Galloway’s Gallows

Hitchens on Galloway:

For George Galloway, however, the war would seem to be over. The evidence presented suggests that he lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph in London over similar allegations (and collected money for that, too). It suggests that he lied to the Senate under oath. And it suggests that he made a deceptive statement in the register of interests held by members of the British House of Commons. All in all, a bad week for him, especially coming as it does on the heels of the U.N. report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, which appears to pin the convict’s badge on senior members of the Assad despotism in Damascus, Galloway’s default patron after he lost his main ally in Baghdad.

Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

Galloway is scum and it amazes me that many on the left continue to cheerlead him simply because he ‘really handed it to Norm Coleman.’

Of course, as we see, ‘really handed it to someone’ in this context means lied through their teeth and did little more than act like an insulting bully in a Senate Chamber.






71 replies
  1. 1
    Lines says:

    Can you point to where a lefty has cheerlead him?

    We enjoyed his performance in the Senate Chamber. Coleman was an ass and got what he deserved, thats it. Frist or Delay could have said the same thing to Coleman and the left would have cheered. It needed to be said.

    Galloway is nothing but a momentary blip on the radar of politics in America. He has no power, he has nothing.

    It also doesn’t appear to be proven, however, that he lied. It seems to only be political enemies that are making that claim, and I have yet to see any indictments or convictions headed his way. If he’s convicted, great! If he’s not, will you issue a global apology? Somehow I doubt it.

  2. 2
    dirk says:

    “The evidence presented”

    It’s a slam dunk.

  3. 3
    John Cole says:

    Shorter Lines:

    Prove to me that we did what I will now admit we did (“We enjoyed his performance in the Senate Chamber. Coleman was an ass and got what he deserved, thats it.”)

    Since you have no history of arguing honestly (really- I have to prove what we all know happened), I will provide this link to technorati which will provide you with enough representative cheerleading.

    If that isn’t enough, here is your hero Duncan Black.

  4. 4
    ppGaz says:

    If Americans paid as much attention to lying, scheming politicians of their own as some of them do to lying, scheming politicians from overseas, maybe we’d be a lot better off?

    Just a thought. Of course, in blogworld, there are other imperatives ……..

  5. 5
    demimondian says:

    John, doesn’t it make you feel like a dupe to be pulled into this week’s “Look, a rabbit!” spectacle? Rove’s about to be indicted for playing his game too far ou — oh, look! A rabbit! And there’s Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill hiding in the rabbit hole, too! Excellent, d00d!

    George Galloway had a bad week in the words of someone who hates him. Kewl! Excellent! Like — do I care what Christopher Hitchens thinks of George Galloway? I’ll grant the Hitchens is less disgusting than Galloway, if you want.

    Who cares?

    I’ll tell you who cares — everyone on the right who voted for George Bush, knowing him to be the leader of a team of psychopaths, and now discovering that psychopaths lie to everyone, not just the opposition. And hoping against hope that the rest of us won’t remember that we said so.

  6. 6
    Lines says:

    So Duncan basically enjoyed the performance on the Senate Floor. I don’t see any statement of “you’re the greatest ever, Mr. Galloway, and I want to have your babies”. I think people on both sides of the aisle should enjoy his firebrand style of politics. It was more like a TV show and less like classic CSPAN for once. Damn that Galloway for getting people interested in politics for a short time!

    As for the technorati links, they all are “we love George Galloway’s performance on the Senate Floor” styles as well. Whats your point?

    Also, if you can show a link from someone that doesn’t just have a bone to pick with Galloway showing that he lied, then I’ll start to believe you actually have a point. Hitchens hates Galloway with a passion usually reserved for lepers and LGF’rs against Muslims. I refuse to read anything from Hitchens about Galloway, as its misdirecting and usually wrong. Will Hitchens apologize if Galloway isn’t charged with something?

    Galloway has tons of political enemies, it appears (I don’t follow it as close as you, though). Why isn’t he in jail? If the evidence is so clear, arrest the man and get it over with. Sitting there saying “it appears” and insinuating links between Galloway and Hitler is just not working for me, sorry.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    Yeah- Demimondian. There has been no discussion of Plame here.

    None. Only 4 posts on the front page, as we speak. Clearly I have been duped.

  8. 8
    Allah says:

    Nah, no one on the left thinks Galloway is a hero. It’s a figment of John’s imagination.

  9. 9
    ppGaz says:

    I’d wager that not 5% of Americans can identify Galloway.

    I’d assert that Galloway is essentially irrelevant to American politics at this juncture.

    We live in fascinating times today, when our own political processes and situations are being stressed to the max. It might be argued that our own government is in crisis today, on several levels.

    So … why are we talking about Galloway again here?

    The question is, of course, rhetorical. It’s more fun if there’s no answer.

  10. 10
    a guy called larry says:

    Anybody who refers to Chris Hitchens as a “drink-soaked popinjay” has to have some redeeming characteristics, though, no? He was honest at least once in his life.

  11. 11
    Anderson says:

    Proposition (1):

    Galloway told pompous Senators where to get off, and a good thing, too.

    Proposition (2):

    Galloway is a lying, dictator-hugging perjurer.

    –Now, how are these statements logically contradictory?

  12. 12
    Mac Buckets says:

    If Americans paid as much attention to lying, scheming politicians of their own as some of them do to lying, scheming politicians from overseas, maybe we’d be a lot better off?

    What planet are you living on, Ppg? We don’t pay attention to lying, scheming pols? All American politics has been about for the last four decades has been trying to catch our politicians in lies and schemes! We cannot possibly devote one more man-hour of media reportage, political spinning, or personal handwringing on digging through the muck — it would be impossible.

    Call me crazy, but I think our media spent quite enough time on Watergate, Iraq-Contra, Monicagate, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Pardongate, National Guard Service, Service Medals, Plamegate, etc. etc. etc. Our media had to invent 24-hour news networks to accomodate their pursuit of big political game.

    As for Galloway, he wanted to be a celebrity, so he gets that level of attention, positive and negative. No one would even know his name in America if he didn’t want them to know it. Proof: Name three other MPs…(cue crickets). Exactly.

  13. 13
    Mac Buckets says:

    I think people on both sides of the aisle should enjoy his firebrand style of politics. It was more like a TV show and less like classic CSPAN for once. Damn that Galloway for getting people interested in politics for a short time!

    I’m about to lose on the Godwin Rule!

  14. 14

    Galloway is scum and it amazes me that many on the left continue to cheerlead him simply because he ‘really handed it to Norm Coleman.’

    Well to be fair, he really handed it to Hitchens as well…

  15. 15
    demimondian says:

    Proof: Name three other MPs

    Errr…Tony Blair and the current leaders of the Tories and the Liberals. Do I win?

    And, Lines? I’m not a political opponent of George Galloway, and I think that the evidence against him is quite strong, too. He got off on a technicality in the whole Mariam’s Appeal fraud, and the evidence against him in the Oil for Food case is strong, and getting stronger.

    But whoever said “Just arrest him and be done.” is ignoring reality. The man’s a sitting member of Parliament. You don’t just “go arrest” a sittng member. For my part, if he is stupid enough to visit the US, I think we should arrest him, try him, and declare him _persona non grata_. He’ll still be seen as a martyr in parts of the Arab world, but it would be better to hold a trial.

  16. 16
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    I first heard of George Galloway through Dsquared, who is substantially to the left of most Democrats. Here is part of what he wrote:

    “That’s the whole point of Gorgeous George. He’s in many ways an utterly reprehensible character; friend of dictators, self-aggrandising, supporter of a lifestyle seemingly out of proportion to his income, frequenter of the libel courts, stirrer of racial tensions, etc etc. But, he does put on a hell of a show, and that’s why he won in Bethnal Green.”

    http://crookedtimber.org/2005/.....#more-3287

    Take this as evidence that, on the whole, the “left” recognizes and loathes Galloway nearly as much as it hates Hitchens. Meanwhile, you lot voted in the present train wrecks in the Executive and Congress; do you really want to play the Dozens with us, John?

  17. 17
    Otto Man says:

    Of course, as we see, ‘really handed it to someone’ in this context means lied through their teeth and did little more than act like an insulting bully in a Senate Chamber.

    Hey, it works for the Bush administration…

  18. 18
    Lines says:

    Demimondian: my post was directed more towards John Cole, so you seem to take offense at something that I didn’t intend. I am just stating that posting a link to Hitchins where Hitchens does nothing but declare that crimes have been committed is interesting, but it doesn’t mean that Galloway will serve time for his crimes. Hitchins just comes across as a shrill drunk railing at the dart board in the corner instead of as a respectable journalist when he lets his hate get the best of him. Of course, even sober I don’t think Hitchins qualifies as a respectable journalist.

  19. 19
    Rick says:

    Bad day for fascist-pimp Galloway–evidence of his corruption and venality continues to accumulate, and his despised Iraqi people vote in a constitution.

    Sometimes, life is real peachy.

    Cordially…

  20. 20
    mil0 says:

    i tend not to lend credence to anything hitchens says about galloway, and vice-versa. they obviously hate each other. do you believe the french eat babies just because bill o’reilly, a notorious francophobe, says so? of course not. you believe the french eat babies only after going to a french restaurant and seeing “les enfants” on la menue.

  21. 21
    Eural says:

    Let’s try this version – instead of everyone in the US paying attention just to the lying, scheming, politicians of our entire government lets all agree to simply focus our efforts on digging out the scumbags in our respective parties! Republicans go after Republicans and Dems clean out the Dems – that way by the time they get to the national level we can actually debate real national policy instead of “gotcha” political scandals. Crazy talk, I know, but what the hell…let’s hold our chosen representatives to the same standards we measure the opposition by! I’m betting that our government (from local to federal levels) would have to take a temporary leave of absence in order to straighten everything out but it might be worth it.

  22. 22
    mil0 says:

    eural, there’s a problem in your plan – the democrats are already doing it (regularly, on tv), to self-destructive ends, and the republicans are actively trying to avoid it. notice how democrats were condemning sen. durbin’s statements earlier in the year, but no republicans were willing to condemn karl rove’s statements, none are willing to condemn tom delay’s ethical transgressions, sen. hutchinson says perjury and obstruction of justice aren’t real crimes (a direct contradiction of what she said during clinton’s bullshit impeachment), etc. the standard MO seems to be dems go after dems, republicans go after dems, and if one dem goes after a republican, reps and dems (the self-loathers, like joe liebermen) are going to go after that dem.

  23. 23
    Sojourner says:

    Hitchens is upset about Galloway’s lies but appears to have no problem with the Bush administration’s. How bizarre is that?

  24. 24
    jaime says:

    Hitchens is upset there aren’t any beloved dead women left for him to verbally beat up.

    Wait. Should we expect a scathing indictment of Rosa Parks soon?

  25. 25
    Steve says:

    I see Galloway has replaced Ward Churchill as the Right’s version of the “authentic voice of the Left.” Excuse me for not giving a shit.

  26. 26
    Jack Roy says:

    Cole—

    Hitchens is inane, and it continues to amaze us how many of those on the right can cheer him on, ignore his shoddy reasoning, just because he really gave it to Galloway, too. If you want to use far-out proxies in the political fight, let’s just get down to it and choose Cindy Sheehan and Pat Buchanan, shall we?

  27. 27
    Lines says:

    Ah, now there is a cage match I would pay to see. Set that up, Jack Roy, would ya?

  28. 28
    Sojourner says:

    Hitchens is inane, and it continues to amaze us how many of those on the right can cheer him on, ignore his shoddy reasoning, just because he really gave it to Galloway, too.

    Hitchens also supported the war – unlike virtually every other talking/writing head leftie. The right couldn’t stand him until then.

  29. 29
    kl says:

    The question is, of course, rhetorical. It’s more fun if there’s no answer.

    In that spirit: What happened to the person you told yourself you were going to become when you were young?

  30. 30
    ppGaz says:

    We don’t pay attention to lying, scheming pols?

    Nope. Not the right kind of attention. Blathering and “point-counterpoint” argumentation are not useful.

    We “pay attention” only when it is too late, and the damage is done. That’s backward.

    How different would the world be if we had really looked at the facts in the Gulf of Tonkin situation, or really understood the motives of the people in charge? Understood their ego-driven stupidity, as opposed to waiting 40 years for the lying cocksucker “scum” McNamara to write his “we were wrong” book? A lot of us knew he was wrong THEN, but not enough people were paying attention.

    Your assertion is nonsense. The opposite of what you said is true. You might call it “paying attention” but it’s the wrong kind of attention.

  31. 31
    demimondian says:

    Lines — I didn’t take offense, I just pointed out that there are people on the left who don’t have any use for Gorgeous George, and explained why. I don’t have much use for crooks and liars of any flavor, and Galloway seems to me to be the standard issue demogogue in the grand tradition of Long and Robertson. (Note that I didn’t wind up validating Godwin’s Law…)

    I just think that Hitch et al. are climbing on the go-for-galloway bus because they are trying to play “look at the rabbit”. I predict that within twenty-four hours, we’ll be reading John going off on how Sheehan’s blind anti-Bush rhetoric, Galloway’s thievery, and Churchill’s anti-Americanism are bigger deals than Bush’s cultivation of a circle of crooks was.

  32. 32
    ppGaz says:

    What happened to the person you told yourself you were going to become when you were young?

    He gave way to the better person I ended up being.

  33. 33
    kl says:

    Rhetorical, Methuselah!

  34. 34
    ppGaz says:

    just think that Hitch et al. are climbing on the go-for-galloway bus because they are trying to play “look at the rabbit”.

    Yes, it is so obvious that one wonders why we are even talking about it.

    ( whispering ) Page views. Time-tested ways to gin up a hundred or two entries in the comments. It’s the “Sheehan Effect”.

    Wink, wink. etc.

  35. 35
    ppGaz says:

    Rhetorical, Methuselah!

    As was your question, grasshopper.

  36. 36
    kl says:

    As was your question, grasshopper.

    Yep!

  37. 37
    ppGaz says:

    Now run and get me some wine and cheese, will ya?

  38. 38
    kl says:

    It’s already in your IV bag, gramps.

  39. 39
    slide says:

    Hitchens got his assed whopped by Galloway in their debate so I guess this is the only way he can win with a one sided argument. I have no idea if Galloway is a good guy or a bad guy, a liar or being unfairly attacked but he was never my or any other liberal’s “hero”. But I did enjoy his bitch slapping that moron Senator and embarassing Hitchens.

  40. 40
    ppGaz says:

    I’m feelin the love.

  41. 41
    p.lukasiak says:

    and the evidence against him in the Oil for Food case is strong, and getting stronger.

    precisely what evidence is that? That Norm Coleman (!?!?!) says that that it appears that there is some of Saddam’s cash in Galloway’s ex-wife’s bank account?

  42. 42
    Another Jeff says:

    I just think that Hitch et al. are climbing on the go-for-galloway bus because they are trying to play “look at the rabbit”. I predict that within twenty-four hours, we’ll be reading John going off on how Sheehan’s blind anti-Bush rhetoric, Galloway’s thievery, and Churchill’s anti-Americanism are bigger deals than Bush’s cultivation of a circle of crooks was.

    There’s five fucking posts up right now on the Plame issue. If a post about Hitchens or Galloway is a distraction, it’s your own fucking fault for not being able to process more than one thought at a time.

    I mean, i spent about ten minutes at lunch discussing the fact that it’s a mistake for Andy Reid to throw the ball fifty times a game with an injured QB. You know what, everything about Plame didn’t fly out of my head.

    Really, do some of the people that come here have a computer that only shows one post? What other reason could there be for people to argue that John is posting stuff as a distraction from the “real issues” when there are FIVE FUCKING POSTS about the “real issue” right below it.

  43. 43
    joshua says:

    If that isn’t enough, here is your hero Duncan Black.

    That post appears to be by “Attaturk” and I thought Black was “Atrios.” Also, it seems to be more derisive of Hitchens (Asshat Man!) than supportive of Galloway.

  44. 44
    kl says:

    Lukasaik talking about faked evidence. Now THAT’S funny!

  45. 45
    kl says:

    Hitchens got his assed whopped by Galloway in their debate

    Galloway hollered louder, right?

  46. 46
    HH says:

    Unfortunately for those protesting too much here in the comments, those on the left who have condemned Galloway in a full-throated manner hardly compare to those who let forth a cheer after his bluster and lies to the Senate.

  47. 47
    ppGaz says:

    Now THAT’S funny!

    You know, young fellow, it’s okay, if you have nothing to say, to actually say nothing. Really, I am trying to help you.

  48. 48
    kl says:

    You know, young fellow, it’s okay, if you have nothing to say, to actually say nothing.

    You don’t know about Lukasiak? Even funnier.

  49. 49
    ppGaz says:

    I know nothing of Lukasiak. Don’t care to, unless he owes me money :-)

  50. 50
    kl says:

    I know nothing of Lukasiak.

    We’re getting that.

  51. 51
    ppGaz says:

    I’m sorry, is the thread about Lukasiak?

    My bad.

    I thought it was about you.

  52. 52
    kl says:

    Just relax, grandad, it’ll be pill time soon.

  53. 53
    ppGaz says:

    You wish. No more pills for you!

  54. 54
    kl says:

    Well, okay.

  55. 55
    jaime says:

    I wish “conservatives” got as riled up about the billions of unaccounted for Iraq reconstruction money, (your precious, precious tax dollars) as they do with the Oil for Food Scandal.

    How is our economy gonna grow if we don’t let Halliburton skim a few Billion off the top, right. /sarcasm

  56. 56
    slide says:

    Oil for Food? How about this:

    In 2003, Vice President Cheney asserted, “Since I left Halliburton to become George W. Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.”

    That wasn’t true in 2003, and it’s not true now. In 2003, Cheney still received deferred compensation from the contracting behemoth and possessed more than 433,000 stock options, according to American Progress Report. Those options were worth $241,498 a year ago; they are now worth more than $8 million.

    With Cheney in office, Halliburton has received more than $10 billion for work in Iraq and received one of the first no-bid contracts for work in the Gulf Coast.

    and you want to look at some foreign guy and his financial ties?

  57. 57
    ppGaz says:

    and you want to look at some foreign guy and his financial ties?

    Cheney-Halliburton is old news. Nobody could have anticipated that his equities would soar in value.

    /DougJ

  58. 58
    kl says:

    “Some foreign guy”? Oh, you right-wingers.

  59. 59
    kl says:

    By the way, if you want to know more about Lukasiak, just ask Andrew Heyward.

  60. 60
    Mac Buckets says:

    Oil for Food? How about this:

    You really want to compare an illegal fraud operation that built Saddam palaces while killing thousands of Iraqi citizens with the legally-obtained stock options earned by Cheney before he even ran for office? Options which have netted Cheney not one red cent?

    Hate makes you post crazy things, I guess.

  61. 61
    jaime says:

    Mac, soo….you’re Anti-Saddam now? It’s hard to tell with you guys. Saddam circa 1979-1991 (rape rooms, WMD, gassing Kurds, U.S. funded war w/ Iran) good. Saddam 1991-2005 (rape rooms bad, no WMD, no gassing, to weak to go to war with anyone anymore) bad. Got it.

  62. 62
    ppGaz says:

    By the way, if you want to know more about Lukasiak

    You are REALLY pimping this Lukasiak thing today.

    Look — a jackalope!

  63. 63
    ATS says:

    Like Libby, I am a “former hill staffer” and I can tell you–Galloway aside–the tartuffes in the US Senate could use a little reverse bullying.

  64. 64
    Sojourner says:

    Unfortunately for those protesting too much here in the comments, those on the left who have condemned Galloway in a full-throated manner hardly compare to those who let forth a cheer after his bluster and lies to the Senate.

    Funny. I was thinking about those on the right whose outrage over the outing of an undercover CIA agent has been deafeningly… silent.

    Seriously, who gives a shit about Galloway? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the corruption in the Bush administration?

  65. 65
    demimondian says:

    I can tell you—Galloway aside—the tartuffes in the US Senate could use a little reverse bullying.

    They can and could indeed. That’s the only reason that Galloway gets away with what he does, both in Great Britain and here. A vote for Gorgeous is a vote to stick it to The Man. A cheer for Galloway is a slap in the face of The ColeMan. People know, instinctively, that both deserve it.

    And, if you think about it, a creep like Galloway is the only kind of person who would actually do that. No sane person would want to throw verbal grenades at the Senate or at the leader of his own party, you see. A self-aggrandizing, self-serving, demagogic back-bendher, though…you betcha.

    And thus to the Galloways of this world continue to slime their way through life.

  66. 66
    Steve S says:

    Here’s the problem that I have, which I know is going to be completely ignored by drunks like Hitchens, or blind cheerleaders like John Cole.

    The supposed “strong evidence”. I don’t trust it. Not if this “strong evidence” is the same evidence that came out of Iraq by way of Chalabi. This same guy who supposedly documented the Oil-for-Food vouchers, is also the one behind previous falsified documents, such as ones proving Iraqi WMD claims, and claims that Galloway had received sums of money in the past.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/.....-woiq.html

    I want further evidence. I want to see a documented money trail.

    The people who are responsible for us going into Iraq cannot be trusted. They are criminals, and will use any means possible at their disposal to further criminalize the politics of this situation.

  67. 67
    Steve S says:

    BTW. I do think it’s funny to hear John Cole cheerlead for Christopher Hitchens, and then at the same time complain about people cheerleading for Galloway.

    Considering that both men are of the same callibre. That is, I do not trust either… or Norm Coleman for that matter, and he is my state’s Senator.

  68. 68
    p.lukasiak says:

    By the way, if you want to know more about Lukasiak, just ask Andrew Heyward.

    Yeah, me and Andy, we’re real tight.

    ppgaz… just so you know. Last year I spent a couple of months looking into the Federal statutes and regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures, from the time that Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard to determine what his military records actually showed. My research came to the attention of Mary Mapes at CBS, and we corresponded and conversed. In the course of one conversation, I mentioned that there were rumors on the internet that there were additional “Bush documents” and told Mary where those rumors were coming from.

    But according to wingnuts like Ki, I was personally responsible for the whole “Killian memo” mess.

    (if you’d like to see the results of my research, go to http://www.glcq.com )

  69. 69
    goonie bird says:

    Build the gallows and hang GEORGE GALLAWAY from it his own real person is showing through

  70. 70
    kl says:

    Yeah, me and Andy, we’re real tight.

    Oh, I imagine it’s very much the opposite. But he must appreciate all your hard work.

    But according to wingnuts like Ki, I was personally responsible for the whole “Killian memo” mess.

    I don’t remember ever saying that (citation, perhaps?), but I can understand why you’re upset. Thanks for responding!

  71. 71
    kl says:

    You are REALLY pimping this Lukasiak thing today.

    Just trying to help. I didn’t mean to embarrass you earlier.

Comments are closed.