Skip

Mr Galloway goes to Washington
May 17, 2005 1:01 PM   Subscribe

In response to allegations of kickbacks, George Galloway gets to tell the American Senate just what he thinks. Skip the article and watch the film. Your 50 minutes of fun video footage are here. [realMedia] (That'll be fun in a "Controversial British MP vs American NeoCon Senator" sort of way)
posted by seanyboy (244 comments total)

 
This is all over the media here in Blighty and Galloway gave Coleman a fairly hefty beating (the Rumsfeld thing was a particular delight), but what I want to know is how is it playing in the US?

Is it on the news? Is it being talked about? Did anybody watch it?
posted by fullerine at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2005


*standing ovation*
Coleman was sputtering something about him not being credible and if he wasn't forthright there will be consequences, blah blah.
The neocon sock puppets around here will be in denial in 3,2,1..
posted by 2sheets at 1:14 PM on May 17, 2005


"The Mother of all smokescreens" from Tom Tomorrow's site.
posted by michaelonfs at 1:15 PM on May 17, 2005


Oh boy. An anti-semetic criminal apologist for Saddam's regime calling the Senate "a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neocon George Bush who is pro-war."

Carl Levin struck the right notes to show what a fool this guy is.

Over here, Galloway will play as a lunatic anti-American, anti-semetic nutcase. And rightfully so. Other than giving powerless Bush haters something to wank to, this is largely a non-event.
posted by dios at 1:16 PM on May 17, 2005


When i last checked the goodle news index there didn't seem to be much US press on the event - almost all of it from elsewhere. New york times, abc news and voice of america seemed to be running fairly small pieces about it. Galloway's delivery was absolutely masterful - the best bit of TV in ages.
posted by silence at 1:17 PM on May 17, 2005


In fact, regarding how it will "play" here: Karl Rove couldn't have constructed a better PR exemplar of what those who are rabidly opposed to Bush are like. It might play well internationally to those who are already anti-Bush, but in America, this will help the administration by marginalizing and lampooning the opposition with the anti-Semitism and rabid anti-Americanism.
posted by dios at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2005


I haven't seen it covered anywhere yet, but Galloway is going to be on Charlie Rose tonight.
posted by Turd Ferguson at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2005


And rightfully so.

evidence? please bear in mind that galloway has won 1.6 million quid in libel so far.......
posted by quarsan at 1:24 PM on May 17, 2005


.
I find it helps to whisper "fapfapfap" when reading dios. Perhaps those who would be inclined to pick up his gauntlet would also benefit from doing this instead.
posted by Fezboy! at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2005


I was involved in anti-Bush and anti-war activities in London over the 2003-2004 period, and I met Mr Galloway and had the chance to hear him speak several times.

Today's was a bravura performance, and I applaud many of the sentiments he expressed as well as his brutally frank challenge to my government's errant policymakers.

That being said, the man never met a microphone he didn't like.

For as much as I really want to believe he wanted to clear his name, it is inconceivable to me that he did not view this as a massive PR opportunity for the Galloway brand name. I can well imagine him sitting down to watch the Senate grilling scene from The Aviator and taking notes.

*grumble* can't believe he's my local MP now *grumble*
posted by LondonYank at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2005


fezboy, thanks for that tio, it works!
posted by quarsan at 1:28 PM on May 17, 2005


It might play well internationally to those who are already anti-Bush, but in America, this will help the administration by marginalizing and lampooning the opposition with the anti-Semitism and rabid anti-Americanism.

Well, as long as it plays well in his home district, all is well for him.

Btw, what exactly did he say that was so anti-Semitic? Or is everyone who complains about "Zionism" now anti-Semitic?

Is that how it works? Either you support an ethnically pure homeland, or you're a racist? Fascinating.
posted by delmoi at 1:28 PM on May 17, 2005


It might play well internationally to those who are already anti-Bush, but in America, this will help the administration by marginalizing and lampooning the opposition with the anti-Semitism and rabid anti-Americanism.

Bullshit.

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

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


You know what? On this, Galloway was right. And the administration and its apologists, like Coleman, were wrong.

Ah, but being American these days means never having to admit you were wrong...
posted by kgasmart at 1:32 PM on May 17, 2005


I heard some of this on the radio ... lovely.
posted by R. Mutt at 1:33 PM on May 17, 2005


An anti-semetic criminal apologist for Saddam's regime

care to back that up, Dios, with anything resembling the actualite.

what is clear is that Galloway wiped the floor with your shambolic politicians today, on all counts. whereas Galloway spoke without notes throughout, the Senate Committee's crib sheets on this whole absurd diversion from what is going on in Iraq have been previously dissed out of the park.

from a fellow Glaswegian, get it right up them, George


posted by skellum at 1:35 PM on May 17, 2005


From what appears to be the Senate's Report

IX. CONCLUSION
Despite Galloway’s denials, the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, including Hussein-era documents from the Ministry of Oil and testimony from senior Hussein officials, shows that Iraq granted George Galloway allocations for millions of barrels of oil under the Oil for Food Program. Moreover, some evidence indicates that Galloway appeared to use a charity for children’s leukemia to conceal payments associated with at least one such allocation. Lastly, according to senior Hussein officials, the oil allocations were granted by Iraq because of Galloway’s support for the Hussein regime and his opposition to U.N. sanctions.
posted by dios at 1:39 PM on May 17, 2005


Don't hold your breath, skellum. Dios has yet to provide any support for his claim that Noam Chomsky is a holocaust denier, but he'll stick by that accusation just the same.
posted by gigawhat? at 1:41 PM on May 17, 2005


It's just that every time I, personally, hear the signifier "Zionist" coming out of the mouths of pro-Palestine-ian (as, in favor of the nation), anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-whatever mouths, I am overpowered with the sense that, had they the ability to get away with it, it would be replaced with its true signified, "Jew lover", in a goddamn heartbeat. The casually venom-encrusted manner in which "Zionist" is used by Galloway and his fellow travellers fills me with rage, disgust and disappointment.
posted by gsh at 1:41 PM on May 17, 2005


To those of you who are yelling at me and arguing that "Galloway was right." Fine. That wasn't the question. The question that I address is how it will play in America. The answer to that, in my opinion, is poorly. I think his testimony will be seen as a raving lunatic, and in that regard, it will help Bush.

His antics might be well recieved on the back benches of Parliment and in European civil society. But here in America, with most Americans, he will play as raving Anti-semite, Anti-American lunatic. That is an opinion; we will have to see who is right on this matter. To Americans, he will be Michael Moore... he will be Howard Dean's YEEARRGHH!. It doesn't play well with most Americans.
posted by dios at 1:43 PM on May 17, 2005


*fwapfwapfwap*
posted by Floydd at 1:46 PM on May 17, 2005


Can someone pls. direct me to a few juicy timestamps? That whole short attention span thing is... ooooooh, shiny penny!
posted by mkultra at 1:47 PM on May 17, 2005


It doesn't play well with most Americans.

Yeah, but I think that says more about Americans than it says about Mr. Galloway.
posted by kgasmart at 1:48 PM on May 17, 2005


Don't hold your breath, skellum. Dios has yet to provide any support for his claim that Noam Chomsky is a holocaust denier, but he'll stick by that accusation just the same.
posted by gigawhat? at 1:41 PM PST on May 17


Don't drag shit from another thread into this one. I explained myself in that one after I had provided some links. If you want to discuss this further, e-mail me. But don't be trolling people across threads to just start shit. Don't be AlexReynolds.
posted by dios at 1:48 PM on May 17, 2005


Yeah, but I think that says more about Americans than it says about Mr. Galloway.
posted by kgasmart at 1:48 PM PST on May 17


Fine. Americans are stupid ignorant pigs or whatever insult you want to level because you disagree with them. It doesn't change how it will play with them, which seems to be the question at hand.
posted by dios at 1:50 PM on May 17, 2005


Well, dios, speaking not only as an American, but as a Minnesotan (Coleman is my representative), it sure looks to me like Norm very rationally and effectively had his grandstanding rump handed to him on a silver platter in an international forum.

Sample size = 2, if you count my household, and so far that beats your own sample size = 1.
posted by clever sheep at 1:50 PM on May 17, 2005


The question that I address is how it will play in America

Galloway's appearance before the Congressional committee played well to this American. I look forward to his appearance on Charlie Rose tonight.
posted by ericb at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2005


dios is bringing up as evidence the very same senate report galloway just spent an entire session shredding to pieces. please keep going, this is fun!
posted by mr.marx at 1:52 PM on May 17, 2005


"Jew lover"

wtf?
why not "kike", then? strawmen much?
just last night I was discussing with Felix Betachat how I don't like the post-1948 use of "Zionist", but Jesus Christ. in my view "Zionist" kind of became a synonym for "Settler Fan", and I still think "Likudnik" or "ParisParamus" are more precise and more clear definitions for that sorry, warmongering bunch. but still, "Jew lover"? wtf is that?


It doesn't play well with most Americans.

"most" = 51%
sore winners, indeed.

I'm already on the record on saying that the whole Coleman/Galloway celebrity deathmatch is a bad Monty Python skit -- Galloway's constituents will go nuts about it, as will most anti-war people (ie, almost everybody on this sorry planet except 51% of Americans who voted last November) -- I mean, the Rumsfeld bits were pure gleeful vitriol. and impossible to deny, too.

Coleman fans will probably like the skit, too: but not much. Coleman's not much of a speaker, and Galloway was quicker on his feet.
problem is, the GOP doesn't have shit on Galloway -- he'll walk, and he'll keep winning lawsuits for the forseeable future like he has been doing as of now. if they had a stitch of real evidence, Galloway would already be in Guantanamo now, spending "a bad night" before interrogation.
posted by matteo at 1:53 PM on May 17, 2005


No mention of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism or what-have-you in the Washington Post's account. I'd say they're playing it more-or-less neutral; it's certainly not a slam dunk against Galloway.
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:54 PM on May 17, 2005


Well, to shed some light on the debate....

Current headline on the Fox News site: "Saucy Brit Berates Congress, U.S." (I won't deign to link directly)

Sauce-ay!
posted by mkultra at 1:55 PM on May 17, 2005


To Americans, he will be Michael Moore... he will be Howard Dean's YEEARRGHH!. It doesn't play well with most Americans.

Of course, when Dios says "most" he means "people who agree with me".

And we all know that most americans are just dying to fillatiate Karl Rove.
posted by delmoi at 1:55 PM on May 17, 2005


I like watching the UK parliment on C-SPAN. They kick so much more ass than US congressmen (Jim Traficant and Cynthia McKinney excepted). It's like watching DC comic stars take on Marvel. Galloway wins.
posted by airguitar at 1:56 PM on May 17, 2005




It's just that every time I, personally, hear the signifier "Zionist" coming out of the mouths of pro-Palestine-ian (as, in favor of the nation), anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-whatever mouths, I am overpowered with the sense that, had they the ability to get away with it, it would be replaced with its true signified, "Jew lover", in a goddamn heartbeat.

And, as we all know, overpowering senses indicate absolute truth!
posted by delmoi at 1:57 PM on May 17, 2005


Monty Python is so funny! Oh, you means this wasn't a British Humor story?
posted by the_barbarian at 1:59 PM on May 17, 2005


Americans are stupid ignorant pigs or whatever insult you want to level because you disagree with them. It doesn't change how it will play with them, which seems to be the question at hand.
posted by dios


No, THIS is the question at hand:

...this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth. Have a look at the real oil- for-food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months, when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and the other American corporations that stole Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer. Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where. Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it. Have a look at the real scandal, breaking in the newspapers today. Revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee, that the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians; the real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own government.
posted by Floydd at 2:03 PM on May 17, 2005


dios writes " Don't drag shit from another thread into this one."

Why not dios? It goes to your credibility.

Now stop wasting my time.
posted by orthogonality at 2:03 PM on May 17, 2005


a partial transcript from the times and a few tasters:

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice."

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war"

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

posted by quarsan at 2:04 PM on May 17, 2005


It's obvious that the pro/anti war people here are going to proclaim victory on this. I think the main interest to the piece was the differences in debating styles between the two parties. Galloway definitely toned down his rhetoric, I suspect for an American audience and the senate seemed hugely polite. It was still interesting though. Out of the two people who questioned him, the second guy really impressed me. Even though he played the slightly befuddled but strangely clued up cliche down to a tee.

For Galloway, this can only be seen as a victory. He used the hearing as a political stage. I don't think there was a point he wanted to make that he didn't. I also don't think he cares if people believe him or not. He effectively got to tell the American Public that American Administrations have murdered babies and American Soldiers.
posted by seanyboy at 2:04 PM on May 17, 2005


The sad fact is that there's no doubt that this will be spun precisely as dios predicts, and he cites the two recent examples of how it's been done, very efficiently, twice in the past year alone. What dios describes is not how we'll perceive it, it's how we'll be told we perceive it. And we'll beleive that everyone feels that way, and Galloway will drop out of sight far quicker than Dean and Moore did. Paul Wellstone was one of the few to survive every attack on his character, every attempt at demonization, but unfortunately he didn't survive a plane crash. Oh, and what a coincidence, look who took his place.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:06 PM on May 17, 2005


It's just that every time I, personally, hear the signifier "Zionist" coming out of the mouths of pro-Palestine-ian (as, in favor of the nation), anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-whatever mouths, I am overpowered with the sense that, had they the ability to get away with it, it would be replaced with its true signified, "Jew lover", in a goddamn heartbeat

Personally, I'm overpowered with the sense that, had you the ability to get away with it, "fellow travellers" would be replaced with its true signified, "commie pinko traitors", in a goddamn heartbeat. It probably doesn't mean much.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:06 PM on May 17, 2005


I am overpowered with the sense that, had they the ability to get away with it, it would be replaced with its true signified, "Jew lover", in a goddamn heartbeat

Check your paranoid sense of persecution at the door.
posted by iamck at 2:12 PM on May 17, 2005


Other than giving powerless Bush haters something to wank to, this is largely a non-event.

Best wank I've had in a while, just the same.
posted by aparrish at 2:14 PM on May 17, 2005


I mean, is it just me, or do the UK statesmen have that much more verbal kung-fu, like they were born with a bit of Shakespeare and Churchill in each of them?
posted by airguitar at 2:17 PM on May 17, 2005


I would submit that if you find yourself lined up on the side of Galloway, and opposite Carl Levin, you might want to reconsider your position. Notwithstanding Galloway's embarassing attempt to paint the entire committee with a broad-brush, Levin is the opposite of a Bush lackey. If he doubts Galloway's veracity, I expect he does so with good reason.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:19 PM on May 17, 2005


I mean, is it just me, or do the UK statesmen have that much more verbal kung-fu, like they were born with a bit of Shakespeare and Churchill in each of them?

I think that's reflective of their parliamentary style. Someone who can't think on their feet is eaten alive.
posted by jperkins at 2:20 PM on May 17, 2005


George_Spiggott,

Moore's got a few new movies coming out. Dean is head of the DNC. You may not have liked who won the election, but neither man "dropped out of sight."

Unfortunately, I think you're right about Galloway. But only because he's not from round here. And also because he may turn out to be, you know, guilty. I have no idea. But awesome rhetoric and simpatico political views doesn't make him de facto innocent.
posted by hackly_fracture at 2:23 PM on May 17, 2005


Corrupt, grandstanding politicians battle! Film at 11!

I think Galloway is not the best guy, but the Senate needs more drama like this. Our senate is the most moribund political theatre in the world. Last time the American people paid attention to it? When some baseball player cried because he took steroids.

I want more yelling, fighting, eloquence, putdowns, and other stuff like this. Unfortunatley our politicians are shite.
posted by chaz at 2:23 PM on May 17, 2005


most americans are just dying to fillatiate Karl Rove

What is that word supposed to be?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:27 PM on May 17, 2005


Fellate, I think...

MeFi spell check gone horribly, horribly wrong?
posted by kableh at 2:36 PM on May 17, 2005


I would submit that if you find yourself lined up on the side of Galloway, and opposite Carl Levin, you might want to reconsider your position.

Ahh, we should go back to getting raped by the Republicans on every turn, rather than standing up and calling them on thier lies?

George Galloway did what Kerry wouldn't do. In my eyes, he's earned far more respect than your average Democratic senator has. He, for exampled, voted against the war.

I may not agree with Galloway on most things. But I have far more respect for him than for any US Senator currently seated, because, unlike the 45 who claim to represent me, he stood up to the right and fought -- and kept fighting. He said, today, what Democrats should have been saying since day one. This war is unjustified, illegal, and morally wrong.
posted by eriko at 2:41 PM on May 17, 2005


It was on CNN a few minutes ago when i got in--a stupid clip of Galloway talking about holes in his shoes and that he's staying in a cheap hotel. Senator Levin was on right before that and says Galloway's Jordanian friend funneled money from oil-for-food to Galloway's campaigns. At 6pm, Coleman's supposed to be on Lou Dobbs/CNN.

thanks for this, seanyboy--i was reading about it all afternoon, but can't stream from work.
posted by amberglow at 2:44 PM on May 17, 2005


most americans are just dying to fillatiate Karl Rove
What is that word supposed to be?


to perform fellatio
posted by delmoi at 2:44 PM on May 17, 2005


-sidebar derail re: use of "zionism"-

Although I certainly cannot speak for anyone or any community besides myself on this, as a modern American Jew, I make it a point to firmly separate "Judaism" from "Zionism" in my thinking. Zionism, being defined as the support of the state of Israel, embodies certain conflicts for me. On the one hand, I should think of it as a kind of spiritual homeland or at least as a preserved space for Jews as some sort of Holocaust Compensation. The idea of a state of Israel is fine with me. However, it's application and the policies of the state that "represents my people" are generally deplorable in my opinion. I have come to equate the term "Zionist" with someone who either a) views Israel as a strategic western foothold in the MidEast or b) some nutjob (Jewish or otherwise) who thinks that all Jews belong back in Israel. To be truthful, if someone calls the American government "Zionist," I suspect that they usually mean that in reference to our governments use of Israel as a political asset (unless this person obviously has a racial agenda, in which case they do actually mean "Jew Lover" as a negative). In fact, labeling the American government as an institution that "loves Jews" makes me laugh (in a sad way).

-end sidebar derail-
posted by Jon-o at 2:46 PM on May 17, 2005


But I have far more respect for him than for any US Senator currently seated...
posted by eriko at 2:41 PM PST on May 17


But eriko, are you suggesting he did so on principle? Could it be he took that position because he was being bribed by Saddam? A lot of people here assume, as a given, that because there is a link between Bush and oil companies, that he must be acting out of patronage and not principle regarding Iraq and/or energy policy.

So do you care what the motivations were for Galloway's stance? Or is the fact that he said what you wanted enough?
posted by dios at 2:47 PM on May 17, 2005


neither man "dropped out of sight."

Their messages certainly did. The "Dean scream" was the end of his candidacy and the end of any serious discussion of his points; from that point on it was the scream alone that anyone talked about. The actual content of Moore's film was so buried under the weight of ad hominem that was swiftly piled on him that it actually helped Bush by providing an out for the charges it contained -- any mention of the points made in the film (despite the fact that the points existed outside the film and had been made by others) afforded the swift and irrationally effective attack "oh, you're just spouting Michael Moore propaganda." It's really stunningly effective, and it works in part because of a tame and cowardly media but mostly because we let it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:47 PM on May 17, 2005


Coleman's droning on...thinking about this--i can't remember a British MP ever testifying before Congress. Did Blair do this for payback?
posted by amberglow at 2:49 PM on May 17, 2005


Ahh, we should go back to getting raped by the Republicans on every turn, rather than standing up and calling them on thier lies?

Not my point. Galloway wasn't called to testify about the morality of the war. He was called to testify about oil-for-food. Levin believes he lied on that subject. (In fact, it's significant that Galloway's entire rhetorical strategy was to focus on the war).

If you put the proven blowhard Galloway up against the sober Levin, any sane person would have to defer to Levin (absent firsthand knowledge to the contrary, which nobody posting in this thread has).
posted by pardonyou? at 2:50 PM on May 17, 2005


G_S,

I agree, actually, and think you could point to the link down yonder on Chomsky for another example.

Just wanted to point out that you'll probably hear from both men again.

on preview:

yeah, pardonyou, I loved every point he made, but "the mother of all smokescreens" cuts both ways.
posted by hackly_fracture at 2:53 PM on May 17, 2005


The "Dean scream" was the end of his candidacy

His failure in Iowa was the end of his candidacy.
posted by airguitar at 2:55 PM on May 17, 2005


aw, BBC's not showing Coleman's face during all this. boo.

pardonyou, Galloway has clearly shown that the charges against him are false and unsubstantiated. He's talking about how some of the people quoted by the Senators are prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and that he's never met them. And that there's no real evidence of anything--no proof, and no money, and no record of money. Watch this bbc thing--watch the testimony.
posted by amberglow at 2:58 PM on May 17, 2005


This is the Senators grandstanding, as usual. Where is the proof of all this? Don't you think that the Senators would have released at least some of it to the media (if they had any), as they always do? Wouldn't the UN release it too? It's not secret.
posted by amberglow at 2:59 PM on May 17, 2005


Galloway's proving that they're lying--excellent. We need more of that. And don't forget he won tons of money from the Telegraph for their false statements.
posted by amberglow at 3:01 PM on May 17, 2005


parsonyou?, Carl Levin is my senator, and he isn't the labour Dem. he was 15 years ago. I've been shocked at how far to the right he's moved the last 6 years or so.

John Dingell is still mostly fighting the good fight over in the House, though.
posted by QIbHom at 3:01 PM on May 17, 2005


well done george !
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:04 PM on May 17, 2005


...forgeries from the Christian Science Monitor? I never heard of that. Any links around?

Galloway is mopping up the floor with them! : >
posted by amberglow at 3:05 PM on May 17, 2005


carl levin: gobbling the engorged dong of west michigan's moneyed dutch christian reformed ponzi schemers.
posted by quonsar at 3:09 PM on May 17, 2005


Could it be he took that position because he was being bribed by Saddam? A lot of people here assume, as a given, that because there is a link between Bush and oil companies, that he must be acting out of patronage and not principle regarding Iraq and/or energy policy.

I don't know about Galloway in particular, but this statement is not accurate in a fundamental way.

There was a large left/liberal movement of which Galloway was part, to end the sanctions. There were huge protest marches against the sanctions and it was a generally held tenet among left/liberals that the Iraqi sanctions were deplorable, because they only punished the Iraqi people and not Hussein or his regime.

So, regardless of Galloway in particular, the default position for someone from the left/liberal/antiwar position would be to be against the sanctions, just as someone from an oil company background can generally be thought of as in favor of certain energy policies.

That may have nothing to do with Galloway and/or Bush in particular, but in general your assertion is incorrect in its factual bearing.
posted by chaz at 3:11 PM on May 17, 2005


I think Galloway's opening statement is one of the greatest speeches in delivery and content I've ever seen. Galloway has mad skillz.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:11 PM on May 17, 2005


Once again, the PBS NewsHour, down the middle and right on.
posted by airguitar at 3:12 PM on May 17, 2005


ah, Prince Bandar, and a UAE guy also gave tons of money to Miriam's Appeal--what kind of game is Coleman playing? He doesn't mention them--Galloway's right. He rocks--i want to vote for him. : >

chaz--i think it's Europe's left that felt that way--many here felt that sanctions were good and containing Saddam, and if not good--at least better than another war. Many here would have rather seen endless sanctions instead of invasion.
posted by amberglow at 3:14 PM on May 17, 2005


Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life.

Keep cheering the man who claims that the crumble of a regime with the blood of 61 million people on its hands was the biggest catastrophe of (his) life.
posted by Kwantsar at 3:20 PM on May 17, 2005


ah, thedevildancedlighty, always there with the good spelling advice.

regardless of what you believe about this testimony in the senate, its just the sort of spirited debate this country needs.

a stirring of the pot if you will. just what our own politicians would never get their hands dirty over.

i assume , americans may take interest in politics again if people involved were as interested in getting down to the heart of the matter as this galloway gentlemen is.

as for who came out better in this hearing? i'm not sure

but it may be the one who pointed out the most damning evidence, and the one who showed the hypocrisy of some of the worlds most powerful people.

(note to neocons , you notice i said people,
and not americans. a nation is not one or two persons toy.
i'm not unamerican, i am an american, not because i agree with the powerful, but because i live here and i have a right to say how my country acts, those who go against the good of the nation for the gain of a few are not just unamerican, they are truly traitors against the people and not fit to be called an american.)
posted by nola at 3:21 PM on May 17, 2005


"...you're such a hero, senator."

snap!
posted by furtive at 3:25 PM on May 17, 2005


Amberglow, you're right. But Galloway was part of that movement in England. Over here Madeline Albright famously said that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children were 'worth it'. I have a close friend who is fairly left/liberal but believed that invasion was far preferable to endless sanctions for obvious reasons, as they were setting the country back for year economically and health-wise as medicine was scarce, and that there was no way to break the sanctions given the fact that America's center left was pro-sanction.
posted by chaz at 3:26 PM on May 17, 2005


ah, shades of Rathergate too: ...It said Mr Galloway's name had been pasted on to a list of people and companies alleged to have made money out of the Oil For Food programme.
His name appeared in a different typeface to other words on the same line, the print was lighter in colour and Respect suggested it had been stuck on and then the page re-photocopied.
His name also appeared at a slight angle and Respect said that would be impossible on the computerised document unless it had been artificially added.
Mr Galloway's party said there was a clear link between the list in the Senate Committee's report and one which appeared in a Baghdad newspaper in January last year.
Respect highlighted the claims of Sajad Ahmad Ali, who has previously claimed to have been involved in forging that list.
Mr Ali said: "We forged this list of names and titles of people who got money from the Ministry of Information, the palace and the Oil For Food. ...


honestly, chaz, i would much rather have seen the sanctions go on and on than this horrible shit we're seeing now. We've done much more and more lasting damage to Iraq now than then.
posted by amberglow at 3:28 PM on May 17, 2005


Many here would have rather seen endless sanctions instead of invasion.

Which was worse? or Which will be?
posted by airguitar at 3:31 PM on May 17, 2005


Neither were good, or good.
posted by airguitar at 3:32 PM on May 17, 2005


good or right
posted by airguitar at 3:33 PM on May 17, 2005


(and of course, that all of us on the center left had and still have absolutely no power over any of this, since Jan.01)

air, i think this invasion and occupation has already been shown to be worse, and continues to worsen daily. No matter what damage the sanctions did, there was a modern society there then and not now. There was a professional class there and not now. There was running water and electricity there and not now. There were intact families there and not now. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:33 PM on May 17, 2005


Correct. Cluster bombs are worse than protracted starvation. But protracted starvation isn't good or right.
posted by airguitar at 3:36 PM on May 17, 2005


The glue that held a country together has been dissolved by us thru the invasion and continuing occupation--and even if that glue was toxic, it held a country together, enabling many to live their lives. How many Iraqis are doing that now? Will ever be able to now? What kind of civil war did sanctions provoke? What kind of shit are we now creating?

ahh, Coleman's on CNN now, lying--saying circumstantial evidence is just as damning (in his dreams maybe).

a question for the Brits? Does Galloway have a mansion? Swiss bank accounts? any proof at all of money?
posted by amberglow at 3:40 PM on May 17, 2005


Galloway papers deemed forgeries
Iraq experts, ink-aging tests discredit documents behind earlier Monitor story.
By staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
On April 25, 2003, this newspaper ran a story about documents obtained in Iraq that alleged Saddam Hussein's regime had paid a British member of Parliament, George Galloway, $10 million over 11 years to promote its interests in the West.
An extensive Monitor investigation has subsequently determined that the six papers detailed in the April 25 piece are, in fact, almost certainly forgeries.

posted by matteo at 3:43 PM on May 17, 2005


thanks, matteo. This is the Senate grandstanding--definitely. Imbeciles.
posted by amberglow at 3:45 PM on May 17, 2005


Kwanstar's off-topic trolling (oh, OK, and watching the testimony in total) has changed my mind. All hail Galloway!
posted by hackly_fracture at 3:50 PM on May 17, 2005


"off-topic trolling," hackly-fracture?

You don't think it's appropriate to educate Galloway's new fan club about some of the positions he holds?
posted by Kwantsar at 3:54 PM on May 17, 2005


I have no desire to get involved in this pro-anti Galloway post but to note that when Galloway states that he was right that Iraquis would turn against us I believe he is in error. It is clear--whetgher you are for or against the Bush war--that the so-called "insurgents" are mostly outsiders--from Jordan, Syria, Iran and of course Saudi Arbvaia (most of the suicide bombers from there)...
I do note that many of the posts adore the dramatic and rhetorical sk.lls of Galloway.I felt the same way about the speeches of Adolph Hitler when I ran a series on the Nazis and the Holocaust. I am not comparing the two but simply noting that "style" ought not trump content.
posted by Postroad at 3:58 PM on May 17, 2005


ah, thedevildancedlighty, always there with the good spelling advice.

Soon we'll get you to capitalization and use of apostrophes to indidcate the posessive (as in "one or two persons' toy")

:)

Keep on keeping on, no harm intended.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:00 PM on May 17, 2005


How is it relevant to this testimony before Congress, or the price of milk, or anything at all, Kwantsar? It appears you're just sliming him as a commie sympathizer. Will you tell us he likes French wine next?

I don't think it's clear at all that most are foreign, Postroad, for the very simple reason that we invaded and occupied Iraq, not any of those other countries. I know what people here in the US would do to any occupiers--we wouldn't need foreigners coming in to do it at all. We've radicalized many many Iraqis and continue to do so daily.
posted by amberglow at 4:01 PM on May 17, 2005


This is so much fun. I would *love* for US politicians to have to face some of the challenges of British politics. God, to set up Jeremy Paxman against Bush would be heavenly.
posted by bonaldi at 4:02 PM on May 17, 2005


Oh that was beautiful. The full 50 minute or so video feed of the session is well worth the watch. I haven't seen such pitiful questioning and flimsy evidence met with such a withering rebuke in...well... ever. Absolutley awesome.


(as a side note, Galloway reminds me a bit of Terrence Stamp... I kept expecting him to hop the table and start bashing heads ala The Limey)
posted by stenseng at 4:02 PM on May 17, 2005


If he doubts Galloway's veracity, I expect he does so with good reason.

Oh, of course. I always trust our elected representatives, even when they offer no proof whatsoever!

I'm a Jew-loving anti-zionist, btw.

Keep cheering the man who claims that the crumble of a regime with the blood of 61 million people on its hands was the biggest catastrophe of (his) life.

Nice diversionary tactic! Go George! America has lots of blood on its hands too, but I wouldn't want the U.S. to crumble. Your point stinks.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:03 PM on May 17, 2005


Galloway definitely toned down his rhetoric, I suspect for an American audience and the senate seemed hugely polite. It was still interesting though.

From the excerpts I heard on The World on PRI, it sounds like it was all Galloway all the way. You'd think some of those senators might have watched Question Time in the House of Commons on CSPAN. Didn't they know what they were going to be in for ? He bitchslapped the whole Senate.

Over here, Galloway will play as a lunatic anti-American, anti-semetic nutcase. And rightfully so.

To pro wrestling fans ? Get real. It was a smackdown.

The dios-onator... Man, he's spinning faster than an out of balance washing machine on Final Rinse. Puttin' the jerk in circle jerk...
posted by y2karl at 4:09 PM on May 17, 2005


honestly, chaz, i would much rather have seen the sanctions go on and on than this horrible shit we're seeing now. We've done much more and more lasting damage to Iraq now than then.

Actually amberglow, that's not really true. The sanctions are likely responsible for as many as a million dead as Gallow and others admit. Hell, even that witch Albright (and I don't say that because of her appearance) admitted to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

It's a fallacy to think we had to either have the sanctions as they existed or invade. The invasion was criminality compounded by insanity, but the sanctions as they existed were insanity compounded by atrocity.
posted by the_savage_mind at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2005


For rememberence only, here's the recently posted Galloway vs Paxman.
posted by seanyboy at 4:20 PM on May 17, 2005


Rather than wasting Congressional time asking British politicians about whether they got political contributions from people connected to the oil-for-food program, maybe Coleman should subpoena George Bush next, asking him whether he found it troubling that David B. Chalmers, CEO of BayOil / Coral Oil and Gas, profited significantly by circumventing the oil-for-food program.

He should find it troubling. After all, Chalmers was a significant Texas donor to the Republican Party...
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:48 PM on May 17, 2005


yup, insomnia--where is Chalmers while they play for the cameras with a Brit?

for our foreign friends, this sums up our media: British MP: Charges 'a pack of lies': Galloway denies profiting from oil-for-food program--...He called the accusations against him "a pack of lies." ...

I just watched it--he repeatedly called our rationales for invading Iraq a "pack of lies", NOT the oil-for-food thing.
posted by amberglow at 4:51 PM on May 17, 2005


This is all over the media here in Blighty and Galloway gave Coleman a fairly hefty beating (the Rumsfeld thing was a particular delight), but what I want to know is how is it playing in the US?

Is it on the news? Is it being talked about? Did anybody watch it?


This American saw it on the ABC evening news, and it played like a well-deserved and -delivered verbal spanking of humiliated senators. Mr. Galloway's forthright dressing-down of his accusers was a joy to observe.
posted by longsleeves at 4:56 PM on May 17, 2005


I mean, is it just me, or do the UK statesmen have that much more verbal kung-fu, like they were born with a bit of Shakespeare and Churchill in each of them?

No, it isn't just you. They do. Because they have to if they are to survive in parliament. Parliament is an adverserial bear pit and long may it continue to be so. If you can't handle yourself verbally and think on your feet, you're dead. This is why Bliar, much as I hate the bastard, could leave the linguistically spastic likes of George Bush for dead, were it not for the fact that he chose to suck up to the miserable scumbag instead.

Also, in the UK our default attitude to politicians is distrust and cynicism. We are not deferential; we are suspicious and combative. We simply assume that the sort of person who would actively seek power over other people is not to be trusted, and we treat them accordingly. Hence Paxman, Humphreys, Spitting Image, Radio 4 Question Time and so on and so forth.

The upshot of this is that our politicians had better be tough-minded and verbally astute, or they will end up as a sorry heap of spat-upon has-been in very short order.
posted by Decani at 4:58 PM on May 17, 2005


It's a fallacy to think we had to either have the sanctions as they existed or invade. The invasion was criminality compounded by insanity, but the sanctions as they existed were insanity compounded by atrocity.

All that is true, and I don't dispute your point. I think the sanctions were a pretty atroucious way to punish, since they only seemed to hurt the poor. But here's the thing, and this is going to sound horrible, but we weren't dying over them. I think all life is important and I don't want Iraqi children dying anymore than American children, but if you offer me the choice of how to punish a brutal dictator and it's casualties on their side, or casualties on both our sides, then the choice is going to be an easy one for me.

And if you think I'm being a bastard about this, try talking with the families of people who are over there like some of my friends. See what choice they'd have made. Right now we're arguing about the oil-for-food program while we're losing around a soldier a day. I really don't think this is what we should be wasting our time with, and I have to admire Galloway for exposing the whole thing as a sham.
posted by lumpenprole at 5:01 PM on May 17, 2005


Amazing testimony, and creepy, subject-changing, soundbite-creating questioning.
posted by interrobang at 5:03 PM on May 17, 2005


Decani : Though there are exceptions. Boris Johnson springs to mind. Hardly the most rottweiler-like of politicians. Though, even in the midst of his bumbling charm, he does have a certain verbal astuteness :)
posted by kaemaril at 5:03 PM on May 17, 2005


Decani, it used to be like that here, but no more, tragically.

and what lumpenprole said. There's a Mefite in Afghanistan right now, who i'm very worried about.
posted by amberglow at 5:05 PM on May 17, 2005


Tho chaz already posted on this...

dios: "Could it be he took that position because he was being bribed by Saddam?"

Um...

Last I heard, Saddam was captured last year and has been imprisoned somewhere under heavy US military guard since. I don't think he's able to use a telephone at all, let alone send off checks to George Galloway.

*boggles*

Where do you pull this stuff from? Sheesh!
posted by zoogleplex at 5:05 PM on May 17, 2005


This is why Bliar, much as I hate the bastard, could leave the linguistically spastic likes of George Bush for dead,...

Blair!? Any four year old could do it.

What the hell was that whole thing about the authenticity of the document about?
--Do you believe that this document is authenic?
--Ummm, all I've got is a xerox.
--Yes yes, but do you believe that the document itself is authenic?
-- I've never seen the actual document before..
--Well, we'll send you a COPY..

Are they completely fucked in the head on the Hill?
posted by c13 at 5:05 PM on May 17, 2005


It is clear--whetgher you are for or against the Bush war--that the so-called "insurgents" are mostly outsiders--from Jordan, Syria, Iran and of course Saudi Arbvaia (most of the suicide bombers from there)

Fundamental rule: An insurgency that does not have the active support of the local population fails.

As to them all being "outsiders." Given the sources of this information, and their track record, I wouldn't lay any money on that being the truth.
posted by eriko at 5:06 PM on May 17, 2005


Anti-semetic??!?! He's against signs?!?! How do they plan on controlling traffic in the UK?
posted by ladd at 5:11 PM on May 17, 2005


Actually, I think he is anti-emetic. You can just take a quick look at the current administration and you'll be vomiting in no time.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:12 PM on May 17, 2005


Postroad: from Juan Cole: The Washington Post argues that a disproportionate number of suicide bombings in Iraq is carried out by foreign jihadis, and that Saudis constitute 50 percent or more of the bombers. But if you look more closely, the article admits that there are only about 1,000 foreign jihadis fighting in Iraq. I'd figure the number of Iraqi guerrillas at 25,000 hardcore, and nearly twice that if we count weekend warriors, so this group is a relatively minor part of the whole. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:13 PM on May 17, 2005


Keep cheering the man who claims that the crumble of a regime with the blood of 61 million people on its hands was the biggest catastrophe of (his) life.

Well, on the other hand, it was the regime that did the heavy lifting done to win World War II. 11 million Soviet soldiers died in combat, along with 20 million civilians. The US lost around 400, 000 soldiers and as for American civilian deaths in World War II, well...

And Stalin's bloody Soviet Union was the first nation*, don't forget, to grant Israel de jure recogniton in 1948.

* The United States recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the Jewish state within minutes. The Soviet Union granted de jure recognition almost immediately in 1948 along with seven other states within the next five days (Guatemala, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia).
posted by y2karl at 5:16 PM on May 17, 2005


Is it on the news? Is it being talked about? Did anybody watch it?

Anderson Cooper 360 covered the Galloway testimony this evening on CNN. Check later for a transcript.
posted by ericb at 5:19 PM on May 17, 2005


Gosh, I'm shocked that the detectives at powerlineblog weren't all over that forgery.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:24 PM on May 17, 2005


My local PBS station runs both All Things Considered and BBC News right after. It was interesting hearing the difference in coverage.

The American station was very careful about drawing conclusions. In retrospect, I think the reporter on scene thought that Galloway gave the US Senate a very thorough drubbing, but didn't feel comfortable saying so. He was very measured, and said something to the effect that "Galloway had some very strong words". And they played the usual soundbite thing, and that was about all.

The BBC, on the other hand, pretty much characterized it how I perceive it... a thorough ass-kicking. They played a great deal more of the exchange and expressed a much stronger opinion that Galloway had made a very strong showing. They were nearly gleeful... I think they thought it was very funny indeed. Their opinion of this administration must be incredibly low.

I haven't seen the whole thing yet, but plan to before bed tonight.... my evening entertainment. From what I've heard so far, it was theater, but it was good theater.

Whatever Galloway's other beliefs might be, what I've heard so far has been devastatingly well-said, and spot-on accurate. I nearly feel sorry for the Senators involved. They're like people who who are used to polite pistol duels, and they've suddenly been confronted with a Gatling gun.
posted by Malor at 5:28 PM on May 17, 2005


(the only bad thing was that there were no reaction shots of the Senators, Malor)
posted by amberglow at 5:30 PM on May 17, 2005




Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but Mr. Stewart had a fun piece on the differences in Brit and US attitudes towards our glorious leaders
posted by Decani at 5:48 PM on May 17, 2005


If it was a fight, they'd have stopped it:

The Galloway Kid dazzles Coleman with a series of body blows. Coleman is stunned and has no response. Levin steps in. He is a bit more lively than Coleman, but all he can muster is asking the same hypothetical question over and over...demanding a yes or no answer from Galloway. Galloway does the rope-a-dope and Levin wears himself out and collapses on the senate floor. Galloway wins by TKO!!! The crowd appears stunned.

Odd, we Americans need to get someone from clear across the pond to kick our runaway government's ass. In the past, we had Americans to do it.
posted by a_day_late at 5:49 PM on May 17, 2005


In fact, regarding how it will "play" here: Karl Rove couldn't have constructed a better PR exemplar of what those who are rabidly opposed to Bush are like. It might play well internationally to those who are already anti-Bush, but in America, this will help the administration by marginalizing and lampooning the opposition with the anti-Semitism and rabid anti-Americanism.

See, stuff like this, Dios. It's freakin' loony-ville. You want to be taken seriously? Then cut it back, man! Reel it in! Quit being such a loon!

That, or quit complaining that no one takes you seriously.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:50 PM on May 17, 2005


that's an appalling commercial, pretty (but i love seeing hollywood types who wouldn't lower themselves domestically doing so overseas) : >

I know, a_day, it's way past time for a "Have you no sense of decency?" moment.
posted by amberglow at 5:59 PM on May 17, 2005


Over here, Galloway will play as a lunatic anti-American, anti-semetic nutcase. And rightfully so.

Wonderful of you to play the lovable MeFi O'Reilly dios.
posted by juiceCake at 6:17 PM on May 17, 2005


dios like eastern vegan cuisine long time.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:19 PM on May 17, 2005


I'm watching the BBC footage right now, and Galloway is mopping the floor with 'em. I'm struck by the difference between this eloquent, direct, aggressive, off-the-cuff speaker and the majority of U.S. politicians I see and read about, who are all quit tepid.

Dios, as far as Galloway being anti-semitic, his wife is Palestinian, and it seems he dislikes the policies of the Israeli government. However, that doesn't make him an anti-semite, merely an opponent of a certain country's policies. Calling him anti-semitic for disagreeing with the Israeli government is just disingenuous. So in case you heard the anti-semitic charge secondhand and just regurgitated it, now you know.

Yeah, these guys tried to set up a kangaroo court and got smacked in the face for it.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 6:23 PM on May 17, 2005


It was like a political version of The Jetsons meet the Flintstones... The quiet and methodical Senate meets the loud and obnoxious House of Commons. Only thing that was missing was that guy with the sword and the ridiculous 3 foot golden scepter.
posted by TetrisKid at 6:27 PM on May 17, 2005


I should have typed "it seems he might dislike the policies of the Israeli government." The article I linked addresses the false claims that Galloway is anti-Semitic, but does not actually clarify his position on the Israeli government. Considering that 50% of his constituency is Muslim, it seems logical that he would not be supportive of Israeli policy at least for political reasons, but the article makes no statement to that effect.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 6:32 PM on May 17, 2005


dios:

A lot of people here assume, as a given, that because there is a link between Bush and oil companies, that he must be acting out of patronage and not principle regarding Iraq and/or energy policy.

That's just wrong.

A lot of people here assume that he's acting out of patronage and not principle regarding Iraq because he:

a. instigated a pre-emptive strike on a country despite protestations from the rest of the world and a large portion of his own country.
b. did so under the pretense that said country had Weapons of Mass Destruction when, in fact, they did not.
c. Rushed weapons inspectors out of the country despite protestations from said inspectors and the rest of the world.
d. Later changed his story to say that he'd always intended on removing a dangerous dictator from the country, regardless of WMDs.
e. made that claim despite never having said anything of the kind BEFORE it was revealed conclusively that iraq had no WMDs.
f. invaded the country despite it being a negligible threat to the USA when compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.
g. continues to insist that Iraq supported terrorism, including the acts of September 11th, when in fact they did not.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq are suspect. Just because you're ignoring them doesn't mean they're not there.

Also, I would very much appreciate it if you would provide evidence that Galloway is anti-semitic. I'm unfamiliar with the man's beliefs and don't have the time to watch the entire video. If there's some legitimate reason to believe, and repeatedly insist, that the man's an anti-semite please provide it.
posted by shmegegge at 7:07 PM on May 17, 2005


there's not a thing in the video to support any kind of accusations of anti-semitism.
posted by amberglow at 7:13 PM on May 17, 2005


I hereby allege that dios is anti-Scot and anti-Moustache.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:18 PM on May 17, 2005


"Keeping in mind the wingnut rants about Newsweek, let's take a look at the GOP allegations against Britsh MP George Galloway. Galloway was so vocal in his criticism of (new) Labour and their poodle Tony Blair that he was thrown out of the Labour party. (Galloway recently won his seat again in Parliament.) The British MP came to DC today with a backbone that Washington hasn't seen in years, standing up to the bullies who have publicly dragged his name through the mud using quality sources from the puppet government in Iraq. Apparently ideas such as innocent until proven guilty are out of fashion these days in Washington but what the hell, the GOP is throwing away other silly traditions such as minority rights so why not just toss the whole thing into the garbage dump while they're at it.

I have no idea if any of the allegations against Galloway are true or false but in the America that I once knew we used to be innocent until proven guilty. I also know that the Rupert Murdoch rag in the UK, the Daily Telegraph lost a $1.4M libel suit to Galloway last year when they tried making similar allegations. Looking at the lot we propped up in Iraq such as Chalabi (yes, he's baaaaccckkk) I seriously have my doubts. How about we just try it the old fashioned way and deliver proper evidence instead of having just more GOP-run lynch mob smear campaigns?" [AMERICAblog | May 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:20 PM on May 17, 2005


Yesterday, dios calls Noam Choamsky a holocaust denier.

Today, he flatly asserts Galloway is an "anti-semetic [sic] nutcase".

This is just mudslinging. I don't think there's much to gain in arguing these bogus points. How's about being a little more sparing with the adjectives?
posted by warbaby at 7:25 PM on May 17, 2005


The Daily Telegraph is not owned by Murdoch, it's owned by the Barclay brothers. Laziness is teh bane of teh blogosphere.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:26 PM on May 17, 2005


there's not a thing in the video to support any kind of accusations of anti-semitism.

Repeating Dios' language validates it. Dios also claims — without evidence — that Noam Chomsky is a Holocaust revisionist, so I imagine he would as easily paint anyone else with the same brush at the slightest ideological provocation, including Galloway. Again: repeating Dios' troll-baiting language validates it.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:27 PM on May 17, 2005


Cheers, Mr Galloway.
posted by blacklite at 7:36 PM on May 17, 2005


Galloway's speech was the first thing I've heard on NPR political coverage that really warmed my heart in some time. The man was spot on, and fighting.

Anyway, for those seeking context, here's more of Galloway's quote on the Soviet Union.
"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."
He's pretty much undeniably a Red. And it makes me glad that there's somebody on the real Left making waves in the US, even if it has to be a Scot.
posted by graymouser at 7:50 PM on May 17, 2005


The Daily Telegraph is not owned by Murdoch, it's owned by the Barclay brothers. Laziness is teh bane of teh blogosphere.

While AMERICAblog may get the ownership of the Daily Telegraph wrong, it has been reported that...
"On April 22, 2003, the Daily Telegraph published documents which had been found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme [2]. Galloway completely denied the story, insisting that the documents were forgeries, and pointing to the questionable nature of the discovery within an unguarded bombed-out building. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from November 14, 2004 (HQ03X0206, George Galloway MP vs Telegraph Group Ltd.) On December 2, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been 'seriously defamatory', and that the Telegraph was 'obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation'. Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. In UK libel cases, the winning party is also normally awarded costs, with the loser paying the bill. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords.

This was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence [3]. Without claiming justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true), the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that 'It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ...but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described.'

The Christian Science Monitor also published a story on April 25, 2003 stating that they had documentary evidence that he had received 'more than ten million dollars' from the Iraqi regime. However, on June 20, 2003, the Monitor admitted that the documents it held were forgeries and apologised to Galloway. Galloway rejected the newspaper's apology, asserted that the affair was a conspiracy against him, and continued a libel claim against the paper. The Christian Science Monitor settled the claim, paying him an undisclosed sum in damages, on March 19, 2004. Galloway accepts libel damages. [Answers.com]
posted by ericb at 7:53 PM on May 17, 2005


Galloway seems to be batting a favorable average in many courts - the legal ones in the U.K., the U.S. and the popular opinion!
posted by ericb at 8:02 PM on May 17, 2005


I think Dios may be referring to the fact that Galloway found it offensive that Coleman had traveled to Israel and might be involved with businessmen with Israeli ties... like somehow that was relevant or damning.

Not saying that what Galloway inferred was anti-semitic but that coupled with his behavior against his opponent in his recent MP race leave some questions. It's not as if these charges came out of thin air. Where there is smoke there's usually fire.
posted by TetrisKid at 8:02 PM on May 17, 2005


Dr. Nile Gardener's weaseling on BBC is hilarious. The Iraqi Oil Ministry documents are probably just as valid as the Niger nuclear lies that the US told at the UN Security Council. Oh, this is just too funny.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:04 PM on May 17, 2005


TetrisKid: What about if there's lots of people standing behind you, blowing smoke about the place? Why couldn't the charges come out of thin air? King is a terribly poor loser who was held to account for her support for the war. Good for the voters of Bethnal Green.
posted by bonaldi at 8:10 PM on May 17, 2005


Point well taken. Vote against her for her bad policy decisions and supporting a war that wasn't need, not for being a Jew.
posted by TetrisKid at 8:11 PM on May 17, 2005


To be fair to Galloway, you failed to mention the full quotation in the interview, which is very relevant to the issue at hand...

Galloway - "I am on the anti-imperialist left."
Interviewer - "The Stalinist left?"
Galloway - "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

Although I think that Galloway wishes he could rephrase this section of the interview, the facts are such:

1> He is an anti-imperialist leftist. Then again, so was Thomas Jefferson. That doesn't mean he is anti-democratic, however.

2> Galloway, like many other British politicians of his era, did support the rights and soveriegnity of the Soviet Union such as it existed in the '80s. He obviously saw it as an important counterweight against the resurgence of U.S. (and British) imperialism. That does not mean he supported Stalinist purges, however. Perhaps he saw the potential for the Soviet system to be reformed, yet still functional.

Why should Galloway's former support for the Soviet Union be seen as support for Stalinist purges anyway? That's like saying that U.S. support for the policy of "one China" and free trade in China is pro-Cultural Revolution.

For those who would like to smear Galloway by a tenuous and distant association, I have just one simple response: it's just not that simple, even if you are.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:22 PM on May 17, 2005


Dios, you're SO right in your own head? Good. Because you're not convincing anyone else. Not by an f'ing long shot.

Dios is the scream of unsubstantiated idiocy that was drowned in a sea of blue.

Every give a round of applause to the poor, poor moron.
posted by JGreyNemo at 9:39 PM on May 17, 2005


carl levin: gobbling the engorged dong of west michigan's moneyed dutch christian reformed ponzi schemers.

ooh, look, quonsar, i found a photograph of the dong!!
posted by pyramid termite at 10:45 PM on May 17, 2005


To me it is worth noting that the Daily Telegraph, has Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger on the board of directors.
posted by hortense at 11:02 PM on May 17, 2005


On sheer rhetoric, Galloway won hands down. He is a very talented speaker.

On evidence regarding his personal benefit (as opposed to the registered charity Marian Appeal), he also appears to have shredded the Senate Sub-committtee's case - short of someone producing actual evidence of corruption, those allegations remain nothing more - completely unsubstantiated allegations. That the sub-committee has decided to go with them destroys their own credibility, and only increases Galloway's, and shows them to be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

The only weak point for Galloway (on pure image - he had already shown their was no evidence for the allegations against him) was his evasion of Levin's question about whether he was "troubled" by the donation to Marian Appeal from the oil money. Frankly, he should have just said "My emotional state has absolutely no bearing whether or not I was personally corrupt". He should have pointed out that they wanted to convict him because he wasn't "sorry" enough that he allowed an Iraqi business man to donate money to the charity which sought to improve conditions in Iraq, from money made in Iraq just about the only way possible under Sadam. My reaction to the kickbacks were, well, it was Iraq. What did they expect? It's not like the Iraqi Better Business Bureau was functioning.

Levin might think that Galloway should have taken the high road by refusing the money, but that has absolutely no bearing on the as yet unsubstantiated allegations Levin's subcommittee has convicted him of, smearing his name throughout the world. Britain has some pretty robust libel and slander laws - do you think Galloway could take on the U.S. Senate?
posted by jb at 1:53 AM on May 18, 2005


Sorry - tiredness made me use the incorrect spelling of there in the third pararaph. Please excuse any other mistakes.
posted by jb at 1:54 AM on May 18, 2005


Further lazy reporting with implied guilt:

From the CNN link above: "Galloway met with Saddam Hussein several times in the 1990s, but he denies he bought or sold a drop of Iraqi oil."

I think my English teacher would have failed me for using "several" for two instances. And the second time was in the 2000s.
posted by jb at 1:56 AM on May 18, 2005


OK, here's something worth noting:

Before the hearing began, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former-Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway informed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead.

"And you're a drink-soaked..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away.


Poor, poor Hitch. The master of pithy comebacks.
posted by gsb at 2:05 AM on May 18, 2005


The Socialist Worker (which is the newspaper of the Socialist Worker Party, the Trotskyite group that is the backbone of the Respect coalition, under the banner of which Galloway was elected as MP) has an image of the relevant part of the list, which, if real, looks quite tampered with. Shades of Rathergate indeed, only a bit more serious...
They also report about a person who has admitted that he was involved in the forgeries.
posted by talos at 2:10 AM on May 18, 2005


To me it is worth noting that the Daily Telegraph, has Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger on the board of directors.
I think it was still the case at the time they went to print with the allegations that the parent company had those two on the board, but it is worth noting that it has since been sold to the Barclay Brothers, so this is presumably no longer the case (I stand to be corrected).
posted by chill at 2:17 AM on May 18, 2005


>most americans are just dying to fillatiate Karl Rove
>>What is that word supposed to be?
>to perform fellatio


I'm disappointed. I thought it might be a clever play on 'fillibuster' and 'fellate'. Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:25 AM on May 18, 2005


"In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Air Base [Afghanistan], in Guantanamo Bay -- including, if I may say, British citizens being held in those places -- I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances."

And with one voice the entire non-American world said 'HA!'
posted by Summer at 3:07 AM on May 18, 2005


I'm just hoping for a second round. Go George.
posted by BigCalm at 3:25 AM on May 18, 2005


I'm sure if George could read this thread he would be in seventh heaven by now. It leaves me wondering when Tommy Sheridan will unleash himself on the international scene.
posted by fire&wings at 3:26 AM on May 18, 2005


What's it got to do with the American senate anyway?
posted by Summer at 3:37 AM on May 18, 2005


That was simply joyous. Anyone got any links to download this Charlie Rose Show from?
posted by Onanist at 3:40 AM on May 18, 2005


It's a clear demonstration of how impovershed our school system is compared to the British, who seem to have full command not only of vocabulary and grammar, but also rationality and thought. Unlike our elected officials.

"Please! Just answer yes or no! Have you stopped beating your wife or not?"
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:18 AM on May 18, 2005


What's it got to do with the American senate anyway?
Nothing, except for the hatred the GOP has for the UN. I wouldn't be surprised if they have Annan testify too (but not Chalmers).

And the love of getting on tv all Senators have.
posted by amberglow at 5:36 AM on May 18, 2005


dios: on the payroll
gsh: in denial about zionism
postroad: yet another Hitler in our midst (and please check your facts about the Iraqi insurgents)
over 50% of Americans: brains (and heart) eaten away by TV, a single, double-faced political party, Fox News, and too many superhero stories.
Galloway: he just repeated what a billion people all over the world talk about. But what do you know? You live on another planet alltogether.
Sheesh!
posted by acrobat at 5:50 AM on May 18, 2005


[offtopic]
Soon we'll get you to capitalization and use of apostrophes to indidcate the posessive (as in "one or two persons' toy")

:)

Keep on keeping on, no harm intended.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 7:00 PM EST


glass houses, stones, spelling and punctuation:
indicate
possessive
:-)
The possessive plural needs work.
Good to see you being nice about it though.
[/offtopic]

WooHoo, go George go!
And pay attention Holy Joe, this is a politician with balls AND a backbone, something the opposition desperately needs right now.
Speaking of that, anyone hear Grover Norquist talk about how the nuclear option would effectively neuter the Dems? (like they're not already!)
posted by nofundy at 6:11 AM on May 18, 2005


it's a clear demonstration of how impovershed our school system is compared to the British, who seem to have full command not only of vocabulary and grammar, but also rationality and thought. Unlike our elected officials.

The thing is that UK politicians will stand outside Malls trading forthright opinions with the general public:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
posted by lilburne at 6:28 AM on May 18, 2005


George Galloway is not indicative of the state of British politics. We have plenty of spineless, supine soundbiters as well.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:30 AM on May 18, 2005


As much as I admire Carl Levin, he got pwn3d. But at least not as bad as Coleman. Or Dios.
posted by bardic at 6:33 AM on May 18, 2005


via Guardian:

Before the hearing began, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway in formed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away.

awesome
posted by destro at 6:56 AM on May 18, 2005


And the award for Best Headline goes to The New York Post: BRIT FRIES SENATORS IN OIL. The only better way to express it would be the theoretical Slashdot headline "L33t br1t 0wns l4m3rs c0mm1tt33".
posted by nkyad at 7:19 AM on May 18, 2005


Yes, Pretty_Generic is right. Let's not get all romantic about British politics, there's plenty of idiots and soft-ball questions in Parliament.

destro
posted by gsb at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2005


Man, I really like Hitchens too, and he got (as my students like to say) "f'in burned!"
posted by bardic at 7:49 AM on May 18, 2005


It's charming the way that some of you pretend there is no basis at all for suggesting that Galloway may be anti-Semitic. When someone rails endlessly about Zionists and Israel and the influence of Jews and does so in a derogatory way, there seems to be a basis for suggesting he is antisemitic. Antisemitic means a strong dislike of Jews. Whether he actually dislikes them or not, it is utter bad faith to say that there is no basis for the allegation against him.

The same goes for Chomsky... which some of you indicate I must respond to, if for no other reason then to shut your tedious asses up and keep you from dragging a thread out forever. Chomsky is a master of words, so he never backs himself in a corner... he always leaves himself an out. But, one can see insinuations in his work about his dislike of Jews. He denies that antisemitism is a problem in the world, and calls Jews the most privileged class of people; both statements which are antisemitic and not qualitatively different than your stereotypical Nazi rhetoric (though Chomsky would explain them away). Couple that with writing an apologia for a book about Holocaust denial; the evidence mounts.

There are two kinds of Holocaust denial: one says that the Holocaust never happened, the other says that Holocaust might have happened in a limited manner, but it was trumped up by Jews so that its magnitude is a fiction. If Chomsky is one of the two, it would be the latter, in my estimation, primarily because of comments like "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence." Such rhetoric smacks of the second kind of Holocaust denial.

He explicitly downplays the plight of Jewish people while he overstates their power and ability to control perspectives. So when he writes an essay supporting the freedom to publish a Holocaust denial book and legitimizes it as a political viewpoint, one has to question why. Importantly, he never makes a statement that "though I disagree with the premise because it is wrong, this book has a right to be published and the idea heard." I would think a person writing the essay for purely freedom of press reasons could add in that caveat if they disagree with the premise. Chomsky doesn't. It is only later that he made a half-hearted statement that he didn't know what the book was about and that he doesn't deny the Holocaust. He may or may not believe that the Holocaust is a Zionist fiction, but there is definitely reason to question him. To act that it is beyond the pale to question whether Chomsky is antisemitic or a Holocaust denier is bad faith


The key point when discussing antisemitism is to judge your audience. In America, the vast, overwhelming majority of people are pro-Israel and sympathetic to their plight. So when you start speaking negatively of Israel, Jewish people and their influence, American people will suspect antisemitism. Just like when Americans think someone is racist for saying something that reflects negatively on a race. Perhaps in Europe and in academia, statements can be made that bemoan the influence of Israel and the Jewish people without there being any questions made. But that is not the case in the American mind. Thus, as my original comment stated, I don't think this kind of rhetoric will play well in America, if it plays at all. I said initially that this is a non-event, and I don't think it will get any press. But if it did, it would not play well. That is my political analysis vis-a-vis America. Feel free to disagree, but don't be so foolish as to assume that because you think that Galloway was right, then he will axiomatically play well in America.
posted by dios at 8:14 AM on May 18, 2005


Does dios think he's god? Dios = god in spanish.
posted by bobduckles at 8:19 AM on May 18, 2005


Dios, near as I can tell, the MP from Bethnal Green is playing incredibly well with everyone here but YOU.

And please, enough with the anti-semitism crapola.

Disdain for and disagreement with Likudnik Israeli government policy does not equal hating Jewish people, any more than disdain for and disagreement with George Bush and co's policies = hating America, regardless of what you might have us believe.
posted by stenseng at 8:28 AM on May 18, 2005


(here meaning the states, not mefi)
posted by stenseng at 8:28 AM on May 18, 2005


My God, dios (no pun intended). Get a bloody grip - you provide a lousy link to a small text dedicated to distort, misinterpret and lie about Chomsky. Then you lie, misinterpret and distort some more yourself, just to keep hanging to a stupid mistake you made by calling him a Holocaust denier someday. And all of this completely off-topic.

Then you insist on suggesting Mr. Galloway is anti-semitic because he is critic of Israel and of the United States policies toward Israel. And here was I thinking this whole discussion about the difference between being a critic of Israeli government and policies and being a critic of "the Jews" was already past us. You right wingers are getting more and more trigger-happy each day - say anything about your precious Bush or any of his minions and there you come: make up some, any fantastic lies about the accuser until your lies are accepted as truth by your designated audience. But isn't that exactly what the US Senate was trying to do to Mr. Galloway?
posted by nkyad at 8:45 AM on May 18, 2005


So when you start speaking negatively of Israel, Jewish people and their influence, American people will suspect antisemitism.

Anti-Israel != Antisemetic. If you're saying that the "overwhelming majority" of people equate Israel with Judaism, you're saying that the vast majority of people in this country are idiots. Which I won't argue with.

I abhor all theocracies, Israel included. But I've got no problem with Judaism, nor its practioners.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2005


Israel does not equal Jews.
A dislike of Israel's policies does not equal antisemitism.

Where's your criticism of REAL antisemites, right here in America, dios? Start with Pat Buchanan and Grover Norquist, and Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association and keep on going. Oh, that's right--they're the GOP, like you. I guess that makes it ok?
posted by amberglow at 8:53 AM on May 18, 2005


Hi Dios, I fucking hate some of the things Israel does and I disagree strongly with the "Oh, but we were victims of the holocaust so don't we get to do what we like now?" attitudes of some people.

And I am Jewish on my grandmothers side.

So what in the crap are you talking about? What? Am I a self-hating Nazi now? Will you berate me for using a small "h" for holocaust? Stop making crap arguments. There is a huge difference between hating der juden and making comments about strongarm tactics used by the Israeli government.

Kind of like me hating your government but loving your people.
posted by longbaugh at 8:56 AM on May 18, 2005


dios got the information that Galloway is an anti-semite from the same place he got that John Negroponte is black.
posted by terrapin at 9:00 AM on May 18, 2005


Anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are different entities. Palestinian activists - which Galloway is - get very worked up about the people who took Palestine from its people, displaced them, and set up an apartheid state. Using that as "evidence" of anti-semitism is part of a systematic attempt to discredit en masse pro-Palestinians by associating them with ignorance and racial hatred, when in fact it's pro-Zionists who are ignorant and racist.
posted by graymouser at 9:04 AM on May 18, 2005


IX. CONCLUSION
Despite Galloway’s denials, the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, including Hussein-era documents from the Ministry of Oil and testimony from senior Hussein officials, shows that Iraq granted George Galloway allocations for millions of barrels of oil under the Oil for Food Program.


Let me get this right. Some pro-war politicians make a claim against Galloway who then publicly disproves the allegation but they publish the claim anyway, hiding behind the legal protection of the Senate. And this proves what?
posted by bobbyelliott at 9:15 AM on May 18, 2005


nkyad: here is a free lesson.

A lie is saying something you know to be false, but state it affirmativley anyway. If one believes something to be true, then it isn't a "lie." If something that is stated is incorrect, then the term to be used is "wrong." Contextually, one might say "I believe that what you said is wrong."

I believe each of the things I wrote. They are my opinions based on what I know of the man. That does not make them lies. If you think they are wrong, fine. Say that. But learn the meaning of words before you use them.

As for it being off-topic, read the goddamn thread. Who were the morons who brought this Chomsky crap up? Not me. Who was the person who said "don't bring other threads into this one"? Me. Who were the morons who continued to bring it up after that, including our big ol' Drama Queen.


_________________________

As to C_D and amberglow, when a person screams about the fact that this country is run by Jews and Neo-Cons (which, you must admit is used frequently as a shorthand for Jews), you are suggesting that Jewish influence is inherently wrong, which is anti-semitic. Read the definition of anti-semitic: it means dislike of Jews. Why would someone dislike their influence if they didn't have a problem Jewish people? There is a patent hostility to the idea that Jewish people will have influence. That certainly suggests a "strong dislike" for Jews... which is antisemitism.

Where's your criticism of REAL antisemites, right here in America, dios? Start with Pat Buchanan and Grover Norquist
I dislike them, too. Where did I ever support them? I don't know this Wildmon guy, but I think Buchanan is a jackass full of hate. So?
posted by dios at 9:18 AM on May 18, 2005


dios got the information that Galloway is an anti-semite from the same place he got that John Negroponte is black.
posted by terrapin at 9:00 AM PST on May 18


Can you really not understand a joke, you ignorant fool?
posted by dios at 9:19 AM on May 18, 2005


I'm the only genuine antisemite here, and I'm Jewish.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:21 AM on May 18, 2005


dios: I can recognize you, so the answer is "yes."
posted by terrapin at 9:25 AM on May 18, 2005


when a person screams about the fact that this country is run by Jews [...] you are suggesting that Jewish influence is inherently wrong, which is anti-semitic

If (a huge if) the country were controlled by one group, whatever that group is (whether they be neo-conservatives, Jews, Masons, etc.) screaming about it doesn't mean you're necessarily against the group, but the singular control of that group. I've got nothing against Masons, but if I found out they were running the whole country, I'd scream bloody murder, too.

I see you've ignored the criticism to the Zionism = Jewish claim, though.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:37 AM on May 18, 2005


The only person that believes to slander neo-cons is to slander jews is David Brooks and I'm not even sure he believes that.

[Chomsky] may or may not believe that the Holocaust is a Zionist fiction

He has one on record over and over and over stating that he believes the Holocaust happened. He says it multiple times in Manufacture of Consent the movie. To print something like that is either an outright lie, or the most deluded type of belief with no research or interest in knowing if it's true.

It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.

- Chomsky
posted by destro at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2005


As for it being off-topic, read the goddamn thread. Who were the morons who brought this Chomsky crap up? Not me. Who was the person who said "don't bring other threads into this one"? Me. Who were the morons who continued to bring it up after that, including our big ol' Drama Queen.

Dios, whether or not I am "your big ol' Drama Queen" has little to do with your lazy penchant for calling people anti-Semites.

Is Noam Chomsky a Holocaust denier as you claim or not?

If you bothered to bring up evidence, it might go a long way to helping us care about your "opinions", including your uncorroborated accusation that Galloway is an anti-Semite.

You complain that people turn threads into discussions about you. Perhaps if you would take a little more care about the things you say, people would take you more seriously. Believe me, I know.

Or as I have done, you can apologize when you are factually incorrect. I suspect I know what you'll say next, but as always, Dios, your behavior is always up to you.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:54 AM on May 18, 2005


Read the definition of anti-semitic: it means dislike of Jews.

Read the definition of semitic:

adj.
1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.
2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.


Anti-semitic means dislike of a lot of people, sloppy colloquial usage notwithstanding.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:00 AM on May 18, 2005


you must admit is used frequently as a shorthand for Jews

Why the hell would anyone admit such bollocks?
Where do you get this crap?
How about neoconservative (a self appelation btw) = Likudniks?
Now that's something I could agree with.
You need to reassign your labels before spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about.
There are many fine Jewish people and many fine Israelis but the Likudniks like Sharon can wither up and go away just like their dark hearts have already done.
Likudniks are the ones who destroy Israel and support for Israel just the same as the noeconservatives are doing for the US.
Why do they hate their countries so much?
Oh, and just because you believe a lie does not make it any less a lie mr. god, especially when you exhibit such willful ignorance (cognitive dissonance) about said lies.
posted by nofundy at 10:07 AM on May 18, 2005


Actually P_G I could kick your kike ass if you want to have an anti-semetic cage match.

/fellow Jewish person who finds all this hilariously funny.
posted by longbaugh at 10:18 AM on May 18, 2005


Is Noam Chomsky a Holocaust denier as you claim or not?

Read the thread, jackass. I explained my position on it no more. Are you asking to me prove something to the point of scientific certainty? Or are you asking me to explain my view? I explained it.

Continue being off-topic and bringing a different thread then this one. Show us what a drama queen you are and whore for that attention, boy!

__________________

I am amazed at the lack of ability of people to understand the difference between perception and truth. I have been talking about perception throughout this thread. You people are talking about truth.

The question that I originally answered was a specific one: how will this kind of talk be received in America. In America, my opinion is that such patent ravings about Zionists/Likudniks (or whatever the hell you want to call them) is perceived as anti-semitic. It is far too nuanced to argue that one is really just opposed to the policies of Israel when we are discussing perception. Galloway showed hostility to Jewish influence, that will be perceived as antisemitism (and I personally believe that Galloway is an antisemite, but that is just the impression I get). I get that opinion based on the tendency in American culture to be intolerant of rhetoric directed at a particular group, especially one that has suffered historical hate at a level no one else has. That is my opinion about how it will play out.

In return I get rabid and insulting rhetoric about whether something is or is not absolutely correct and nuance. That doesn't address how it will perceived.

My read of how it will be perceived may be wrong. It may be right. But lay off the personal insults and vitriol. I never came after any of you except for those that insulted me first. If you can't grant me the right to an opinion without being insulting or being offended that I presented my opinion, then you are not worthy of that label of liberal that you seem so proud of.
posted by dios at 10:27 AM on May 18, 2005


That was going to say: "I explained my position on it no more than a dozen posts ago."
posted by dios at 10:28 AM on May 18, 2005


Ah, so you are saying that the public are stupid then because they don't understand nuance?
posted by longbaugh at 10:31 AM on May 18, 2005


That was going to say: "I explained my position on it no more than a dozen posts ago."

You've explained nothing, but you continue to blame others for your inability to substantiate your serious claims. Either back up what you're saying, Dios, or shut the hell up.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2005


Either back up what you're saying, Dios, or shut the hell up.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:32 AM PST on May 18


You'd like me to shut up, wouldn't you? Well, I'm not.

I have a right to my opinion. I substantiated it for my purposes. You don't have any fucking control over what the requisite amount of proof is necessary for an opinion. And your attitude that my opinion isn't "substantiated" to your liking doesn't mean one tenth of one shit.

I disagree with people all the time, but I never tell them to shut up to prevent them from making their point. That's all you seem to do.... try to shut people up by telling them a leave or suggesting that they are trolling so that you don't have to encounter their opinion.

Your pathetic intolerant attitude towards people whose opinions differ from yours is deliciously ironic from someone who demands more tolerance from the public for your pet cause.


__________

Ah, so you are saying that the public are stupid then because they don't understand nuance?
posted by longbaugh at 10:31 AM PST on May 18


Isn't that obvious? People don't waste time with nuance.
posted by dios at 10:40 AM on May 18, 2005


Can you substantiate your claim that Galloway is an anti-Semite? Can you provide factual evidence that Chomsky denied the Holocaust took place?

Transcripts? Anything?

If you cannot bother to do this, think to yourself how much credibility we should place in your "opinions".
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:43 AM on May 18, 2005


Alex, I have made my points. I have pointed to the comments upon which I based my opinions. You want anything? Eat me.

Continue to act like an intolerant prick as if you have some power to demand a requisite quantum of proof of me before I can state my opinion.
posted by dios at 10:49 AM on May 18, 2005


Of course, that should say: "....want anything more?"

Meh. I wish there was a preview button before posting.
posted by dios at 10:51 AM on May 18, 2005


Continue to act like an intolerant prick as if you have some power to demand a requisite quantum of proof of me before I can state my opinion.

Here is a statement of opinion: "I enjoy a nice glass of wine."

Here is a statement of fact: "Wine is made from fermented grape juice."

Your "opinions" so far are statements of fact.

You have asserted that Galloway and Chomsky hold views they, in fact, do not.

That is not holding an opinion. That is making (serious) accusations.

Either back up your assertion or don't. But don't mistake your demonstration of ignorance for an opinion.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:03 AM on May 18, 2005


dios: (and I personally believe that Galloway is an antisemite, but that is just the impression I get)
(And I personally believe that dios kicks puppies for fun, but that is just the impression that I get)

Is this valid political discourse? If one isn't, the other isn't either.
posted by graymouser at 11:09 AM on May 18, 2005


Most people deal in facts and not obscure moral relativism and spin.
posted by destro at 11:11 AM on May 18, 2005


Then again, most people are not politicians or toady apologists for said politicians.
posted by daq at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2005


In America, my opinion is that such patent ravings about Zionists/Likudniks (or whatever the hell you want to call them) is perceived as anti-semitic. It is far too nuanced to argue that one is really just opposed to the policies of Israel when we are discussing perception.

So what next, then? Are anti-Zionists supposed to simply end discussion because, dear me, the ignorati might get confused?

The fact that people here are making the distinction between "Jews" and "Zionists" should indicate to you that there is an effort to avoid confusion by the simple use of appropriate language. If imbeciles wish to ignore the choice of words, and the meanings behind those words, that's there business.

And speaking of language, it's getting rather hot in here.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:14 AM on May 18, 2005


Actually destro the point dios made regarding the great unwashed and their inability to understand nuance shows that most people do not deal in facts.

If most people dealt in facts you'd have a decent president for a start.
posted by longbaugh at 11:16 AM on May 18, 2005


Please graymouser. Don't be so obtuse.
Galloway speaks passionately about Zionists/Likudniks, etc. Don't act like I am making this up at out of whole cloth. Read the accounts of the story. Even the one in the Guardian that I read mentioned within the first couple of paragraphs about his chastisement regarding Jewish influence in the administration.

Your stupid example is not the same because I have never mentioned puppies.

What you people are demanding is that every political opinion must be able to be proved to a matter of certainty. That is nonsense. Everything said on this goddamn board in the political threads are matters of opinions that can't be proved to a degree absolute truth. Sure the poster can link to a Kos posting that supports their position, but it is STILL ALL OPINION. If you are demanding truth, then you people are really going to end political dialogue.
posted by dios at 11:18 AM on May 18, 2005


One of these days, you'll suddenly realize what you've been doing, and wish that you'd put down the shovel long before you'd dug yourself a hole so deep that you'll never be able to crawl out of it.

Here's the best solution to your problems on this board, dios: learn from your endless mistakes, and purchase a new account. The "dios" name is so tainted by your past stupidity that you will never, ever be able to receive a fair break.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:21 AM on May 18, 2005


To build on that:

For instance, how many times do we hear that Bush hates gays. Or that he is a puppet of Cheney/Rove/Big Oil. All of that is OPINION. None of it can be proved. So why the hell are you acting as if I have to give more proof of my opinions than similar people?

This is all partisan nonsense.
posted by dios at 11:21 AM on May 18, 2005


FFF, is you are admitting that you won't give me a fair break, then thats your fault, not my own.

Why would I change my name? The content of my message will the same, and the treatment of me will return, because it is patently obvious that the problem is not with me, my language, the amount of support I put into my posts---it is CLEAR that the problem everyone has with me is the position I take.
posted by dios at 11:23 AM on May 18, 2005


it is CLEAR that the problem everyone has with me is the position I take.

The problem may be that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:28 AM on May 18, 2005


I’m ambivalent about Galloway’s performance – after reflection it was mostly style over substance. On my lunchtime tour of the Washington Post, the story was A11. It seems to me he has many connections to people with dubious histories and motives – he has a place on the left side of the same dirty coin the well-connected neoconservatives can be found. Anyone catch him on Rose?

Oh, and thanks to all for the elevated discourse above. Sigh.
posted by mania at 11:32 AM on May 18, 2005


dios: Your stupid example is not the same because I have never mentioned puppies.
Ah, good to see the bar is high.

My point was that inferring someone's view about Jews as a people from their position on Zionism is no more valid than inferring someone's view about kicking puppies from their position on conservatism.

Most Americans know fuck-all about Palestine. They don't realize how many are living in a destitute situation in the occupied territories, where the economy has been systematically destroyed, where things are being actively made worse by the racist Zionist settlers and the apartheid Israeli government. That is worth being up in arms about, it is worth elevated rhetoric in opposition, and your narrow view of Galloway's politics is worthy of nothing but ridicule.
posted by graymouser at 11:53 AM on May 18, 2005


For instance, how many times do we hear that Bush hates gays. Or that he is a puppet of Cheney/Rove/Big Oil. All of that is OPINION. None of it can be proved. So why the hell are you acting as if I have to give more proof of my opinions than similar people?

This is all partisan nonsense.


Bullshit. Bush has taken actions against gay people, including an attempted Constitutional Amendment denying us rights. His party's platform also explicitly calls for denying us certain rights that other Americans enjoy. That stuff is not unfounded nor an opinion at all. It's fact, and it supports anyone making that statement. As for oil, there are way too many facts underlying that statement to bring up now, from his life pre-President/Vice President to the secret Energy meetings with Oil Company executives involving maps of Iraq--those are facts as well, not opinions. Most people spout an opinion based on FACT and evidence, not out of their ass as you do.

You so far have neglected to speak of any facts that might underly your opinions, in spite of repeated queries to provide some. As has been mentioned here many times, Galloway not liking Israel or the actions the state of Israel takes is not proof of anti-semitism. If he were, say, to attempt to disenfranchise all Jews in Britain and deny them rights simply because they were Jewish--that would be anti-semitism. (funny that you would bring up Bush and us gays, no? See how that works--an opinion based on proof?)
posted by amberglow at 12:08 PM on May 18, 2005


I never came after any of you except for those that insulted me first.

That is a lie. You came after me here before I ever said boo to or about you. You got your ass banned for a stretch in doing so. You make crybaby MetaTalk posts against other members based upon ideological differences. You hand out insults and blowhard assertions like party favors and then cry persecution when called on either. You are a liar, hypocrite and a drama queen of drama queens who wants affirmative action for himself alone--intellectual wheelchair access, as it were.
posted by y2karl at 12:20 PM on May 18, 2005


It seems here, dios is like the baby on the bed, and he's surrounded by all his big sisters who love to hear him giggle, so they poke and tickle, and he giggles and giggles, except, he's not a baby, and his big sisters are rhetorical adversaries, and he doesn't giggle, he argues, but they do poke, and they do tickle, and the arguments come giggling out.
posted by airguitar at 12:29 PM on May 18, 2005




"You'd like me to shut up, wouldn't you? Well, I'm not."

Well, then... we'll just have to ignore you, or simply ridicule you.

Take the Dios oath -- if he goes of on another rant, don't feed the troll. Simply respond with these three words.

**Fap, fap, fap!**

And Dios, please be sure to mop up and turn out the lights on the way out...
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:33 PM on May 18, 2005


amberglow, you fail to see the different standard you are holding me to.

You are demanding proof of me, but the proof I offer (his screed about the influence of Jews) is deemed insufficient because you have decreed that opinions about Israel or how bad Jewish influence are not sufficient evidence of antisemitism. You take away the very basis of my opinion because of YOUR opinion, then you try to hold me a standard of proof.

In contrast, you say that Bush hates gays because he wants to protect marriage. That action is your proof. Well, I could nuance you death too by saying that Bush supports marriage as between a man and woman only out of his belief in tradition, and doesn't do it out of any animus towards gays. So, the marriage amendment isn't sufficient evidence hatred of gays. You have to give me something else, otherwise you are baselessly attacking his motivations.

Do you not see the similarity? Your opinion is that Bush hates gays. My opinion is that, by his words, I think Galloway is probably an antisemite. You have your reason to think that based on your opinion of the topic, as do I.

Why do you not see that you are trying to hold me to a different standard than when you say Bush is evil/hates gays/ is a puppet of Cheney, etc? Show some good faith and concede the different standards.
posted by dios at 12:41 PM on May 18, 2005


It seems here, dios is like the baby on the bed, and he's surrounded by all his big sisters who love to hear him giggle, so they poke and tickle, and he giggles and giggles, except, he's not a baby, and his big sisters are rhetorical adversaries, and he doesn't giggle, he argues, but they do poke, and they do tickle, and the arguments come giggling out.

I disagree with all of this, except the part where dios is the baby on the bed. But that's just my opinion.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:43 PM on May 18, 2005


**Fap, fap, fap!**
posted by ericb at 12:43 PM on May 18, 2005


I never came after any of you except for those that insulted me first.

Dios, you called someone AlexReynolds and Alex wasn't even participating in the thread yet!
posted by terrapin at 12:48 PM on May 18, 2005


Alex came after me first, not in this thread, but in others. He constantly brings up old stuff, which is why I told someone to not behave like him. If you need data for this, notice how many times he tried to bring it up after I pointed it out.
posted by dios at 12:50 PM on May 18, 2005


pathetic.
posted by terrapin at 12:53 PM on May 18, 2005


dios: In contrast, you say that Bush hates gays because he wants to protect marriage.
This is a different case. Bush is not "protecting marriage". Marriage would not be harmed by gays being married; in fact, by definition, it would be stronger, since there would be more married couples and fewer cohabiting couples. There is no rational reason to be anti-gay marriage unless one is, in fact, anti-gay.

Palestinians, on the other hand, are really harmed by Zionists. Zionist settlers illegally throw Palestinians off their own land, burn their crops, and even murder them. The Israeli apartheid government has occupied Palestinian territory and devastated its economic and civil infrastructure to the point where it doesn't really exist. The state gives extreme privelege to Jews over so-called "Israeli Arabs," and even prejudicially favors European Jews over Middle-Eastern Jews.

Anyone seriously concerned about human rights and social justice ought to be pro-gay marriage and anti-Zionist. Your comparison is not valid.
posted by graymouser at 12:55 PM on May 18, 2005


This is a different case. Bush is not "protecting marriage". Marriage would not be harmed by gays being married; in fact, by definition, it would be stronger, since there would be more married couples and fewer cohabiting couples. There is no rational reason to be anti-gay marriage unless one is, in fact, anti-gay.

Can you not see this is all your opinion???? This is exactly my point!
posted by dios at 1:05 PM on May 18, 2005


What I find particularly amusing is that in this thread alone, dios has said:

Don't drag shit from another thread into this one.
and
Alex came after me first, not in this thread, but in others.
Right. Carry on.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:35 PM on May 18, 2005


Excellent, excellent.
I don't care if it's Galloway or not--we need more people speaking out like that.

Over here, Galloway will play as a lunatic anti-American, anti-semetic nutcase. And rightfully so.

Sigh.
posted by slf at 1:37 PM on May 18, 2005


It'd be pointless to post something now.
*realizes posted this*
....D'oh!
posted by Smedleyman at 2:06 PM on May 18, 2005


How did Chomsky and Gayness enter this thread. I'm too tired to read the evolution (or ID), anymore.
posted by gsb at 2:33 PM on May 18, 2005


The Socialist Worker (which is the newspaper of the Socialist Worker Party, the Trotskyite group that is the backbone of the Respect coalition, under the banner of which Galloway was elected as MP) has an image of the relevant part of the list, which, if real, looks quite tampered with.

No shit. That looks worse than my college transcripts!
posted by mrgrimm at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2005


Metafilter: You people are talking about truth
posted by mr.marx at 2:50 PM on May 18, 2005


graymouser said it--protecting marriage would be for him to do things that actually protect marriage--stopping quickie Vegas marriages, making it harder to get no-fault divorces, etc. He doesn't call for any of that at all, and never has. It's not our opinion, but the specific actions he takes. That's the difference.
posted by amberglow at 2:56 PM on May 18, 2005


So this is funny: http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=232 has all sorts of information about the hearing. In fact, the information it does and doesn't have is quite revealing of how this is playing in the US.

Member Statements:
[?] Senator Norm Coleman [View PDF]
[?] Senator Carl Levin [View PDF]

Witness Testimony
Panel 1
[?] Mark L. Greenblatt [View PDF] , Counsel , U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
[?] Steven A. Groves [View PDF] , Counsel , U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
[?] Dan M. Berkovitz [View PDF] , Counsel to the Minority , U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Panel 2
[ ] George Galloway , Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow , Great Britain

Panel 3
[?] Thomas A. Schweich [View PDF] , Chief of Staff, U.S. Mission to the United Nations , U. S. Department of State
[?] Robert W. Werner [View PDF] , Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control , U. S. Department of the Treasury
[?] Peter Reddaway [View PDF] , Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Affairs , George Washington University

And what happens if you click the link to view the archived hearing??

Not Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page.


Make of this what you will. Fezboy! reports. You decide.
posted by Fezboy! at 3:24 PM on May 18, 2005


oo'er.... Upon posting the nifty UTF-8 checkmarks have been replaced by stupid question marks which totally ruins the presentation.

Worked on preview, I swear.

posted by Fezboy! at 3:27 PM on May 18, 2005


Wow. What the hell! Yes, why is it that Galloway's testimony is the only missing from the site?


Also, Dios, you're a sanctimonious twat. But we knew that.
posted by stenseng at 5:13 PM on May 18, 2005


dude was rad

once they start letting foreigners run for president, i say let him go up against the governator.

we let Blacks in baseball, why not letting smart people into government
posted by tsarfan at 5:43 PM on May 18, 2005


When someone rails endlessly about Zionists and Israel and the influence of Jews and does so in a derogatory way, there seems to be a basis for suggesting he is antisemitic. Antisemitic means a strong dislike of Jews.

Yet when people ask you to provide some kind of evidence, you don't. How about a link, with a quote from said link in your comment so that we know what makes you think he's an anti-semite? Here's an example you might empathize with more directly. It's a hypothetical situation:

me: George Bush rapes nuns.
dios: what? do you have ANY reason to believe this?
me: Well, when someone rapes nuns all the time, there seems to be a strong basis for believing he rapes nuns!

Now, clearly my example is exaggerated, but that's to illustrate a point. In said example, it's pretty clear that I'm not providing any links or any corroborating evidence whatsoever because there isn't any. The same seems true of you in this thread. It's really not your position, it's that you simply refuse to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse. Here's another example:

Do you not see the similarity? Your opinion is that Bush hates gays. My opinion is that, by his words, I think Galloway is probably an antisemite. You have your reason to think that based on your opinion of the topic, as do I.

Now, the difference is that, if asked to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate their belief that Bush hates gays, any number of people could provide links to articles on various pieces of legislation and quotes from press conferences which may or may not support their position. Then you or anyone who disagreed could discuss the evidence or lack thereof in something resembling constructive dialog. Your current position is to come into a thread, shriek "Anti-semite!" and then, when people want to actually discuss what on earth would have caused you to come out with that charge, to howl about being persecuted for your beliefs. Just because you stated your opinion doesn't mean people can't question the basis of that opinion. It's called a dialog. There's nothing wrong with confronting you on a likely spurious claim like that and wanting you to elaborate so that we can discuss the issue further. All this temperamental defensiveness and outright refusal to engage the issue any further only adds weight to the belief of the people in this thread that you're talking out of your ass and have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
posted by shmegegge at 5:47 PM on May 18, 2005


caught a whole passel of flappin' trout this time around, dios!
posted by quonsar at 6:22 PM on May 18, 2005


Just because you stated your opinion doesn't mean people can't question the basis of that opinion.

Or, indeed, mock you for it.

Not all opinions are created equal.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:54 PM on May 18, 2005


caught a whole passel of flappin' trout this time around, dios!

Hope you're not calling him a troll, goddiosforbid. Matt smacked my hand the last time I did that.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:39 PM on May 18, 2005


Don't slap the hand of a drama queen. It might go off.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:13 PM on May 18, 2005


If you people excuse me for a moment, now that I finally managed to watch the whole video I would like to come back briefly to the topic. I will try to make it short so as not to get in the way of your self-fullfiled railroad accident.

Now that was one of the most hilarious "serious" things I saw in the last couple of months. Galloway was clearly amusing himself at the expense of the Senators (which unfortunately do not appear in the footage - I would like to see their faces while George kicked their collective asses). I can agree with the people who said he was using the hearing as a stage, but then again what else could he do? He is the victim of a transatlantic smearing campaign and an American Senate hearing is a political stage as good as any.

I find it hard to believe some news sources are trying to characterize his answer to the ridiculous questions about what would his felling be if he found some money his charity received had came from Oil for Food - he kicked those back at least three times, stating not only his felling about the program and about the sanctions, but also making it clear he thought the cause he was seeking was worth ignoring the money source.

Finally, has someone else noticed that the photographer just behind and to the left of Galloway was barely managing to control himself and appeared on the verge of laughing out loud sometimes?
posted by nkyad at 9:28 PM on May 18, 2005


Levin especially asked the kinds of questions that must be obvious to him to be grasping at straws, looking for some kind of soundbyte that the news could carry to make Galloway look shady. He knew he was wrong, yet attempted to smear a man falsely instead of simply admitting it like a decent human being.

Coleman was even more of a pig but in his case it was expected.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:01 AM on May 19, 2005


nkyad: I noticed that, too-- I think it might be worth watching that tape again just to concentrate on the reactions of the people in the background.
posted by obloquy at 10:33 AM on May 19, 2005


There is a thin dark haired woman with glasses behind him right near the beginning - her facial expressions were fun to watch.
posted by jb at 1:16 PM on May 19, 2005


I just watched this ('cause I'm bored). Holy shit! The US Senate was spanked by this guy. This is about the most searing, scathing, damning bit of political video I've ever seen.

I just wish everyone would understand that the Senate had done nothing unusual at all.

It's just this time, they got caught, and they got caught by someone with the authority to call their bullshit. Most of the time, no one notices and we all remain sadly mis-informed.

It's time for us to notice that we're usually not noticing these lies.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:46 PM on May 22, 2005


What a complete and total criminal asshole.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:05 AM on May 26, 2005


Did you say the same thing about the US companies who took part in the food-oil scam PP?
posted by longbaugh at 1:40 PM on May 26, 2005


« Older An Open Letter To Tim Burton   |   What's A Manna with You? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post