Your view of Galloway: Positive or negative

[ButterflyBlood]

I hate to start up another 200+ reply flame war on him but I'd like to see the consensus.

Personally, I'm in the negative camp. From my experience with UK leftists, none appear to be fond of him at all. I wish many on the American left would also open their eyes to his whole record instead of simpily lionizing the guy because he's blasted Bush, Blair and Coleman before. Pat Buchanan opposed the Iraq war. So did many white supremecist groups. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. I simply am not a fan of a guy who has praised Islamist terrorist groups, said to Saddam “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.”, has called for the release of Tariq Aziz and called the collapse of the USSR the biggest catastrophe of his life. And in the end, he's a carpetbagger as well.

[arcos]

1. Some people on DU love to talk without knowing...

Personally, my opinion is positive, but I really don't know much about him. But I've seen lots of cases where DUers think someone is god because they did this or the other, when the truth is that looking at the bigger picture their opinion would change dramatically.

[xray s]

2. If you hook up with him you get the whole package...

...and I am not sure just what's in that package. I'd agree with you, caution is warranted here.

[Kipling]

3. I'd say positive.

He's a good guy at heart, and impressively brave. Most interviews I've seen his views fit very well with mine. Not to say his whopping ego and big mouth don't get the better of him at times, mind.

[Warpy]

4. He's a truth teller

and the truth pisses off a lot of people who want to sugar coat it or hide it completely to make themselves look better. That means other leftist politicians, so it's absolutely no mystery why he's disliked in the circles of power, even on his end of the political spectrum.

What you need to look at is who likes him. He was thrown out of the Labour Party and managed to get reelected. Apparently his consitituents like having someone around who will tell the truth to the powerful for them.

I'm not absolutely certain he'd be on my list for dinner party candidates, but I think he'd be a wonderful addition to any roundtable discussion group.

[The Doctor.]

5. Indeed, he shone in those few minutes....

and you are right to ask more about him.

For the record though...

I never had a problem with the token Christian Tariq-Aziz. He's probably more forthcoming and upright than most in *'s Administration.

And the collapse of the USSR was a catastrophe. In terms of standards of living, human rights, poverty, and international balance it was one of the greatest events of the 20th century.

[BurtWorm]

84. Excellent points, Dr.

That's about where I am on Galloway. Speaking for myself, though, I'll take Galloway's kind of imperfect over, say, Rumsfeld's kind any day. Galloway may be naive or overly ideological, but he was right about sanctions, for instance. And he did tell Norm Coleman where to stuff it. Hard not to like him for that last bit alone.

[bpilgrim]

94. some gotta stick to their CARTOON WORLD VIEW despite the FACTS

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Is there a choice for morally ambiguous?

Galloway can overstate his case, put his foot in his mouth and otherwise embarrass himself.

Nevertheless, he was right about the invasion of Iraq and his preformance in front of the Senate subcommittee was marvellous. Somebody had to go to Washington and say those things.

[Junkdrawer]

7. I'm sure I could dig up some pretty damning "kiss Saddam's ass"...

quotes from Rumsfeld and present them as Rummy's full opinion on Saddam, but that would be a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say?

[Hatalles]

12. Good point. nt

[geek tragedy]

14. Earning comparisons to Donald Rumsfeld is hardly praiseworthy, no? eom

[Junkdrawer]

18. That's a twisted piece of logic...

Perhaps I should be clearer:

Scanning a man's 30 to 40 year public life for a handful of out-of-context quotes shows to me that someone has an agenda.

[geek tragedy]

19. What makes them out of context?

This very year he has made the utterly contemptible claim that Tariq Aziz should avoid any kind of accountability for his role in the Hussein regime.

Galloway's actions in that context are like starting a petition for Rudolph Hess or Ribbentrop.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies - I win..

Godwin's_law

That's has to set a new record for shortest flame fest.

:evilgrin:

[geek tragedy]

Umm, except that the context is very much applicable.

Any time one talks about putting a regime on trial for crimes against humanity, the Nuremberg trials are the primary precedent.

Nice try at a dodge. Care to address the substance?

[bpilgrim]

49. the Nuremberg trials CONDEMN PREVENTIVE/AGGRESSIVE WAR as the SUPREME EVIL

i.e. Americas ILLEGAL INVASION of IRAQ

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Behind the Aegis]

22. His friends

He is a supporter of the PLO, even before they were expelled from Jordan. Some of his friends are also hijackers, who he proclaims are "freedom fighters."

[bpilgrim]

47. Kangaroo Courts aren't popular the WORLD OVER and certainly not here on DU

arguing the neoCON case won't get you very far, either here since not only do we have a paper trail, we have are OPEN SOURCE with a great range of knowledge and passion to stand up to the CARTOON WORLD VIEW of the elite and SMACK it down into the dustbin, where it belongs.

what i find FASCINATING is that your arguments MIRROR those of the neoCONs to the WORLD and that is ALL y'all got, weak, newsflash: NO ONE BUYS the neoCON BS anymore.

the whole world has said NO but y'all keep try'n to peddle your lies and nonsense, even on DU - lol

if there talking points don't fly on DU they won't fly ANYWHERE, bet.

:toast: DU y'all EARNED it by standing up, just like Mr. Galloway and taking OUR country back by speaking TRUTH 2 POWER :bounce:

peace

[Swamp Rat]

8. "I hate to start up another 200+ reply flame war on him"

[LuPeRcALiO]

9. Galloway is WAAAAAAY ahead of the curve. 100% positive

We're going to have to come to terms with the Muslim world sooner or later just like we're going to have to deal with the rest of the world, and Galloway is already on the job. From an interview published May 23:

"I have long felt the things that divide us, the left and the Muslim community, were much less important than the things which united us. That's not to say the things are not important, just that they're much less important than the things that divided us. . . .

"So I've long felt that this alliance could be built -- in the Stop the War movement, in which I was one of the leaders, which was really a precursor of Respect, we achieved that."

more: http://www.counterpunch.org/nagy05232005.html

[bpilgrim]

10. anyone who speaks TRUTH 2 POWER is gonna have lots of respect on DU

rw talking points is all anyone ever has against the man so i doubt anyones mind will change here.

Give'm Hell Mr. Galloway :toast:

peace

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Not totally impressed

I like that he blasted Blair and Shrub, but that is about all I like from him. I hope he can help the Downing Street memo issue.

[fujiyama]

13. I haven't completely formed an opinion

and I'd be very cautious about lionizing him too much. He seems to have a blind spot to Islamic terrorism and it's difficult for me to support someone that justifies or rationalizes violence by any religious fanatic.

[aneerkoinos]

15. UK leftists

>>> From my experience with UK leftists, none appear to be fond of him at all. <<<

Then your experience is quite limited. I don't know where your experience comes from, but New labour does not count as Left.

I've met here on DU many UK posters whose opinion of Galloway goes from mixed feelings to quite positive.

[Liberal In Texas]

16. I don't get the carpetbagger charge.

He isn't coming here to hold political office or even to live.*

I said it before in another post, the man on balance is brilliant.

The assertion that the good guys have to be perfect in every way is silly. The man has some different political views from you (and me), and he's allowed that.


*Carpetbagger:
"An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality."

[ButterflyBlood]

28. no, he carpetbagged to the current seat he holds in the UK Parliment

He is from Scotland, the seat he holds now is in London. He went there solely because it was the seat he had the best chance of winning in.

[Liberal In Texas]

46. Oh. "Carpetbagger" is such an American term, that's why I was confused.

[applegrove]

17. Mixed. He made some important points. He dealt with Saddam and

that puts him in the same company as the people he made points about. Company - not reasons.

So he is necessarily covered in slime because that is all that Saddam did was slime & manipulate the people he come in contact with.

Anyone is diminished for having dealt with him.

[LuPeRcALiO]

20. seriously now.

How do we know that "all that Saddam did was slime & manipulate"?

Where is that coming from?

[applegrove]

24. Amnesty International! Relax. Let the Iraqis have their trial. They

deserve it just like the South Africans did (though the SA were much more forgiving because they had to deal with a whole system and couldn't possibly move onto the future if they put everyone in jail who committed a human rights abuse).

Let them all sit through the trial together and bond on those truths.

[LuPeRcALiO]

26. If Saddam's abuse of detainees didn't bother Rumsfeld 20 years ago

why should it bother him now?

And what about our abuse of detainees, in the same prisons? Shouldn't we start bombing the shit out of ourselves?

[applegrove]

29. Iraqis getting a chance to go through a trial and learning about

their own selves in the process has nothing to do with Rumsfield. Except where his actions are testified to. Then that is part of the trial. Isn't it?

[LuPeRcALiO]

30. Did Amnesty Int'l or the people of Iraq ask us to destroy their country

so they they could learn about themselves? No. Did ANYBODY want us to destroy Iraq? You tell me.

Sorry, I'm with Galloway.

[LynnTheDem]

32. Nope; Amnesty International said "NOT in the name of human rights"

And Applegrove knows this fact, but refuses to deal with it. ;)

[LuPeRcALiO]

34. thanks Lynn

:toast:

[LynnTheDem]

36. I wonder how much the Iraqis give a damn about any trial, when they have

shortages of food, safe water, electricity, jobs, homes...ENTIRE CITIES...

:eyes:

PS;
You're welcome. :toast:

[applegrove]

74. May bring peace and understanding. You know.. peace if the US

will get out of there sooner rather than later.

In south Africa the trials were known as the truth and reconciliation commission. And it functioned that way. Daily news reports of what people had lived under apartheid over years went a long way to ending petty arguments. When 1000 witnesses testify to the same dam thing - it is hard for a Bathist to say to his kids "we are baathists we were great and we have to fight to get our country back". He cannot say that. Because the whole story is out.

[applegrove]

42. Some people pretty much think that when you commit genocide - that

is it! Liberals actually. Humanitarian intervention. Many, many people wanted Saddam gone.

And those people have a chance now. Doesn't look good. But let's just wait and see when the trial happens - how important that is for them.

You can say the neocons are wrongheaded about their pre-emptive war and their desire to remake the world in an image they choose. You can say they were wrong in how they got into the war and wrong in how they planned. Murderously wrong. Wrong wrong wrong and they failed at their own dam plans.

It doesn't mean that Saddam was a leader who should still be in place. He hasn't been a leader who should be in place since he gassed thousands of Kurds for fun 20 years ago. He should be gone. And what the neocons did doesn't mean that Saddam didn't diminish anyone who was around him and warp them.

We simply do not know if Palestine would have had a peace earlier if suicide bombers didn't get paid $30,000 to their families by Saddam.

Saddam Husein is a separate entity from the neocons. He was his own power. Is path may cross theirs in the 1980s. Just like it crossed Galloway. He is a man and let's wait for the trial. He is responsible for everything he did - just like the neocons are.

[bpilgrim]

44. "Many, many people wanted Saddam gone" - the M$MWs probably

led you to that FALSE opinion since an UNPRECEDENTED GLOBAL PROTEST broke out even BEFORE we INVADED them that wasn't given much coverage over here, you really need to get rid of your cable.

unless you were a ILLEGAL WAR SUPPORTER from jump?

please keep us posted :hi:

peace

[applegrove]

54. I was a humanitarian interventions supporter from the mid 1980s.

Uganda in the 1970s, Cambodia, Europe in 1939, Rwanda, Iraq in the 1980s. If the UN didn't go in - it should have. Namibia at the turn of the 20th century too. Armenia. Serbia.

And now Darfur.

[bpilgrim]

56. all ILLEGAL WARS we fought since WWII have been pretexted on that COVER

i'll take that as a yes, then. thanks for being honest :toast:

just so you know, i protested BOTH the wars, so i guess that explains why you and i, and apparently most of DU, won't see eye-to-eye on this issue then.

good night

peace

[applegrove]

60. The US did many illegal wars or intervention in countries democracy

and I have always been against that.

They did not go into Uganda, Namibia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Armenia, (so none of these are illegal wars because these were not interventions - they were where there should have been interventions) and they went into Iraq without the UN and under faulty reasons. I'm not disagreeing with you on illegal war. I was against intervention in Zaire, El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chili, South Africa (military support) and all the other attacks on democracy the US has made ore the years.

That leaves us with Serbia (which peacekeepers went into and NATO bombed) and WWII which the US entered two years too late.

I'm just making the point that humanitarian interventions will have to happen. And we either get good at it - or we let freaks like Saddam Hussein last a good 20 years longer than the people he murdered by genocide and leave the door open for wars of aggression and resources like we have today in Iraq.

[bpilgrim]

62. we SUPPORT the "freaks like Saddam Hussein"... till it becomes NECESSARY

to INTERVENE... hello

do you understand what our foreign policy has been the past 6 decades?

check this out for a quick review...


http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam (FREE - ONLINE)

peace

[LynnTheDem]

63. Skip this one, bp.

Notice the "gassed thousands for fun".

Won't matter how many facts you present. Common sense won't make a dent. I've tried. Again & again & again.

Some people cannot be reached.

[bpilgrim]

67. i hear ya...

but i like posting that link ;->

:hi:LynnTheDem

peace

[LynnTheDem]

78. LOL!

Well ok then, have at it. :D

:hi:

[applegrove]

68. You don't think Saddam gassed thousands because it made him

feel good? The power? The diminished lives? The fear it would cause? You don't think he enjoyed that? You don't think acting out his fantasies and having hoards of people react to him is why he got power in the first place?

[bpilgrim]

70. who thinks these kinda posts make us look like fox news or WORSE?

then, kick this bad-boy and VOTE :evilgrin:

peace

[applegrove]

72. You need to get out more. I'm not for the neocon invasion of Iraq.

I am against Saddam Hussein. Just like the UN.

I'm a centrists.

[LynnTheDem]

77. Continue to believe in something despite all the evidence to the

contrary, Applegrove.

:eyes:

[applegrove]

80. Wait for the trial & testimony. You make good points. I'm not for

neocons. I'm against the Hussein's of the world too.

And grats on getting kicked into the stratosphere with your research!:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

82. Take your own advice; wait for the trial & testimony rather than posting

things like "he gassed thousands of Kurds for fun"?

There is far more evidence that he did NOT gas the Kurds. That includes testimony from the UN and the International Committee for the Red Cross.

But I very much doubt we'll find out what evidence Hussein's lawyer has that, according to the lawyer, proves Iraq did not gas the Kurds; the last update I saw was that Hussein isn't being charged with "gassing his own people".

******

Thanks for the grats! :)

[applegrove]

86. Oh Dam. They will not be trying him on 500 crimes. Only 12. Too

bad. It will make him seem less awful. But it does look like gassing the Kurds is up there.

Just in case you wanted to add this to your interesting research!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1524169

:shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

89. It won't be.

But as you say, wait and see. And you're still presuming guilt. Not a very liberal (or Canadian) thing to do.

[applegrove]

100. Just like I presume guilt with Miloshovitch, Hitler (who never had a

trial), etc. Monsters do exist. He is one of them.

[autorank]

57. Two points on this fascinating thread.

...and it is indeed.

1) Where are the links (not quotes) for Galloway? I'm just happy he bee-otch slapped the smug Coleman. He deserves a ticket straight to the 9th Circle of Hell (I'm sure we'd all agree). But it would be nice to have some evidence in context. Otherwise, what's the debate about.

2) Someone said, and he left the talking heads quickly, that we'll be surprised when we take over, it took the type of total control (not the torture, etc.) Saddam had to keep a lid on the country. He said that the various groups hated each other with a passion and the only way to avoid the whole place going up in flames was dictatorship. I'm not endorsing this, and I certainly think that Saddam and his cohorts were perverts.

If the analysis in #2 is correct, you'd think that someone in the government, somewhere has a report predicting this. It's more devastating, IMHO, than any criticism because it negates the entire enterprise, whether you like it or not.

And here I am asking for sources but lacking one for an important point. This place is contagious.

Excellent analysis on this threat, I must say.

[LynnTheDem]

61. Do you actually know the definition of "INTERVENTION"? Dictionary.

Intervene.

Please explain how you can INTERVENE BETWEEN something, when there was NOTHING to INTERVENE?

Last time I'm posting this to you, Applegrove, because if you don't understand it by now, you lack the capability to ever understand it;

Those professionals who determine when interventions are required said Iraq WAS NOT IN NEED of any intervention. There was NOTHING HAPPENING that required intervention.

JUST ONCE, would you please read what AI and HRW and the UN and the ICRC said about why there was NO JUSTIFICATION for any humanitarian intervention in Iraq!

NO JUSTIFICATION and NO NEED for any "humanitarian intervention" because there was NOTHING HAPPENING that required intervening. And THEY KNOW BETTER than YOU DO. But COMMON SENSE should tell you, Applegrove; you can't INTERVENE when there is nothing to intervene.

It is NOT YOUR PLACE to decide for the people of Iraq who should and who should not be THEIR government leaders.

SOVEREIGNTY is also a LIBERAL THING.

[applegrove]

64. Saddam was making a joke of the UN. The UN didn't say there should

not be an intervention. The UN was in the process of intervening. With bombings and sanctions. Remember? I was for those. Saddam had started two wars (one of them probably at the behest of the neocons in 1980). Remember sanctions? That were starving people and Saddam was getting around?

My position is the same as Bill Clinton's. They should have let the inspectors stay as long as they wanted, gotten the report and gone from there. Which may have meant some kind of UN intervention of another sort if Saddam kept starving his people and getting around the Oil for food program. It could have meant UN forces going in.

Are you saying that the sanctions against Saddam should never have happened? I am sorry you don't think Saddam was a monster. Or that you think monster's should get to go on for a few more generations. I don't. There was intervention from the Kuwaiti war. Those regulations and sanctions are why there were no WMD (thank god - or he would have surely used them when those neocons nutbombs went in and killed god knows how may).

I think you are right. I think you and I should stop discussing this. Me - I'm going to wait until the Iraqis have had a say during the Saddam Hussein trial.

Talk to you then.

by the way - your post was great. The one that got picked up. Very informative and I am really happy for you that you got your message out. We need all the information to get out there. So we can each decide for ourselves according to our experiences about the world.

[bpilgrim]

69. thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs ;-)

because YOUR 'experiences' are FALSE.

the US drove the SANCTIONS, the REST of the world was getting DISGUSTED with them and on the VERGE of SCRAPPING or at least vastly REDUCING THEM to target JUST the DICTATOR and his REGIME instead of the INNOCENT women and CHILDREN over a million of them, hello...

ALSO the UN did NOT sanction ANY bombing and ESPECIALLY OPPOSED our ILLEGAL INVASION and has since called it as SUCH.

got it?

STOP spreading your RW BS on DU, please... you are HURTING US.

tia :toast:

peace

[applegrove]

71. Wait for the trial. Saying Saddam was a monster in no way says

that the neocons were right. Because they are already wrong on WMD, pre-emptive war, their high - tech war plans, their ability to predict events. The neocons are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And Saddam was a monster.

[LynnTheDem]

75. You are incorrect.

YES in fact the UN said NO to humanitarian intervention, because there was NO NEED for any such.

Human Rights Watch also said NO; Amnesty Int said NO; the ICRC said NO.

I've posted the link for you before. Why do you keep asserting a falsehood?

The bombings of the no-fly zones WERE NOT UN-SANCTIONED. They were in fact a unilateral action taken by the US & UK WITHOUT UN APPROVAL.

That is a FACT.

The UN wanted to DROP THE SANCTIONS against Iraq since 1993. The US VETOED or threatened to veto (as did Israel) every vote to drop the economic sanctions against Iraq.

That is a FACT.

You are entitled, of course, to your own OPINIONS. But WHY do you keep posting as "facts" things that are FALSE???

[applegrove]

76. Let's wait and let the Iraqis decide. They were there. You and I were

not.

[LynnTheDem]

79. You can repeat that mantra all you like.

And you in fact don't know if I was there or not.

By the way, Saddam Hussein did not kick the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998. You seemed to be hinting he did in one of your posts above.

[applegrove]

81. I was not thinking of any particular date. Just that Saddam was making

it hard for anyone to do their UN job.

[LynnTheDem]

31. "learning about their own selves in the process".

Applegrove, that truly is deeply arrogant and offensive.

[applegrove]

66. I took that from a quote that some Iraqi said right after Saddam

was deposed. The person said something like "Saddam is gone and now we Iraqis have to face our own selves and our complicity in what he did".

That is all I meant. Under the fear created by a skilled psychopath - people will do things they never would have done without being under such influence. The Germans had to face themselves. All people who get rid of a psychopathic regime have some reckoning to do and some truths to accept.

Lots of grieving to. And in the end - you realize that there is good and bad in the world.

Let us both hope for the day when the Iraqis feel safe enough that they can start to go through this process. It is part of healing. It is the start of moving on.

[Henny Penny]

23. I'm surprised Geek hasn't voted more often...

is there a limit to the number of times you can vote????

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[LynnTheDem]

35. LOL!

:D

[Taxloss]

25. Brave, very brave.

But worthwhile.

The majority of the UK left dislikes Galloway, and not through any ideological shortfalls.

[LaurenG]

27. I don't care what the UK thinks, he wiped the floor with Coleman

and he (Coleman) deserved it.

[Vladimir]

33. I am a UK leftist who likes Galloway

and what is more has campigned for him. Just for the record I guess, I am too damn tired to spend my time on DU going from one Galloway thread to another defending him. People know what my views on this are, and is they disagree then that is their right.

[Liberal In Texas]

38. Spot on.....n/t

[katinmn]

39. Thanks, Vlad. I know it gets tiresome repeating yourself.

What I know about Galloway I really like.

There's plenty of info out there for people to research and form their own opinion.

[Onlooker]

37. He's part of our coalition

I don't agree with a lot of what Galloway stands for, but overall he's an asset to our side. Just as the right wing learned that people like Frist, McCain, Snowe, and Chafee can somehow live with each other, we have to learn the same thing. Let's not waste energy criticizing those who are more or less with us. We don't have that luxury. Galloway faulted our Iraq policy with great eloquence, and that's good enough for me to think of him positively.

[mogster]

40. Oh, another negative Galloway-thread

Just what we needed. Well, perhaps this will lay the um, very persistent criticism of the man who stood up to the neocons, to rest.

The poll is quite clear, I'd say.

To align him with 'white supremacist groups' is a bit stiff, isn't it? How come some people think DU'ers are dull enough to follow any leader--and this isn't even a US leader--blindly, and without questioning? I tell you what; if the time comes to 'promote' the guy to an official position, whatever that would be, he would be turned up side down by this crowd, politically.
Preferrably with real data to back up the allegations.

In the mean time he's the one singular person that's had the opportunity to tell the Bush Junta EXACTLY what I've wanted to tell them for more than four years. And the balls to do it.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

41. I'm a UK leftist who has a negative view of him

& put simply I just don't trust the man & have no interest in defending some of his more outlandish statements.

[JackRiddler]

43. Your criticisms are marvelously irrelevant.

I really don't care about the disputes on the British left.

However, there must be a whole bunch of UK leftists (or other people in the UK) who think he's just great, even if only because of his stance on Iraq, since he just got himself elected to the House of Commons on a fourth-party line.

"Carpetbagger," indeed. Please acknowledge, he's an MP and he won it fair.

Whatever he said to Saddam was diplomatic boilerplate, I'm sure Rumsfeld said the same things.

This guy has done one thing that counts above all else, and you know it. He stood up to those who would persecute him for telling the truth about Iraq, and called out the liars in a venue where almost no truth has been heard about Iraq (sadly): the U.S. Congress.

He's not the "enemy of my enemy," he's the target intentionally chosen by the gangsters who run this country to discredit the opposition to the Iraq war. And he stood up to them and smashed them right back.

I am enormously suspicious of "do you really like Galloway" threads.

If Rep. Ron Paul were being cheered for saying the right thing (as he often does), such threads admonishing us to judge him carefully would not be considered necessary; although he is a Republican and anti-choice, etc. etc.

So, you tell me: Where did you stand on this war before the invasion? Where did you stand on the first Gulf war? On the sanctions?

[Tinoire]

45. Positive. Very, very positive

and there is nothing in Galloway's history that has ever raised any alarms in my head.

As a progressive, I knew about him a long time ago so the Bush/Blairite propaganda won't work.

I have many friends from the UK Left (the real Left, not that mambly Blairite Bush-collaborating DLC-esque neo-garbage. Strangely enough, they love George Galloway. But then again, they've been fighting for progress, against colonialist exploitation, against racist politics and were unequivocally against this war from the start- maybe that explains it :shrug:

It boggles the mind that some here are going to pretend that the British Left doesn't like Galloway. Just who's been voting for him all these years :rofl: I have it on very good authority that it was neither the immoral Right nor any confused neoliberals.

The man opposed the 14 year neo-bipartisan war against Iraq, opposed the war against Yugoslavia, opposed the war against Afghanistan and has consistently denounced the disastrous folly of the New World Disorder. Galloway's Respect victory is a kick in the nuts for the neomovement and a victory for the rapidly growing Leftist movement sweeping the world.

[Azathoth]

48. His Senate performance was fun to watch, however....

his comments about the Soviet Union, the Iraqi insurgency, Israel, his support for Tariq Aziz and the rest of Saddam's government, his rather obvious exploitation of racial tension to win an election (reminescent of the GOP in the South), his suggestion that progressive and muslim forces unite against the West, and a host of other things put him a little too far out on the angry, radical Left for me. In the end, he's going to do more to hurt the anti-war cause than help it.

[bpilgrim]

50. it's was CATHARTIC to watch for most lefties...

and all your BS RW LIES won't ever make a difference :hi:

lather-rinse-repeat

peace

[Azathoth]

51. I take his comments and his actions at face value

So unless the RW has fabricated quotes from him, I'd say your characterization of my criticisms of Galloway as "BS RW LIES" is pretty much unfounded. :hi:

[bpilgrim]

52. and interpret them VERY differently then the vast majority of DU'ers

yet VERY similarly to RUSH and his CLONES.

pointing out that FACT, is not only valid, it is necessary and OUR duty as PATRIOTS, to stand up to the RW BS, no matter WHERE it raises it's propaganda based, puss filled head.

ETERNAL VIGILANCE is REQUIRED

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Azathoth]

53. Somehow, I doubt the "vast majority of DU'ers" would consider the fall of

the Soviet Union to be the "greatest catastrophe of their lives." But since you fancy yourself as speaking for all of them, who am I to argue? ;)

[bpilgrim]

55. heads up!

and that poll is also a reflection on your RW BS repeated across MANY threads posted by you and the other 2 or 3 modern day Cicero's.

i know, i know, we aren't LAME-STREAM, whatever...

cya

peace

[Vladimir]

87. He did *not* exploit racial politics

this is simply not true. It was Oona King who produced separate leaflets for Muslim and non-Muslim areas of Bethnal Green. We had one leflet for all areas, and we went door-to-door in every single goddamn nook and cranny of Bethnal Green. In my experience, there was precisely zero racial tension on the ground, in fact it was a bit of a carnival atmosphere. These things are quite simply not true.

on edit: Our message in Bethanl Green was very very simple: if you were against the war, if you are against the demolition of the public services New Labour is engaged in, and if you want a socialist voice in parliament: vote Galloway. We gave the disaffected a voice, and for that we are stirring up racial tensions? Please.

on further edit: Let me also tell you how the seat was selected: it was the seat with our best result in the European Elections. Now the European Election is a PR, regional one, so the party looked at the details of each regional vote and selected the seat where we already had a subtantial support and where the MP was vulnerable. And Bethnal Green was both where we had our best result and where the MP was a Blairite appartchik and warmonger. The ethnic makeup of it was not the reason - of course UK Muslims tend to be heavily anti-war, but that was not why the seat was selected. It probably has something to do with the European Election result, but there we barely did any campaigning. I don't mid if people have personal beef with Galloway - way I see it, the guy has balls and is correct politically and has never been found guilty of shit so that's good enoguh for me, but if people have issues with him that is their right. But I will not listen to how my party stirred up racial tensions because we simply did not.

[bpilgrim]

91. thanks for sharing that info

:toast:

peace

[Vladimir]

92. I might also add, on this carpetbagging business

the Scottish constituenties were redrawn before this election - so hhis old seat ceased to exist. In the new seat which would have most closely approximated to his old one, Labour selected a consistently and fervently anti-war candidate, who AFAIK was friends with Galloway. So the carpetbagging was necessary because all Galloway would have gained by standing up in Scotland is to put an anti-war MP out of a job (himself or the other guy).

[bpilgrim]

93. so he had to move anyways and he was very strategic about his selection

and now we got 2 anti-war reps in office. he's a smart cookie

thanks again :toast:

peace

[Tinoire]

96. Ah Vladimir

I always liked you; now I like you even more!

we went door-to-door in every single goddamn nook and cranny of Bethnal Green

Congratulations! This international Progressive is cheering you on! You threw the Blairite appartchik (aka the UK DLC) out of Bethnal Green. Congrats!

Private Finance Initiatives - anathema
Security of Tenure - anathema
Privatization of Council Estates - anathema
war against Yugoslavia - anathema
war against Afghanistan - anathema
war against Iraq - anathema

When you're done with Galloway or his terms are up (whichever comes first), would you please send him our way?

[Vladimir]

98. Thank you Tinoire

the praise is underserved, as it was a huge team effort and my own contribution was quite small, but thank you anyhow. And you can have Galloway when we are done with him - it might just take a while. There is a lot of trash needs clearing out of the house first...

:hug:

[Tinoire]

99. Ok but in a spirit of solidarnosc, please recognize

that the pile of trash over here is has reached pandemic proportions! Do not hold on to the man any longer than you absolutely need him!

I'll marry him myself to get him US citizenship so he can show the Dems how to get our groove back!

:hug:

[Tinoire]

97. dupe deleted

[Spazito]

58. I like him, overall, he has guts....

he says what he believes and you can agree with him or not, it's up to you, not him. He does not bend with the winds of convenience for votes, he speaks his mind and he is passionate about what he believes and I respect that, these days that is a rare quality.

I have yet to find a politician who reflects 100% of what I believe 100% of the time and that will never happen so I go on the overall philosophy of the person and how passionately they fight for their beliefs to decide whether they go on my 'negative' or 'positive' scale. Galloway is a 'positive' on my scale of evaluation.

[LSdemocrat]

59. Generally negative, but the things he said about Iraq NEEDED to be said

The only shame of the matter is that he was the only one who seems to be willing to say it here in the US.

[dchill]

65. On a comparative level..

The guy seems like a cross between a genius and a saint. I say this knowing only a little about him, but hey, perception is everything, right. I've come to understand that he's hated by right-wingers everywhere due to the fact that he's a socialist - one of the New World Order dirty words.

Like liberal. Or democracy. Or freedom of speech.

Maybe the guy is an idiotic, greedy liar - but having seen a few of those, I don't think so.

[Terran1212]

73. What's wrong with working WITH the militant muslims?

Isn't that the most successful part of diplomacy and peace?

Working with those who normally turn to violence...

Our leaders are foolish to not want to work with muslim militant movements for true peace and reconciliation.

Cordoning off certain groups as "unnegotiable" WILL lead to war.

[LynnTheDem]

83. Bloody hell!!!

:wow:

Someone using COMMON SENSE!

I'M TELLING!!!

:D

[Azathoth]

85. Some groups are "unnegotiable" by their own actions

Are you seriously proposing working with terrorists who kill innocent civilians in pursuit of a theocracy? Acknowledging that some Islamic groups have legitimate gripes is one thing; deciding to work with/ally yourself with them is something else entirely.

[wtmusic]

104. Oh stop it

Use the "T-word" (terrorist), go directly to jail, do not pass Go.

Terrorism is war for those who can't afford cruise missiles. Americans are terrorists with cruise missiles, killing civilians just like the other variety. Not a shred of difference 'twixt the two.

By your argument, they shouldn't negotiate with us. That fixes everything right up, now doesn't it?

[B Calm]

88. Don't fall for the right wing smear of Galloway..

[bpilgrim]

90. DU'ers are smarter than the avg bear

peace

[oasis]

95. Galloway's for me and I'm for him.

[bpilgrim]

101. ditto

INTENSE

peace

[ulysses]

102. positive.

I really don't give a rat's fat ass what his other views are. When our own donkeys are able to stand up in the Congress and testify as Galloway did, then I'll be able to split hairs a little more finely. Until then, no.

[wtmusic]

103. Positive. 100%.

[ngGale]

105. Positive, Coleman thought Galloway would...

roll over and play dead like most in our country. It was just heaven hearing them get called on their own corruption.:applause: