87 Comments

1. RBMN:

“Secretary Annan … I just want to let you know that the investigators will be here early tomorrow morning to go through your office files. I just thought I’d let you know ahead of time, in case you need to reorganize the files, to make it even easier for the investigators to find all the various Oil-for-Food documents…. They said there was no reason to tell you ahead of time, but I thought, why not let you help them as much as you possibly can? I’m glad you agree. You’re very welcome….”

May 17, 2005 - 3:03 pm 2. Sun-Tzu:

And Peter Daou and his ilk have the temerity to wonder why you’re so concerned with the UN and O-F-F?

They have to even ask why there isn’t more focus on the good that is done by that organization?

One wonders whether these are the same sort who would wonder about the “good” done by Hamas and Hizb’allah in social services, or the “good” done by Osama bin Laden in building day care centers, or even the “good” done by the Mafia?

What one has to inquire from this is what is in it for them? Why does one feel compelled to defend the indefensible? Are they so certain of the righteousness of the likes of Annan and his minions that they are prepared to dismiss the likes of this sort?

Are they so desperate to believe in the UN that they will overlook all the wrongs done in its name (assuming it wasn’t done by the UN itself in the first place)?

May 17, 2005 - 3:48 pm 3. Jamie Irons:

Thanks, Roger!

It’s wonderful to be able to see a primary source like this in its entirety.

The work done by yourself, Claudia Rosett, and a very few distinguished others will one day get the recognition it deserves.

Jamie Irons

May 17, 2005 - 3:54 pm 4. calculum1:

US ‘backed illegal Iraqi oil deals’

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington

Tuesday May 17, 2005

The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua

May 17, 2005 - 4:58 pm 5. Michael B:

“The Volcker Committee is trying to [suppress] certain documents which it regards as dangerous.”

So much care and concern. The valiant defender of all that is righteous and worthy, Peter Daou, to the rescue, yet again? Has anyone seen Daou and Volcker together, can we be sure they are in fact altogether different persons? They certainly sound identical, hence unverified rumors of their being two distinct persons would seem to warrant some healthy skepticism. Perhaps there be the rub, perhaps they are two persons, they’re simply not two distinct persons.

In the land of ideological conformism and self-serving, ad hoc moralisms, such is not a distinction they would typically tend to attend to.

So many, so very many, layers of unintended humor and self-parody.

May 17, 2005 - 5:22 pm 6. Terrye:

calc:

I remember back in the 90’s when Clinton was in office the US and the UK both went to the UN and complained about smuggling and human rights violations. The other members of the security council were not interested in dealing with it and neither was the secretary general. It seems that now the US will be blamed for not keeping everyone else honest.

I will wait and see what happens but the Guardian is not the best source.

And Galloway is a liar, a thief and a bully who said that the fall of the Soviet Union of which he was a strong supporter was a castrophe.

May 17, 2005 - 5:30 pm 7. ROA:

Re: US ‘backed illegal Iraqi oil deals’

That accusation is extremely troubling, if true. What is even more troubling is that the UN kept quite about it for so long. If they had gone public as soon as they realized there was a problem, the scope of the problem would have been much smaller. Were they keeping quiet in the hope of being able to blackmali someone?

May 17, 2005 - 5:35 pm 8. Cosmo:

Someone at today’s hearings needed to remind Galloway that the subject of the hearing was not his delusional verdict on the war in Iraq, but the largest financial scandal in human history, run under the watch of people he claims we should have heeded before going into Iraq, people who were all bribed to disagree with us.

His use of the phrase “mother of all smokescreens” was telling. Now, from whom did we first hear that figure of speech?

May 17, 2005 - 5:39 pm 9. Terrye:

The point is if not for the Bush administration none of this would have come out.

If not for the liberation of Iraq there would be no investigation into any of this and as far as that is concerned the US Senate is controlled by Republicans so it seems they are not trying to cover anything up.

The truth is all of this might well have been part of the reason they went into Iraq.

The whole thing was out of control.

And besides Bush went to the UN and ask for action on Iraq in September 2002. I doubt seriously that he would have done that if he had been aware of or in control of a smuggling operation that had been going long before he became president.

I dunno, but I think this is all part of the same thing and the UN appears to have been completely uninterested in dealing with it.

May 17, 2005 - 6:02 pm 10. Rick Ballard:

Here is the actual Grauniad article selectively excerpted above. Note that the Bayoil transactions began in the Clinton administration and were ended by the Bush administration. For the mathmatically challenged, the $37 million represents .0016% of the $23 billion that Saddam skimmed.

Several posters here commented on the bi-partisan nature of the hearings and how sharp Sen. Levin was and how Coleman and Levin would make mincemeat of Galloway. Galloway did precisely as several other posters predicted. The Grauniad article is based upon Dem staff pimps feeding the panting puppies of the press the only info on hand that could be spun to reflect badly on the administration. The pimps in question report to Levin and Coleman got rolled – just like I said he would.

Bipartisanship does not exist in the US Senate or the US House. Anyone thinking that it does is a fool and anyone thinking that Carl Levin can be trusted with more than the key to the Men’s Room shares the same status.

Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Coleman. It ain’t beanbag.

May 17, 2005 - 6:10 pm 11. Kevin P:

Roger:

Galloway proudly and openly accepts money from Arab governments to run his charity/PAC. He has no problem being a Member of parliment that depends on Arab governments or buisnessmen linked with Arab governments and his anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish rhetoric shows that they have made a good investment. But it was a massive error to give this jerk a microphone and a soap box to peddle his filth. Check out the American TV reports, the British Press, and virtually all media outlets. The first thing they show is his anti-Bush screed. He has already appeared on Matthews and I’m sure the list of pundit shows he will appear on before he leaves will grow. Coleman did the best he could with the facts he had but Galloway just cried forgery and used every answer to bloviate his anti-american bilge.When Coleman pressed him on the source of his money he just claimed ignorance and that was the end of that line of questions. Unless Coleman has something else he just made Galloway a superstar of the anti-American crowd. He could have presented all the evidence without giving this clown a chance to spread his lies. He just made a obscure backbencher with little influence and gave him international stature. HUGE MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

May 17, 2005 - 6:19 pm 12. Terrye:

Rick:

All of this will play out in time. I am sure there will be more revelations etc.

I think Coleman did all right today. Galloway was trying to goad them into a big screaming fight and I am just as glad he did not rise to the bait. When a person encounters a rude, offensive gas bag like Galloway you just want to sock him, but this is his usual behavior. He is good at getting to people.

Galloway has decided that the best defence is a good offence and if Coleman had actually started debating with him the son of a bitch would still be ranting on cable.

At least Levin’s questions made it plain that this is not just about the Bush administration, he had as much to do with going after Gallway as anyone else did.

I hear Scotland Yard is not done with him either.

hmmmm you gotta wonder.

May 17, 2005 - 6:28 pm 13. Terrye:

Kevin:

Yeah well, he is right up there with Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

The only way to avoid giving him the oppurtunity he had today would have been to not name him in the investigation.

I thought he looked like a sweating, raving, ranting maniac who told several whoppers that will come back and bite him in the ass. Just your usual lying stalinist line of crap.

He also did not answer the questions.

I have seen this same routine on Court TV when a guilty man takes the stand.

May 17, 2005 - 6:35 pm 14. Rick Ballard:

Both Coleman and Levin turned in performances that one would expect of US Senators. Both performed better than would many of their compatriots. That’s not the problem at all. The problem is giving that pernicious piece of tripe the stage. Yes, the Yard is after him – but they don’t have in jail yet.

Watch the press – Levin’s staff pimps rolled Coleman and the reporting will prove it. The Grauniad article is just the beginning.

May 17, 2005 - 6:39 pm 15. PeterUK:

Cosm,

Galloway wasn’t there to clarify the Oil for Food scandal per se,he was there to peddle his agenda and grandstand before the world.Comments in the British press would indicate that he suceeded in accomplishing this,further, a brief look at Kos and the DU would indicate that he has new gained fans as well as establishing himself as Islams hero.Not bad for a nobody who had been expelled from the Labour Party for what could be regarded as treasonous speeches during the invasion of Iraq.

All that’s required now is “George and Me” by Michael Moore.

Terrye,

My money is on Scotland Yard not laying a glove on him,they don’t have a good record when it comes to complex financial cases.

May 17, 2005 - 6:54 pm 16. PeterUK:

From The Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616593,00.html

May 17, 2005 - 6:59 pm 17. Terrye:

Rick:

Like I said if the Senate names him in the investigation then he has the right to appear.

At least I think that is the rules.

Might as well blame the press for giving him the time. After all they were the ones plastering his face all over the place.

But I wonder if the Senate might be giving him enough rope to hang himself.

As for as the DU is concerned Peter, they are not exactly a good judge of character. I know self respecting liberals who will not go there.

BTW they might want to check out timelines here, the Democrats were running things back when Galloway began shilling for the Butcher of Baghdad and trashing the evil Americans.

May 17, 2005 - 7:10 pm 18. Terrye:

Rick:

I hope not. That would be a real shame.

I don’t often agree with Levin, but this is really no time for that kind of thing. Coleman is not stupid and like I said the Dems are in no position to get sactimonious about this.

May 17, 2005 - 7:14 pm 19. Kevin P:

Roger:

There is the war of facts and there is the sound bite war. If anyone saw the entire hearing it doesn’t look so bad. That is about 5% of the country and less then 1 tenth of one percent of the world. If you watch the snippets reported on the tube get ready to puke. It’s move on and Michael Moore with a scottish accent. it doesn’t matter that he is full of crap. In the sound bites he looks the lion of the Senate and Coleman comes off like a fresh eared wimp. It’s not true but thats what it looks like. This story has always been a hard sell because of the complicated financial trail and the destruction of a lot of the paper trail by Kofi and the gang. But you don’t hand a PR victory like this. I am no expert but this was so obvious that between Peter UK and a few others you can read exactly what was going to happen and what did happen in the thread from the other day. I can’t remember which one but it was a few days ago. This was as predictable as the Santa Ana winds in Southern California. It’s not lethal but it was a nasty blow in perception if not in reality. If Galloway gets on with Katie and the Today show lapdogs I am going to have a heart attack.

May 17, 2005 - 7:21 pm 20. Terrye:

Kevin:

So what are you saying? They should drop the case against him in the hopes he goes away?

Or talk about how 100,000 people did not die and go into detail about what nonsense the lancet report is and how even the UN puts the death toll at less than 25,000. Challenge him on the deaths due to sanctions and ask him what he thinks of Saddam collecting the bodies of dead badies and putting them on ice so he could get a nice big pile?

Tell him that the problems with the CPA and the money was called a book keeping error and not thievery even by the people who brought up the issue. Mention that the program of giving troops money to give to people for work in the communities was not only dishonest it was one of the most successful PR programs the coalition had going for ti..

Or how about just calling the man a lying son of a bitch.

The point is the press should be doing all that and if they don’t then the only alternative is just let him run off at the mouth or avoid dealing with him.

The man reminds me of Al Sharpton.

May 17, 2005 - 7:34 pm 21. jedrury:

Rick:

I plead guilty to being a poster commenting on the Senate reports and its bi-partisian spirit.

I also plead guilty to opining that Galloway should not come. He did. I was wrong and PeterUK was right that he would.

You are speculating that the Guardian report was based on Democratic leaks by Levin staffers. You have no proof except for its anti-American tone. The British press is masterful in slanted reporting, the Guardian is adept at highly embellished anti-American rhetoric. It does not take much to spin a web of misinformation.

I’ve not seen Galloway’s testimony on TV so I can not say if Coleman and Levin were effective or ineffective. They usually are not: the last good cross examination seen in the Senate was Michael Chertoff at the Hillary hearings in 1998 and he was not a senator. A Senate hearing is 90% theater, 10% substance; the jury is still out on the wisdom of of allowing Galloway to appear.

May 17, 2005 - 7:37 pm 22. yama-arashi:

I’m with Terrye on this.

I’d go further. Give Moore and the Galloways more of a spotlight. Let them have not fifteen minutes, but hours and hours. Give’em all the rope they dare to take. And then let them think they’ve won something. And then let them all spin, spin away. Let all the polls show the beginning of an “emerging Democratic majority” and the President in trouble and Iraq a quagmire and Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Neo-con, Darth Vader and on and on. Let them all fiddle. I’ll take reality. I’ll take the results we’ve gotten the last few years. And something tells me Moore and Galloway and the MSM have been a blessing. A necessary and ultimately beneficial farce. When these clowns disappear from the stage is when I will start worrying again. As for now they prove the point things are getting done. Bring on the clowns. And enjoy. (Of course, while throwing tomatos and rotten eggs at them.)

May 17, 2005 - 7:46 pm 23. Terrye:

jedrury:

Well I saw most of it and he was a pill.

The Senators were low key and just stuck to the questions they had and Galloway was too busy raving to answer. I am serious, I don’t believe he ever really answered a question.

His accusations were the usual. He praised Kofi and Chirac and called the Americans war mongers who killed a million Iraqis with sanctions and then another 100,000 in an illegal war.

The Senators refused to debate the issues and how do you really?

I mean we wall know that Chirac and the Russians and even the Germans were doing business with Saddam even after he killed all those people. The UK and the US were the only countries that even questioned him or seriously tried to stop him and yet today they are the countries that people like Galloway go after. At least they both had some standards, it seems the whores of Babylon that make up the remaining members of the security council can not say the same.

If you go down that road where does it end? Guys like Galloway obviously don’t care about the truth.

He said he was right and we were wrong and he did not even mention the election, he just called Iraq a disaster.

May 17, 2005 - 7:53 pm 24. Terrye:

yama:

I would just as soon see the silly bastard in jail, but this is America and if the Senate is going to name him in an investigation then he can come to the belly of the beast. I see no way around it.

Imagine the reaction if they had refused to let him appear. No doubt there would have been no end to the media types falling all over themselves for the oppurtunity to give him air time, and find out just Bushies are afraid of.

No, the only alternative would have been to let him get away with being a crook without a challenge.

And sooner or later it is going to dawn on the chronologically challenged left that he is accusing Bubba of killing a million Iraqis as well as accusing the the Zionist war monger of killing a mere 100,000 for the Joooooos. among other things.

I feel a Hitler comparison coming on here, he reminded me of the mad paper hanger sweating and screaming and accusing people of all manner of things.

May 17, 2005 - 8:02 pm 25. Terrye:

instapundit has an interesting post and link on this. it seems not everyone was impressed with crazy george.

good night all.

May 17, 2005 - 8:09 pm 26. Coisty:

Terrye – “instapundit has an interesting post and link on this. it seems not everyone was impressed with crazy george.”

Instapundit only posts links to those favourable to his views. The vast, vast majority of press coverage has been very pro-Galloway – don’t expect Glenn to mention this, though John Gibbon of Fox spent his commentary being critical of Coleman for not seeming prepared. On the CBC prime time news (as big in Canada as all the US networks and cable channels put together) actually described him as “Braveheart” and portrayed Coleman as a schoolboy out of his depth and unable to answer Galloway’s attacks on Bush and Rumsfeld.

This was a great victory for Galloway, no doubt about it. I despise the man but watching his testimony I was also of the view that this was great propaganda for him and all left wing opponents of the Iraq war. He will have earned great respect (ahem) around the world and even in the US as the man who took on and made mince meat of senators from the most powerful country in the world. Every enemy of your country will have been emboldened by his performance.

May 17, 2005 - 8:31 pm 27. yama-arashi:

Demagogues and sycophants and sophists like Galloway and Moore, Kos, an increasing part of the Dems leadership, and a large part of the MSM, always make the mistake of over-estimating the power of rhetoric. Over-estimating the effect of words and langauge. A state of mind excacerbated by the steady stream of modern nonsense that has come to mean an education in the humanities these days. An education in part based on this mistake. Mistaken in the power of rhetoric their rhetoric is not very skillful, ultimately, in achieving results. Results matter. What is said about results matter little. The fact is words don’t sway much. Especially when it is obvious that is all you got. They especially can’t run roughshod over deeper held beliefs, mores and sensibilities. Diatribes like we saw with Galloway today can to some extent energize and reinforce those already swayed his way, though it is a passing and superficial moment, but they also energize and reinforce even more the views of those already set firm in an opposite direction.

All bark, no bite. One Marine in Iraq is more influential these days than ten Galloways.

May 17, 2005 - 8:42 pm 28. chuck:

And sooner or later it is going to dawn on the chronologically challenged left that he is accusing Bubba of killing a million Iraqis as well as accusing the the Zionist war monger of killing a mere 100,000 for the Joooooos. among other things.

I think Bubba was thrown overboard some time ago. I think Galloway will develop a following of sorts; the current crop of leftists and Democrats have little experience of demagogues and less power of moral resistance than one might hope.

May 17, 2005 - 9:07 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

Jedrury,

“You are speculating that the Guardian report was based on Democratic leaks by Levin staffers. You have no proof except for its anti-American tone.”

From the Grauniad report that I linked:

“A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.”

Those are Levin’s pimps they’re referring to. The son of a bitch will knife any Republican within arms reach. He always has and he’ll never change.

I agree with Yama that we were treated to a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” but Coleman gave him the stage. He got rolled and tonight he’s not feeling like quite the political genius that he did when he thought this up. He may have his eye on the White House but this type of B level politics won’t get him there. He’d better figure out who his enemies are or he’ll never get a chance at the Big Show.

May 17, 2005 - 9:25 pm 30. chuck:

I feel a Hitler comparison coming on here, he reminded me of the mad paper hanger sweating and screaming and accusing people of all manner of things.

Yeah, me to. However, I recall Vera Brittain writing of Hitler after attending one of his rallies, she said that there was a spiritual side to his appeal. I don’t see this in Galloway, he seems to bear more resemblance to Goering.

In case anyone is interested, the observation on Hitler is in Testament of Experience. Spiritual appeal is a quality that I suspect Hitler did indeed possess and it is a quality little remarked upon.

May 17, 2005 - 9:28 pm 31. Buddy Larsen:

Both opinions on the guy are probably right…those who understand this guy are right to say he exposed himself–he did. But those saying he’ll now have a following are right, too. The beknighted are always vulnerable to just this sort of personality. Terrye is right to trot out Herr Schicklegruber as the paradigm of that wired-global-village virus that casts crime as a lesser evil than nature, as something that is not wrong but merely arbitrarily said by the power-structure to be “illegal”. The testimony was a victory for anarchy, there’s little doubt (in my mind, anyway). Now, we have more work to do, something else to neutralize. This whole thing is a gigantic War of the Wills.

May 17, 2005 - 9:32 pm 32. Terrye:

Coisty:

I do not think I made myself plain. Galloway strutted his stuff. He really did. But he did not answer the questions he was asked and the only way to keep him from that moment was not to name him at all.

That is how Galloway gets away with this stuff.

Ofcourse this man also supported the two regimes that killed the most Muslims, the Soviet Union and Saddam.

Now if that is not enough to make people question his motives then having Norm Coleman call him a liar won’t change that. I think they just decided to let him rant and spend as littlt time with him as possible.

Saddam will do the same thing at his trial.

All of these people are going to do the same thing.

Not all of them have Galloway’s gifts as a speaker, but the this is what you can count on.

BTW Galloway was not right about Saddam and his weapons anymore than anyone else was.

May 17, 2005 - 10:50 pm 33. Terrye:

I mean are we going to fight the pre war rhetoric for ever?

So let’s say that Norm Coleman goes through all the pre war intel on wmd and then what? Galloway says oh well I guess you are right. don’t think so.

Or let’s say Coleman tells him that Saddam could build palaces so he could surely feed those million pople…have we not all heard this before?

Men like Galloway make a living hating America. He knew he could come to Washington and blow off because this is America and we tolerate that crap.

Now if we were the evil imperialist entity he claims we are he would have been shut up long ago. Just like the critics of his much beloved Soviet Union were.

Today was one of those times when you almost wish you lived in a dictatorship, just so Norm Coleman could say “Take this man away.”

He wanted a fight. I only hope they have enough evidence to do him some real harm.

May 17, 2005 - 11:11 pm 34. Mike_Nargizian:

HOUSTON OIL Company implicated in the Oil for Food Scandal agreed to boycott Israel in return for payoffs.

http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/05/oil-for-food-scandal-houston-oil-co-on.html

May 17, 2005 - 11:24 pm 35. fraq:

US ‘backed illegal Iraqi oil deals’

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms calculum

According to the standard rhetoric of the left, the Bush Administration came into office determined to launch a war against Iraq; therefore, according to the resultant logic, the Bush Administration need not have bothered to clean up a messy UN program when it was instead already on course to end the regime. Honestly I can’t see why anyone who subscribes to the ‘George Bush is evil’ theory such as yourself would be so seemingly surprised by this. Doesn’t it fit in with the whole conspiracy to steal Iraq’s oil? But, to replay the non-insane version of history for you, let’s recap. George Bush campaigned in 2000 on a more “humble” foreign policy–a withdrawl from the purported hubris and meddling that marked the Clinton years. The Bush Administration came into office preaching neo-isolationism. There was a strain of thought in the country running counter to the reluctant role of global policeman America found itself playing in conflicts such as Somalia and Kosovo, knocking down corrupt third-rate dictators like Milosevic and Aidid. George Bush, and really much of America–and certainly much of the rest of the world–appeared content to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. John Ashcroft had not written a draft of the Patriot Act. Halliburton was not scheming for the United States to launch a land and air war in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the US and Britain were still enforcing the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq, just as they did during the Clinton Administration. The official law on the US books, as passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, was for regime change in Iraq. The Kurds had their own de facto autonomous state in Northern Iraq thanks to the no-fly zones and US support. The UN OFF program and sanctions regime was a porous embarrassment that encouraged corruption and functioned as Saddam Hussein’s bribery system, whose only real effect on Iraq was to make its people poorer and the dictatorship more entrenched. Saddam Hussein was still developing missile technology in contravention of the Gulf War ceasefire and subsequent binding Security Council resolutions. The Hussein regime retained the capacity to produce biological and chemical weapons and harbored the intent to revive the weapons programs after the scrunity of the international community had subsided (read Kay, Duelfer). The Hussein regime had attempted the assassination of President Bush I. Iraq was a menace to the democratic state of Israel and a clear impediment to the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. US troops were sitting in Saudi Arabia as lingering residue from the first Gulf War to enforce the no-fly zones and keep Hussein in check (and serving as the rallying cry for Salafist fanatics to sow resentment among the Saudi populace). Ahmed Chalabi and the Clinton Administration had failed miserably in their bid for regime change in Iraq in the abortive INC army fiasco. Countries like France, Russia, and China cynically and profitably exploited the Iraq situation to weaken the United States. The Hussein regime suppressed all dissent with terror and brutality, suffocating all civil life and fostering a society of suspicion, paranoia, and ignorance. Despite all of this, many on the left today want to pretend like the status quo in Iraq would have been fine. Kids flying kites conjure a socialist paradise bathing in oil pumped out of a gleaming petroleum infrastructure with bounteous supermarket shelves and electricity 25 hours a day. Admittedly, this was before Huessein decided to give all his non-political prisoners a get out of jail free card. And even with the patent instability and misery of the status quo, the Bush Administration had launched no war in Iraq. Then the United States was attacked on 9/11.

This was only months into the new Administration. As part of the strategic response to these attacks, the Bush Administration decided to drive for a satisfactory resolution to the festering Iraq problem, in addition to the more specifically tactical response delivered in Afghanistan. The record is quite clear that the Bush Administration wanted a reckoning with Iraq and the rest of the world about the nonsense of the UN inspections system and the OFF program. As this grand geopolitical paradigm shift–aligning the United States explicitly and firmly through action and rhetoric on the side of liberal democracy–began to take shape and then unfold in the weeks, months, and years after 11 Sept 2001, the Bush Administration and allies were trying to solve the Iraq mess. Bush asked the UN and its members to get serious about the resolutions that had been passed. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his reasoning or methods, he should be able to accept that George Bush was legitimately attempting to fix an obvious problem. Please leftists, put this little Guardian screed in the larger context. If anyone was interested in fixing the OFF travesty, it was the Bush Administration and the United States. To imply or argue that the Bush Administration was the real mastermind, mischevious source behind all the OFF problems is just silly.

In addition to that basic history, there were other more mundane geopolitical considerations. For example, if the UN had cut off the illegal oil to Jordan, there were potentially serious economic and regional consequences. Why do so many people feel compelled to twist so much of the news to prima facie absurd attacks on George Bush?

May 18, 2005 - 12:03 am 36. HA:

Terrye,

I thought he looked like a sweating, raving, ranting maniac who told several whoppers that will come back and bite him in the ass. Just your usual lying stalinist line of crap.

Come on. Gore isn’t that bad.

What? You weren’t talking about Gore? OK. Well Kennedy isn’t that bad either.

You’re kidding! You weren’t talking about Kennedy? If it wasn’t Gore or Kennedy, then who is it?

It couldn’t be Boxer or Pelosi. They may be sweating, raving, ranting, lying stalinist crap-spewing maniacs, but they’re not men.

Dean? Reid? Kerry? Sharpton? …?

May 18, 2005 - 2:52 am 37. gphot:

roger

once this oil for food saga is over, i will be waiting breathlessly for your novel/script. should be a blockbuster.

May 18, 2005 - 3:14 am 38. HA:

Terrye,

instapundit has an interesting post and link on this

Speaking of Insty, he gave Sulli a brutal smackdown:

http://instapundit.com/archives/023062.php

Go read it. You won’t be sorry.

May 18, 2005 - 3:19 am 39. Terrye:

HA:

I saw that.

Well I saw most of this thing and so maybe I viewed it differently than someone who just saw part of it.

I think Coleman was acting like a prosecutor trying not to respond to the taunting of an adversary and I thought Galloway was a lot like Gore, only worse.

He went through all that crap and did not even acknowledge the election in Iraq, in fact he said this was a puppet government.

That lets you know he does not respect the Iraqis any more than he does Americans.

It is hard to say but if Coleman had gotten into a big fight with him some of us might have liked it, but it would just have made it easier to pass off the investigation as a witch hunt.

May 18, 2005 - 3:58 am 40. PeterUK:

The real question is,did your country gain from Galloway’s visit? No light was shed on Oil for Food,Galloway managed to leave his slimey trail all over and differences will have been reinforced.

As Terrye wrote the DU are no judge of character,but why strengthen their prejudices?

Propaganda isn’t about changing peoples minds it is about creating a climate where action can be taken,Galloway was allowed to spread his propaganda,in the final analysis that is all that will be remembered.

May 18, 2005 - 4:29 am 41. ex-democrat:

Peter — it took me most of the 20 years i’ve lived here in the US to really comprehend the depth and power of the 1st Amendment principle that the proper response to crazy speech is more speech, not less. I find it impossible to explain why given the reasonable arguments against (though Terrye and Yama try hard). Perhaps it’s rope-a-dope writ large and long-term.

May 18, 2005 - 5:36 am 42. ex-democrat:

by the way, this declaration accuses Volcker of a very serious breach of trust. does anyone know whether there are plans to call him to account?

May 18, 2005 - 5:41 am 43. Terrye:

maybe all they wanted was Galloway to respond to enough of their questions under oath that they could use it later.

But I have to say that after being online I have come to learn that it does not help to feed the trolls. I have done it myself from time to time and they just come up with some new line of shit.

What were they supposed to do? have him arrested? forget what they were there for and tell him his claims were nonsense and that if he could not prove them he should shut up. This guy got his ass kicked out of the labor pary, he does not care what he says.

Several of the people who were in Moore’s movie F911 complained later that he edited the film to change the meaning..and I thought, well yeah he is Michael Moore that is what he does why were in his frigging movie in the first damn place. Remember what Clint Eastwood said to him? Come near me with a camera and I will shoot you.

And this is Galloway, you can either ignore him and let him break the law or you can bring him up for questioning, in which case he will shoot off his mouth.

That is how he stays in business, he is a bully.

So I think I would have enjoyed it if Coleman had been nastier but I also think it would have gone on and on for hours and in the end it would have been Galloway makes Coleman lose his cool.

now if we had a real media they would go after that bastard.

May 18, 2005 - 5:51 am 44. Terrye:

exdemocrat:

I have wondered the same thing. What can they do? It is the UN that initiated the investigation and Volcker is a highly respected man.

I know they have to get to the bottom of this but it is becoming more and more apparent why no one wanted to take this on.

May 18, 2005 - 5:54 am 45. Knucklehead:

Fraq,

Thanks for joining the ranks of those of us who have made the earnest effort, and you did a fine job of it, but you’re pissing up a rope. The point of the naysayers, Friends of Saddam, and BDS sufferers is not to engage in discussion or debate. Their entire point is to redirect any and all topics (UNSCAM/OFF being one good example) toward “The Evil Bu$hitlerChimpHalliburtonPuppetCrusaderCowboy” is the source of all trouble and suffering in the world.

Regarding whether or not the Galloway’s of the world should be given forums and podiums… well, I dunno. I wearily and with great trepidation suppose they should. Rather than allowing them to hijack whatever the matter at hand happens to be, however, I favor simply recording their foaming, spittle-flecked rantings so that they may be shown, as often as necessary, and tenaciously followed up with the question, “Is this what you support?”

May 18, 2005 - 7:59 am 46. Canucklehead:

I did not see Galloway’s presentation on TV or radio. I google “news”ed it to get a flavor of the coverage. There was no coverage on Caandian TV or radio of his talk.

That being said, I am looking at this through two lenses. First, how has his presentation moved the ball on confirming Bolton as ambassador to the UN. In the Times of London, they carried this guote -

“…If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to 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 todayÔøΩ…”

I think that one goes in Bolton’s favor. Please note all the yelling that Galloway used in his talk to the Senators. There is no way that John Bolton was that bad with the people he dealt with. Clearly, the Democrats need to confirm Bolton today.

The second lense is how does the left wing of the Labor party react. We will know shortly. The BBC is talking about a fresh inquiry into his charity. Let’s see if British justice is any better than Caanadian justice. Neither are on the level of American justice.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Galloway had is head handed to him. Any talk otherwise plays into the “confirm Bolton NOW!” card.

Compare Bolton to Galloway.

Compare the UN to the USA.

Compare Iraq under the Baaths with their elected government they have today.

Galloway preached to the choir. Now he will be used for the greater good.

May 18, 2005 - 8:14 am 47. Frederick:

ex-democrat: “Perhaps it’s rope-a-dope writ large and long-term.” Yes. It’s based, I think, on optimistic assumptions about the future, the strength of the American system, and the judgment of American politicians and voters of both parties. Assumptions, Americans believe, that the national history vindicates and that can be trusted. It’s why, despite the predictable MSM coverage of Galloway’s visit, it is the American way to say let him talk and let people judge. So far it seems to work. The Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore and Katie Couric and the Hollywood high school dropouts all wanted to be heard. And Americans have judged them. As, e.g., Senator Levin listened to Galloway and judged him. When Americans become afraid to hear what someone has to say, it won’t be America any more, but someplace more like Berkeley or Cambridge, Mass.

May 18, 2005 - 8:32 am 48. yama-arashi:

I appreciate, as always, PeterUK’s points, and ex-democrat’s “rope a dope writ large and long term” also struck my fancy. I hope my point about throwing tomatos and rotten eggs at Galloway is not forgotten. But it is good to have a target, especially one as easy to hit as Galloway. Tell me how does his testimony change one vote that Bush received last year. On the contrary, it might make a few on the other side think again. It was all flash, but the grinding down of Galloway over the next few years is what in the end yields results. I know Galloway makes me very likely to go through, happily, the trouble of casting a vote from abroad the next election. Heck, I’ll be sending my vote in for local dog catcher now. I know his testimony just raised 2,000 dollars for the RNC from a 9/11 Republican who, now, won’t be voting Democrat in a national election for years to come. Yes, Levin asked good questions, but he has also sounded too much like Galloway in the past. It is best not to buy into the hysteria that a Galloway creates. First, it isn’t very good on the heart. Second, it doesn’t help ones aim with the tomatos. Third it takes time away from the real business of winning elections and supporting our troops. The lib/dem. rhetoric has no bite, precisely because those that use it think it is such a force. Let the illusion stand. Let them think Mario Cuomo is Cicero. Galloway’s rhetoric is of the same stuff. Without Brownshirts and the SS to drive his points home it only gets you so far. Rhetoric, in general, only gets you so far, and those that think it gets you further, are already up the proverbial creek with no paddle.

If five hundred people are protesting America in Tokyo CNN has a camera on it and the sky is falling, but they fail to take notice of the thousands walking by and shaking their heads at the losers and idiots protesting. Galloway’s the same game.

May 18, 2005 - 8:56 am 49. thibaud:

I’m with Yama-arashi on this. The crucial audience here is not those who read the Guardian or watch Al-Jazeera. It’s the non-newshound, fair-minded but somewhat softhearted middle American centrist voter, the kind who generally supports the UN mission, worries about conflict and likes the idea of international legitimacy for our foreign policy. Think of your average teacher or health care professional in a suburb of Detroit or Phoenix: these are purple voters of the sort who turn out for Levin or McCain.

And they are the most important audience of all, because they are the ones who, if persuaded that the UN is an endemically corrupt farce, will provide the crucial swing in public support from the present pro-UN majority to a pro-reform majority.

These people to this point have not been paying close attention to OFF, in part because they’re exactly the type of folks who (still) trust the MSM. Many, perhaps most, of them are fairly solid pro-Israel advocates. There’s no better way to turn them into pro-reform advocates than to make a rabid Israel-hater like George Galloway the poster boy for OFF.

May 18, 2005 - 8:59 am 50. thibaud:

clarification: “turn them into advocates of UN reform”

May 18, 2005 - 9:01 am 51. PeterUK:

The cruucial question is,what will the average American heard? They will have heard the soundbites from the segments that the media reported,Galloway was allowed to put all his talking points over,these will be viewed completetly out of context.

As I pointed out above,propaganda is not about changing peoples minds it is about changing the climate in which things can be done,Galloway achieved that by using accusations aganst the US as his defence.Galloway isn’t interested in the truth only in the effect of his words,read the transcript he managed to get it on the record for posterity.

“Galloway’s rhetoric is of the same stuff. Without Brownshirts and the SS to drive his points home it only gets you so far. Rhetoric, in general, only gets you so far.”

Galloway’s party Respect, is a front organisation for the Socialist Workers Party which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.It was the SWP which organised the huge anti-war rallies in the UK and is in the forefront of every political disturbance.

The SWP is a serious revolutionary party which has connections in the US,their ability for disruption should not be underestimated

May 18, 2005 - 11:12 am 52. yama-arashi:

PeterUK,

Those huge anti-war protests sure accomplished a lot. And was there ever a film which took things more out of context than Fahrenheit 9.11? Lot of good that did. Same scene in the eighties with Reagan. It is not a question of what the average American heard, rather they’ve heard it all before. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for taking the guy on, but I think those on this side of the battle do a disservice to themselves by buying into the MSM hype. Or thinking someone like Galloway or the way CNN or the BBC spin his testimony could be the beginning of some horrible movement or setback. The fact that Galloway no longer has tyrant Hussein to make a buck off of, and he is coming to Washington instead of going to Baghdad is a great victory. The record will show he perjured himself yesterday. He also, as Thibaud posted above, became the new poster child for the left. I mean talk about an easy mark for making the case that the left is reactionary. Dean, Galloway, Pelosi, Reid, Dan Rather, Michael Moore–this is too easy. As for the UK, which I don’t know much about, I suspect there have always been a few, or even more than a few, Leninist-Socialist and/or Fascist MPs; but this is surely a low point as compared to many other times in the twentieth century. (I’m sure you’ll tell me if I’m wrong.) The human condition ensures we’ll always have our Galloways. And our BBC. But this one is out in the open and essentially a clown. And as many people see through the BBC spin as buy into it. Nay more. I’ll take that. I’ll count my blessings that things are going so well.

If Galloway ever decides to take the next step, for which he’ll need those Brownshirts, I trust he’ll soon find himself in the company of less polite men than Senators Coleman and Levin.

May 18, 2005 - 12:07 pm 53. jedrury:

That Galloway came is strange but, if he thinks that the American people are impressed and convinced otherwise, think again.

We, Americans, see enough TV to know that when

a scum like Galloway comes to defend himself on charges before the US Senate that he was Saddam’s paid punk and then villifies the nations’ policy there are few Americans [except to the Amy Goodman lefties] who are going to believe the guy.

PeterUK may be right in all he opines about British politics.

Rick Ballard may be correct in his denunciation of Carl Levin and his staff for their leaks [I respectfully disagree], but it is not going to wash in this country.

The Senate Committee hearing with Galloway is a side show – reality as farce – to the printed Senate report and the press accounts relating what was found by the Senate investigators.

Meaningful? No.

Important? To the extent of a fleeting memory of some silly commentary before the Senate.

Effect on Policy? No effect.

Next story, next act !!!

May 18, 2005 - 1:06 pm 54. Canucklehead:

PeterUK, Galloway came to polarize the American electorate. He came to preach to the choir. He came to propagandize the war on terror and the war in Iraq. He wasn’t the first and he may well be the last.

A lot a good can come from his sojourn. His concerns can be used to promote UN reform and confirm Bolton. (Who knows, maybe the Jack Wheeler scenario at the security council will play out.)

The propaganda value in Galloway’s words will not be used by Galloway or his choir. We’ve all heard that before. Galloway’s excesses have changed the lay of the land. There is no going back. He represents the “neo-Blair” Labor party. Anyone who argues with that simply needs to watch events unfold over in Britain.

May 18, 2005 - 1:41 pm 55. PeterUK:

Yama-Arashi.

At the moment you have a Republican Administration,this is George Bush’s last term,there is no certainty that the Republicans will be the next administration,

Despite the triumphal air of the Right,the left has not gone away,they are still entrenched in Academia,the MSM,public sector workers,the transnational movement etc.

What is being pumped out now will affect the young voters at the next election,all those Kossacks will be old enough to vote.The lies will be repeated often enough to enter into “common knowledge”.That is the way the left has always worked.As for it not working in in your country,you had Clinton for two terms of office

May 18, 2005 - 2:03 pm 56. PeterUK:

Canucklehead,

I agree with your words,but Galloway is not remotely “Neo-Blair” but comes from the hard left,read above regarding the SWP.He was expelled from the Lobour Party for remarks that could be regarded as treasonous.

Galloway was indeed reinforcing his position with his largely Muslim constituency in Bethnall Green and Bow,where he was elected on an anti-war platform with strongly anti-semitic overtones.

He was given the chance to strut the world stage and he took it with both hands.

BTW Anyone want to bet Galloway will now get a speaking tour of US Academic establishments?

May 18, 2005 - 2:19 pm 57. thibaud:

PeterUK,

This isn’t Britain. After espousing racial segregation, there’s no greater political sin in this country than trashing Israel. As Sen. Levin and every other friend of Israel knows, Galloway’s flaming jihadi shtick will not help the Democrats. It’s poison for any US politician to even remotely be associated with him.

Perhaps Galloway can manage to hide his flaming pro-jihadi and pro-Palestinian tendencies on a US speaking tour, but my guess is that he’d have a hard time keeping his mouth shut. The more the US public learns about this man and OFF, the more they’ll start to reconsider their softheaded support for the UN.

Joe McCarthy had a good run in this country, but in due course sunlight disinfected that scummy little spore. Bring Georgie on. Make him the UN posterboy, and watch the great American pro-Israel center fall in line behind UN reform.

May 18, 2005 - 2:44 pm 58. Canucklehead:

PeterUK, I was being facetious about the “Neo-Blair” thing. Within a few years, everyone in Britain will be a “neo-Blair”, judging by what is happening to economic activity in Europe.

I fully expect Galloway represents the thoughts of many of the left-side of the Labor party. What we heard from Galloway is “thought” by Labor. He was not out-of-place while being a member of the Labor party.

Brown-et-al will need to address that wing of the party once he takes over. Galloway is painting Brown into a corner, as no response to Galloway signals to the Left (and the rest of the world) that the game may well be on…

The hand of those who are “neo-Blair” should be strengthened by Galloway’s comments and timing. Britain needs to step up and carry it’s weight. The corruption at the UN is not something to be dismissed because some petty ideologue says so.

May 18, 2005 - 2:53 pm 59. PeterUK:

Thibaud,

Anti-semitism wouldn’t get you very far in mainstream politics in Britain either,the BNP is only making an impression in areas of high third world immigration.Galloway appealed to the majority in his constituency.

Make no mistake the man is no fool,he came up through the hard left politics of Glasgow,if he has to dissemble he will.

Now he has been before the Senators he has gained celebrity status which he will use to further his agenda.

My point has been if the sick puppy is incontinent why let him on your carpet.

Some information on the SWP from a staunch Labour supporter Oliver Kamm.Look through his site, there is some interesting comment on the SWP Muslim Brotherhood ties.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/

May 18, 2005 - 3:08 pm 60. flenser:

thibaud

“Joe McCarthy had a good run in this country, but in due course sunlight disinfected that scummy little spore.”

Just taking a shot in the dark here; you’re a liberal, right? I can tell by the over-the-top rhetoric and hatred of anti-communists.

May 18, 2005 - 3:19 pm 61. yama-arashi:

PeterUK,

“My point has been if the sick puppy is incontinent why let him on your carpet.” So we can point at this sick little puppy and rub his nose in the excrement. Beat him over the head with a stick too. A tour of American Universities you say? Perfect. But a little early. Campaigning for 2006 hasn’t even begun.

You really need not to work yourself up so much. Settle down, Read a good book. What is being pumped out now has always been pumped out. True, a Democrat might win, even heaven forbid in 2008, but not unless he or she comes back to the middle and does just about what Bush is doing now. There won’t be anyone this millenium riding Galloway’s coattails to victory in the U.S. of A. I promise you that. You seem to think the far and whacky Left must go away or be done away with. And if it doesn’t we are up a creek. This is an unrealistic wish that falls into the same category of loony leftish thinking which posits the world must become some perfect pie in the sky non-contentious there are no more contradictions dream world or I’ll never get a good nights sleep. It is a kind of angst which leads to hysterics. Kossack’s kids will be old enough to vote someday. So will all the kids of the parents who voted for Bush and whose grandparents voted for Reagan. There are way many more of the latter and they breed like rabbits. All the school teachers from nursery school through graduate school read Chomsky and stuff it down our throats. Who listens to what teachers tell us anyway. I know I did just the opposite. Anyway, trust me, if only to keep the blood pressure down, Galloway is a gift that will keep on giving.

May 18, 2005 - 3:21 pm 62. PeterUK:

“Galloway is painting Brown into a corner, as no response to Galloway signals to the Left (and the rest of the world) that the game may well be on…”

No he is not! Brown has his hands on the finacial levers of power and controls every department of government.Tony Blair merely decides who we should bomb.Brown by the way is redistributionist marxist.

If you notice though,the British Government is ignoring rightly Galloway

“The hand of those who are “neo-Blair” should be strengthened by Galloway’s comments and timing. Britain needs to step up and carry it’s weight.”

A bit like Canada you mean?

“The corruption at the UN is not something to be dismissed because some petty ideologue says so.”

A bit of a non-sequiters in the context,but I agree.

May 18, 2005 - 3:24 pm 63. thibaud:

Thanks, Peter. Pretty depressing stuff. A pity that Coleman and Levin’s staffs did not prep their bosses more thoroughly about “Respect” and Galloway’s long history of well-quoted, well-documented, lickspittle support for fascists. Had Levin managed to read aloud Galloway’s line to Saddam, “On to Jerusalem!”, I think the US public would have paid a bit more attention to the man’s real nature.

May 18, 2005 - 3:30 pm 64. Terrye:

Peter IUK:

Today Bill Clinton said that the new government in Iraq was good for the region. And it shoud be noted that Democrats can be targets of Galloway as easily as Republicans and that is why you will see few of them pandering to them. I mean just who was in power back in 1994 when Galloway was getting on his knees for Saddam?

It might be acceptable to suck up to commies across the pond but this is America and even guys like Levin have their standards.

As for Coleman not being prepared I disagree.

Coleman has spent enough time in court to know it is the law that counts. I am sure he knows far more about this gas bag’s politics than even Galloway would guess he does.

I just think they made an effort to avoid turning the event into more of a cirucs than it had to be.

I don’t think Coleman or Levin either one said anything that Galloway can use later to claim they are out to get him.

As for letting him come here and his ability to sway our youth…I think people are overlooking the fact that they really could not do otherwise.

I have to say other than people like us who are really into this stuff and trolls at DU I have heard nothing about it.

May 18, 2005 - 4:39 pm 65. Terrye:

Peter I have no idea why I called you IUK. Must be getting senile.

and our Canadian friend is right, after that little performance in DC it will be really hard to convince the American people that the world will consider Bolton “rude”.

May 18, 2005 - 4:44 pm 66. PeterUK:

Yama-Arashi,

The point being the extreme left are making common cause with the Islamists.It is an area where for the first time the Western left has a ruthless and violent ally inside the West,the intention is to use Jihad as the stormtroops of the revolution against capitalism. It may be only a small beginning but to airily dismiss the phenomenon is foolish because the left are particularly influential in significant areas of American society.Do examine the anti-semitism rife in US universities.

Thanks for recommending a book, my I recommend you read Oliver Kamm in my link above.

May 18, 2005 - 5:30 pm 67. PeterUK:

Terrye,

It was probably a Freudian lapse.

May 18, 2005 - 5:31 pm 68. jedrury:

PeterUK:

Most respectfully, your argument that this will stay with the young American voter for some time is meritless; Galloway’s imprint on the American political landscape is yesterday’s news and by next week will be invisible.

What will stick in 2-4 years from now on the young minds of the American college student and the young voter is the price of beer, the length of skirts, the newest bra from Victoria’s Secret and what passes for the Apprentice then.

Political focus for the youthful American voter is a week at a time just as in England.

Hopefully, Iraq will be throughly stable and demonstrably democratic by then and other issues of the day will gain our attention. The only folks who’ll remember George Galloway will be some Scottish separatist party members and a few columnists at the Nation magazine.

May 18, 2005 - 6:18 pm 69. yama-arashi:

PeterUK,

I am certainly not “airily” dismissing anything. If I gave you that impression apologies. Your concerns are my concerns. Thus you’ll also find in a few of my posts in this thread that I explicitly drew a line in the sand with regard to this Galloway clown. Not so thinly veiled threats. But until then he’s a clown and I welcome his performance.

I’m sorry I don’t see the places which the far left seemingly have a stranglehold on American society as being all that important. And every thrust is met with a block and a stiff blow in return. So what if Said groupees rule Columbia and they are anti-semitic. This pales, it doesn’t even register, in comparison to the very real gains in relations the Jewish community has made vis-a-vis evangelicals. Columbia University and Dan Rather have no pull in the military or with the police forces, they certainly haven’t been getting those they consider the lesser of two evils elected. Things are going well, and believe me I am not dismissive of the lessons needed to be learned about the times when things have not gone well.

You caught me on a glass half full day; Actually, courtesy of Galloway. All his buddies are in jail and he’s thinking maybe he is next, or at the very least all his phones are bugged. It is going to be hard getting to that money he has stashed away. Although Soros might become his sugar daddy. Also, some of my so-called “airiness” might be due to the fact that I’ve been reading your posts for a long time, and I share many of your views and always appreciate your thoughts, and it is likely that familiarity has left me a bit too friendly in tone. But do recall I began this thread dismissive of Galloway, of the power of what his rhetoric, which pleases him so much, what it alone, and rhetoric in general, can accomplish. Even rhetoric I agree with, like Reagan’s “tear down this wall” is but icing, and it worked not because he said it, but because a few million men with lots of very expensive weapons had his back. I like the Moores and the Galloways loud and confident and feeling in the groove, fanned into a frenzy by the MSM, and willing to push things just a little bit too far. Which I think he did. And Coleman was right just to sit there and let him hang himself. I do not see his coming here as the start of anything that hasn’t already been going on for a long time, and I’d rather have a name and face I can point to, and what a mug it is.

May 18, 2005 - 6:36 pm 70. yama-arashi:

.

“few million men”– should be “men and women”

The evangelical example was just one of a number of potential examples.

May 18, 2005 - 6:43 pm 71. PeterUK:

Jedjury

How long did it take to get the myths of the Vietnam war out of peoples minds? Galloway is not the only one there will be a steady drip as this conflict progresses,there only needs to be one terrorist spectacular and the Tet Offensive will raise its head again.Fortunately the terrorist command structure seems to be somewhat chaotic and without political purpose.This game isn’t over by a long way,Saddam Hussein hasn’t been tried yet,Syria and Iran are still a thorn in the side, there are still opportunities for another political debacle like Abu Grhaib.

I am merely extrapolating what has gone before and what is happening now into the future.Myths seem ignored in the post-modern world but they are powerful nonetheless often defying logic and truth.

May 18, 2005 - 6:55 pm 72. PeterUK:

Yama-Arashi,

I never dismiss the rhetoric of funny little men with moustaches,not after,Lenin,Stalin and Hitler,whilst Galloway is not in the same class as Hitler,I feel it important to keep an eye on rehtoric in this age of immediate communication.

May 18, 2005 - 7:08 pm 73. Terrye:

Peter:

Then all the more reason to lock the idiot up in jail.

But we can not shut him up. If we can not keep F911 out of the theatres we can not deny Galloway the right to speak. Piece of crap that he is. Railing on about how he was right and we should have listened to him. Please, it was like hearing a cheating husband whine that he is not trusted. Galloway was not right about Saddam or his weapons or casualty numbers or anything else. He is so wrong that once you start arguing with the man there is no place to stop.

I know people in this country who are so tired of all the partisan bickering and rangling and accusations they just turn it off. And Galloway is one big fat tantrum most of them don’t feel they need to listen to. so they don’t. The young on the other hand pierce their noses so what can you expect?

I know the lefties at DU are nuts and I blame my generation for that, but I have to tell you that this young generation does not seem to me to be as radical as my own. And if Coleman gave Galloway a talking to and pointed out what a liar he was and Galloway just kept screaming his head off he would still be a hero. He does not have to make sense, he just has to be unrepentent. It is not as if the left is aware of facts or has any respect for them.

I also know the Islamists and the left and perhaps even the extreme right are making common cause against Israel and demcracy in the ME. This does worry me.

But here is the deal: Galloway can get a seat with the Respect Party, but most Americans will forget him in a week.

May 18, 2005 - 7:17 pm 74. Rick Ballard:

Terrye,

Some of aren’t going to forget that a first termer is running a critical Senate investigation like he was a Brooklyn DA running for re-election by indicting a low level capo. A Senate investigation isn’t supposed to be center ring at Ringling Bros.,Barnum & Bailey. Galloway may be the clown act but he was Saddam’s boy in Commons. For the moment he’s the heart throb of the ko$$acks and A league pols don’t create opposition heroes. Not intentionally anyway.

May 18, 2005 - 7:34 pm 75. yama-arashi:

Who said anything about not keeping an eye on him. I think it was I who said we need to keep “throwing tomatos and rotten eggs” at his performances. I think I am the only one who is saying when his rhetoric becomes something more than rhetoric alone, he needs to meet the fate Hitler didn’t meet early on. I must say I feel you aren’t really reading what I had to say. Not that I think it is much worth reading mind you, but still. I don’t like having thoughts I’m not thinking, or thinking of others, implied. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin got to where they got not on words but on terror and violence. Galloway has proven himself a sycophant and buddy of a tyrant who was every bit the student of Stalin and Hitler, but I don’t see him taking the extra step. If he does. You know where I stand.

I don’t think America is a powder keg waiting to be ignited by the words of this funny little British man in this age of immediate communication. We like Brits like Churchill and Blair, Burke and Disraeli are also nice, Shakespeare of course, but truth be told, we fought a war to get away from the rest, including the likes of this Galloway. I find you greatly underestimating the U.S. and overestimating a fringe MP with no power base living in a a small island off the coast of France.

May 18, 2005 - 7:46 pm 76. Terrye:

Rick:

I got to tell you Levin is not one of my favorite people. Everytime I see that man I find myself pushing my glasses up on my nose because he always looks like Benjamin Franklin with his spectacles.

And I think Levein probably kind of got a kick out of Coleman being yelled at. But the thing about Galloway is that he is a anti Semitic communist and hates America nobody who is running the place and that makes it hard for Levin to cuddle.

And you know what? I doubt that Levin would have let Galloway end up on that list of people if they did not have something. And I think the screaming commie knows that. So now we hear “I accuse!”

[I just finished doing some reading of the French Revolution and Galloway would have fit right in the Reign of Terror.]

yeah, I wish it was bipartisan but Washington is a very mean town.

May 18, 2005 - 7:59 pm 77. yama-arashi:

Rick,

Don’t be too quick to judge. See what the committee ends up with. A league pol gets to the bottom of things. A league pol wins the next election and helps get more members of his party into Congress.

Who cares who the Kossacks’ latest is. I’ve never been in a thread where so many right thinking, fascist hating, usually steady on their feet men whose opinions I always respect, and usually agree with, are so spooked by such a nothing. Burke is turning over in his grave. A little more gravitas, please. My lord how spoiled have we become, how easy do we have it, how far away are we from what we rightly fear, when such a furor can be made over so little. Jeez, I got American Congressmen and women who come to Japan and say worse than Galloway did yesterday.

May 18, 2005 - 7:59 pm 78. Rick Ballard:

Yama,

An A league pol turns an ethics investigation around and starts with McDermott while making sure that Pelosi and the press shut up by waving her dirty slip around a little bit. The Reps have Mitch McConnell in the Senate as an A leaguer. Most of the rest of them are trying to figure out how to get invited to New Hampshire to judge beauty contests. Fortunately the Dems are in even worse shape.

Hastert and McConnell can handle the action as long as prima donnas keep the spectacularly dumb plays – like calling Galloway – to a minimum.

If Coleman were one of the sharper pencils, he’d block the UN building renovation loan and demand that the GSA hire the architect and manage construction in return for making the loan at all. That would be a hard ball move. Calling Galloway was a ‘Where Are the Clowns’ moment in Senate history. I’m not concerned about Galloway’s lasting effect here at all. Britain is another matter. British Muslims don’t need this type as their champion in Commons.

Terrye,

Levin is the scorpion who stings the turtle that’s carrying him across the creek. He’s a sharp player and a total partisan. Coleman just got to play turtle this time. If he does it again, why then, he’s a fool. If he’s as smart as touted he shouldn’t need to be told about Levin because Levin has never been other than a scorpion.

May 18, 2005 - 8:31 pm 79. yama-arashi:

Rick,

We’ll see what Coleman had on him. Judging by Levin’s questions as well, I’m optimistic. Having a witness perjure himself is not bad. Having it on tape, priceless. Engaging in any kind of give and take with the witness a moment Coleman wisely avoided. Got it over quick and early on in the investigation. I think it was well done. Can’t wait till Hitchens fires away at him for a few months on end. Old Trotskyite versus Lenin-Stalinist battles always a pleasure to watch.

Though your point about Britain is well taken. Now Muslims with regards to Galloway have a stark decision to make. I like the lack of gray.

May 18, 2005 - 9:09 pm 80. Rick Ballard:

“a fringe MP with no power base living in a a small island off the coast of France.”

Is proving this small a fish a liar worthy of the Senate? Pasqua, Strong, assorted Russians, flowcharts of fund transfers with dates of deVillepins obstructionist speeches – that’s what Senate hearings are for. Not face time on TV while your “suspect” laughs at you.

May 18, 2005 - 9:45 pm 81. yama-arashi:

Rick,

We obviously don’t agree.

The hearings will continue. I hope the stuff you mention also comes out. If it doesn’t come out in the way you seem to have scripted it, I won’t be overly disappointed. I guess my expectations for the Senate aren’t as high as yours, and I’ll take what I can get. I’m not so quick to slam Coleman down nor think Levin is so agile. To your question. Yes proving a small fish a liar is worthy of the Senate. Especially if, in the end, all those fawning over him now have to have another Newsweek, Rathergate moment. Chris Matthews set himself up for a fall yesterday. Rush will have a great time with it. Even if it doesn’t turn out that way, no harm done. And especially if it is part of an emerging, larger picture, yes small fish, big fish, seaweed, bring them/it all in. If Galloway didn’t come, was denied an appearance, he could use that just as much to demagogue his point. Perhaps more. I have no problem having my “suspect” sneer and bluster. I’m only interested in the last laugh. I can now run a long line of witnesses against him and he can’t do anything about it. No cross-examining here. Heck, I’d fly Azziz on over and let him have a night out on the town, and possibly a guarantee he can keep his head, for the right testimony. But I doubt that is necessary. Fundamentally, I guess my take on Galloway’s testimony was a bit different than yours. He seemed to me like a desperate man playing a desperate hand. Those who are charmed by him I consider to be in the same boat. He confirmed everything I thought about oil for food and I saw his appearance in Washington, he can’t go to Baghdad anymore now can he, a positive sign of how well everything has progressed. Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree on this one.

Glad you seem to be over your illness, and back in fighting form. Have a good night.

May 18, 2005 - 10:36 pm 82. PeterUK:

Yama Arashi,

No one is spooked by Galloway,but having read the transcripts,which will be used again and again as a primary source,I come to a different conclusion of how it appears to the observer.

The first impression is that Galloway was given an easy ride,second that the Panel was a damp squib and thirdly Galloway was allowed to create a precedent by attacking the legitimacy of the questioners and the US,a tactic that will not be lost on those subsequentlt questioned.

I agree,with Rick Ballard the whole thing was turned into a three ringed circus,nothing of value was elicited from Galloway.

It is foolish to disregard the effect that this had on boosting the left whose belief system was reinforced by this.You might sneer at the left but they are still a potent force,why give another hostage to fortune.

By the way you have just witnessed Saddam Husseins defence writ small,US legitimacy will be in question and oddly this chimes with many in those little islands and backwater continents that you despise.

May 19, 2005 - 4:30 am 83. Canucklehead:

Rick and PeterUK, I don’t get your tact on the value in Galloway’s testimony. Like it or not, Galloway is a “window” to the British soul. There was a time when British opinion was world opinion. Then came the time when British opinion moved world opinion. Now, British opinion is simply part of world opinion.

We are at the tipping point to discern whether British opinion is worthy of consideration. Galloway packs a great deal of “punch” inside Britain. Outside of Britain, who cares? The game has been started and will be played out inside Britain, by Britains.

Norm Coleman has charted his course and will continue with his good work. His actions will leave eddy currents of analysts in his wake. (You can go round and round all you like but in the end you simply dissipate at the spot you where you presently are.)

The simple fact is that Galloway has reached all those who would be “charmed” by his message. His role is simply to separate the wheat from the chaff. You don’t prosper eating only chaff.

Galloway can be used for good works, whether he likes it or not. He has been put in play.

May 19, 2005 - 9:40 am 84. Terrye:

Peter:

I certainly do not despise Britain but I think that the point was to get Galloway to perjure himself. The alternative was to scream about how if the French can sell arms to Saddam so can we and he was just as wrong about the weapons as we were blah blah blah.

I am saying down that road lies madness.

Or the Senate could do a miniseries starring Galloway and a thousand witnesses to refute him at the end of which he would have jsut called them all imperialists scum and flounced off into the sunset.

As I said to wow the left and look like hot stuff on TV all he had to do was be defiant and he was.

Maybe we should have let him off the hook so as to avoid the scene. but I just don’t think that is right.

I honestly do not know what people expect someone like Coleman to do.

I was born during the Korean war and I was a small child when Kruschev pounded his shoe on a podium and promised to bury us. The reaction was much the same and look how that turned out.

May 19, 2005 - 2:39 pm 85. Terrye:

Guys this thread is probably dead but Galloway was not invited to a debate.

Many of you are acting as if he was.

May 19, 2005 - 2:46 pm 86. PeterUK:

Terrye,

I mentioned that in response to Yama.

My view is that he should not have been called,he is a small fry in the Oil For Food scam,but a major player in the propaganda stakes.What stops the Galloways of this world dead in their tracks is ignoring them. An opportunist is lost without an opportunity.

May 19, 2005 - 6:52 pm 87. Terrye:

Peter:

Hello. Well maybe there is more to this than we know. I did hear that labor wants a recall because they think he cheated on the election. surprise surprise.

We can not even fire a pretend Indian college professor that calls 911 victims little Eichmans much less tell a British MP to fuck off. But man would I like to.

I saw it, and I know that people’s perceptions are different but he seemed a bit crazed and I think most people thought he was crazy. I heard one man say he reminded him of a cornered pit bull.

It is human nature to want to smack a guy like that upside the head though. I think the propaganda value was balanced out by the sheer lunacy of the man.

The odd thing is most people just do not seem to care or even remember what he said. I guess it is getting old and they have heard it all before.

I just do not understand how anyone can pay any attention to a man who mourns the loss of the Soviet Union and was all cuddly with a dictator like Saddam. I mean I know that everyone was dealing with Saddam early on when the Ayatollah was threatening to destroy the world but eventually it became apparent he was not just your ordinary dictator. And the US and the UK backed off. but not Galloway.

But they are all going to do this. accuse the accuser. That is how and why people like this get away with the things they do. Just make outrageous claims and scream alot.

But Rick was right about Henry Hyde in the House, he is on this too and that old boy is smart.

May 19, 2005 - 9:02 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: