NationStates Jolt Archive

This just in....

Not his taking the Bush administration to their lies,
he's been heaven sent with that....but....


according to Greg Palast

GALLOWAY: DEADLY ANTI-ABORTION THREATS FROM REPUBLICAN'S FAVORITE "LEFTIST"
Saturday, September 17, 2005



During his debate with Salman Rushdie at the recent Edinburgh TV
Festival, someone asked George Galloway if television should
broadcast an adaptation of Rushdie's novel, "Satanic Verses."
According to Rushdie, Galloway replied, "If you don't respect
religion, you have to suffer the consequences."

Holy Jesus! This was, unmistakably, an endorsement of the
death-sentence fatwa issued against Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Add this endorsement of killing for God to Galloway's notorious
opposition in Parliament to a woman's right to choose abortion, and
you get yourself a British Pat Robertson. What next? Will he be
"saluting the courage, strength and indefatigability" of abortion
clinic bombers, as he saluted Saddam?


etc....@ palast's site


Where did this guy come from? Who invited him here? The answer: US
Senate REPUBLICANS. As Cindy Sheehan was gathering public sympathy as
the Gold Star mom against the killing in Iraq, the Republican party
decided to import an easier target to pummel. So they brought over
the "I-salute-your-courage, Saddam" religious fundamentalist
crack-pot who can't tell us where the money went.

That's why the Republicans chose him for us.


I admit, I was suckered by Galloway.

I already knew that he was fairly socially conservative on some of the religion-tingling issues.

I don't know about America, but over here, being anti-war is not automatically equivalent to being liberal.

I don't trust Galloway, and despite being a 'fellow' left winger, don't trust his Respect party. Period.

I was listening over night on the BBC radio from the States during the parliment elecions. But at the time all the stuff surrounding him was anti-war stuff.

http://www.counterpunch.org/galloway09202005.html

Meeting with Hussein taken out of context.


But what I will not tolerate -- and will sue in any territory where it is possible to do so -- is the lie that I personally benefited financially from the campaign. The Charity Commission inquiry Palast refers to was occasioned by a referral from Tony Blair's Attorney General. The commission are in possession of every receipt of funds and every cheque issues or bank transfer ever made. They satisfied that there was no malfeasance and closed the case without further action, no doubt to the disappointment of Mr Blair's Attorney General.


For what seems like the ten-thousandth time let me try to finally nail the canard that I benefited through the oil-for-food programme, an allegation at the time of writing which has netted me at least $4 million in libel damages and costs. Of course, when I talked with Tariq Aziz, I talked about the programme, but only in respect of the effects it was having on Iraq. I did not request or receive oil vouchers. I did not benefit financially. Not by one thin dime! I said voluntarily and on pain of prosecution under oath to the US Senate committee -- another body which doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good smear -- and I say it again.

If you read Private Eye you'd have an even lower opinion of Galloway.

His constituency has a very high proportion of muslims and ethnic minorities so he's very keen to try and win their votes.

So he's an ass. We've known it a long time.

The only reason he gets support here is that he's anti-war, he's a right-winger on a lot.

Anti-war =! Liberal.

If you read Private Eye you'd have an even lower opinion of Galloway.

His constituency has a very high proportion of muslims and ethnic minorities so he's very keen to try and win their votes.



Are elections in his country done 'at large' or
is it that a large number of Muslims live in his area?
When I first heard Galloway on BBC during the election and
then testifying to the US congress, I was like "right on".
This guy truly does tell it like it is, and is taking
the bastards in the US gov't to task.

For whatever faults he does have,
I'm glad he has been standing up against this racist war.

Anti-war =! Liberal.



What?
NO. The liberals are not anti-war.
Take a look at John Kerry, the candidate for the main
opposition party against Bush, he was NOT anti-war
by ANY means.

He wanted to send like 40,000 MORE troops into
the imperialist quagmire that is Iraq.

Very little George Galloway says either shocks or surprises me anymore. The fact that so many people hold this man up as an anti-war martyr both shocks and disgusts me. He was not ejected from the labour party because he opposed the war but because he effectively incited Iraqi civilians to rise up and kill our soldiers.

This odious sychophant has enjoyed such a priviledged relationship with one of the most brutal dictators of the late 20th century, ran a dirty, racist electoral campaign in allegiance with fringe islamic groups against Oona King (the Jewish incumbent).

During a tour of the Middle East, Galloway spoke of "poor Iraqis" using the most basic weapons to write the names of their towns "in the stars". He regards people who kill women and children as matryrs and calls terrorist attacks in Iraq "military operations".

He defined the saddest day of his life as being the collapse of the USSR, regardless of the oppressive tyranny it had installed across Eastern Europe.

Galloway's election to the British was a very sad moment for British politics.

Are elections in his country done 'at large' or
is it that a large number of Muslims live in his area?
When I first heard Galloway on BBC during the election and
then testifying to the US congress, I was like "right on".
This guy truly does tell it like it is, and is taking
the bastards in the US gov't to task.

For whatever faults he does have,
I'm glad he has been standing up against this racist war.
What racist war?