this sort of thing would (will?) be outlawed. All who enjoy it - on either side of the aisle - should be vigilant in the face of assaults on free expression that have become de rigeuer with this administration. On that subject, in fact, read part 1 (today) of Pamela Troy's 4-part posting at Buzzflash.

    And don't worry, Zero. A) I've been indulging in PC Roberts for some time now, as well as a surprising and increasing number of other right-leaning writers who can no longer carry Bush-Cheney's toxic water for them, and B) the national Democratic party - to which I contribute money as well as opinions - will get ample amounts of both from me!

    Posted by mewsician at 05/20/2005 @ 6:43pm

44. Actually, it seems the current stances by Republicans are closer to being "stalinist" than anything else. In fact, it could easily be argued that the GOP has morphed into the American version of the Soviet Union's old Communist Party....special rights and privileges for the special people/members/politicians/friends...and other rules and rights (much more limited) for everyone else.

    Truth is, we lost the Cold War, because the Soviets successfully transformed the GOP into a hybrid clone.

    Tell me that the Coleman hearing didn't bring back memories of the HUAC hearings of 50 years ago...

    Posted by gnusman53 at 05/20/2005 @ 6:49pm

45. GNUSMAN53: And to go back a little farther, in fact, I like to imagine that moderate Republicans in Congress right now are feeling a whole lot like John Reed must have felt as he tried to reason with the out-of-control factions of the Communist party leading up to WWI. He became increasingly exasperated at how the party leadership got so far off track from the goals that had motivated him to join them in the first place. Wonder how long the Olympia Snowes and Susan Collinses and even Arlen Specter will be able to withstand the theocratic hysteria wrought by Frist et al.....

    Posted by mewsician at 05/20/2005 @ 7:00pm

46. SMPARSONS: "Galloway's 'egregious' action was to be a long time opponent of Hussein's attrocitities ..."

    But that, you see, is a complete lie.

    SMPARSONS: "But now you add that Galloway can't say that Bush and Norm Coleman are bad guys by pointing out exactly the facts of the matter?"

    You're simply fabricating statements and attributing them to me. Kind of short-circuits the conversation.

    As for Stalinism, Galloway defended the Soviet regime to the end and everyone knows Respect is a front for SWP. These are not the credentials of a democrat. Pointing this out does not make me a "right-winger," as long as we're criticizing "really divisive, inflammatory language, with no basis in reality."

    Posted by lerter at 05/20/2005 @ 7:14pm

47. Dear Komrades MEWSICIAN and HAMBLETT,

    I believe that you guys (members of the Loony Left) believe too much in the Soviet propaganda or flunked History 101 because the right of the political spectrum in this country does not look fondly on the glorious days of the Third Reich as well as Mussolini's Italy. We defended this country and fought against the Nazis and Fascists during WWII just like any American would. It's ironic that nowadays it's the Far Left that's on the side of the Fascists - the Islamo-Fascists, that is.

    Viva Fidel Castro, Viva Che Guevara, Viva George Galloway !!!

    Posted by pinko_merde at 05/21/2005 @ 12:39am

48. Cheers to Mr. Galloway. Oh how nice it is to see people of courage speak. I was so pleased to see him ask Sen Coleman if he asks his donors to his campaign where they obtained the money. Because that is the root of all of this. We must pass sincere campaign finance reform!

    Posted by leslievzw at 05/21/2005 @ 01:03am

49. To: Pink_Merde---Your defense of conservatives vis-a-vis WWII is misplaced. The conservative movement of the 30's put their collective heads in the sand. there wee some well-known conservatives who actually applauded Naizs and Fascists for their efficiency in running a government of fear and repression. Do you really want to bring up history? You will lose mightily if you choose to say conservatives have a clean record of fighting oppression. Dicktracy

    Posted by dicktracy at 05/21/2005 @ 01:15am

50. Some points from here in Northfield Minnesota. This is the town where Paul Wellstone taught and started his political career. To say that I dislike Norm Coleman truly tests the limits of understatement. I was so upset by the attacks on the Wellstone funeral by the Coleman campaign I had an actual heart attack.

    1) As much as I enjoyed watching Galloway bitchslap Coleman, I was also embarrassed that we in the USA have not shown 1/1000 of the analysis or political courage to say what is, after all, obvious. I could have been saying the same things as Galloway for the past 2-3 years and have not.

    2) Galloway's speech was a work of art to be sure, but let's not get carried away by style points. The real reason his speech was so effective is that he has all the facts on his side.

    3) While Galloway's position on the invasion of Iraq may be considered controversial in USA, it represents the global center of opinion. Only the Neocons could promote a national policy so ugly, we have turned Saddam freaking Hussein into a sympathetic figure, and Galloway into a centrist in the eyes of world opinion.

    4) We have remarkably sloppy with our definitions of the progressive left. Example: Al Franken. Mr. Franken wants to take back Wellstone's Senate seat from Coleman--a project that has my complete support. Yet on the issues of war and peace, he is a reactionary. He initially supported the invasion of Iraq. Put this into context. EVERY Christian denomination save those Southern Baptists opposed this obvious crime against humanity. In places like Turkey, 90% of the population were against the invasion. If Franken had been a Turk, he would have had to move through 40% of the population just to get to the political center. I hope Franken understands that in the Minnesota DFL, just being slightly to the left of Rush Limbaugh does NOT a progressive make.

    The truth is that anyone who ever supported this insane venture has serious problems understanding reality and anyone who still defends our occupation of Iraq is crazier than a shithouse rat.

    Posted by eltechno at 05/21/2005 @ 03:16am

51. it is interesting that "lerter" does what so many do, attack the messenger not the message. who cares who mr. galloway is or what mistakes he has made in the past. glass houses and all. what he said in the senate hearing was true, and he is the first one to have the balls to say it like it is on the floor of the senate. so now it is time for our pols to learn how to tell the truth and not beat around the "bush".

    Posted by jlcain at 05/23/2005 @ 12:14am

52. JLCAIN: "who cares who mr. galloway is or what mistakes he has made in the past."

    Now there's a new standard. Who cares that he gave fulsome praise to a dictator and might have materially benefitted from the very sanctions system that he claimed to abhor? Galloway's counting on dupes like you.

    Posted by lerter at 05/23/2005 @ 11:07am

53. Lerter, I think it's been shown more than clearly through the evidence unearthed to date that Galloway certainly did NOT materially benefit from any sanctions - much as you probably pine for it to be so that he did, barring some startling new revelation somewhere, it's plain he did not. His outrage at such an accusation informed the tone he took in rebuking the Coleman cabal. But here's that problem again: why is it that members of the right cannot bear to accept hard facts that even when those facts are in their face and virtually incontrovertible? I repeat: if you - or anybody reading this - has actual hard, empirical evidence of George Galloway's wrongdoing, we who DO rely on fact in formulating our various opinions are anxious to see it. Bring it on - remembering that we've already heard exhaustively about his remarks on Hussein. Those were lamentable, yes. But we've already heard about that. If you or Pinko or anybody else HAS SOMETHING CONCRETE, let's have it.

    Posted by mewsician at 05/23/2005 @ 12:42pm

54. If the huffing, puffing denials of a master politician are enough for you, mewsician, then that is your affair. Others -- and certainly not only "members of the right" -- may be a bit more curious about the "hard facts" of this case.

    You write that evidence shows "Galloway certainly did NOT materially benefit from any sanctions." Nothing of the kind has been proven conclusively, largely because Galloway refuses to be candid about his dealings with Fawaz Zureikat, who we know DID materially benefit from illegal oil-for-food transactions.

    No one has said that Galloway is an oil trader, or that he personally handled barrels of oil, but of course that's all he can manage to deny. But as for Zureikat's stewardship of the Mariam Appeal and Galloway's sycophantic behavior toward Saddam Hussein during the period in question, any reasonable observer would have to admit there is at the very least an appearance of impropriety here. True, we lack proof of anything further, but in terms of "concrete" information, there's quite a lot that cries out for further investigation.

    Exploiting the suffering of an Iraqi girl to line one's pockets and prop up the Hussein regime? Maybe, maybe not, but you'd think people committed to exposing injustice would be a bit more interested in learning the answer.

    Posted by lerter at 05/23/2005 @ 2:54pm

55. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=640428

    Above is a link that might be of interest, Lerter, regarding a peripheral issue involving Zureikat.....

    Posted by mewsician at 05/23/2005 @ 4:19pm

56. Gotta hand it to that Zureikat. He knows how to get his bread buttered. Thanks for the link.

    Posted by lerter at 05/24/2005 @ 10:27am

57. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5641&R=C5592CD38

    And now, for all interested in learning more about Mr. Galloway, the above link to a Christopher Hitchens piece (reliably and most wonderfully vitriolic) in the Weekly Standard.....

    Posted by mewsician at 05/25/2005 @ 6:20pm